Emerson v. Maples (In Re Mark Benskin & Co.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• requiring \(1) a wrongful act; (2) specific property acquired by the wrongdoer which is traceable to the wrongful behavior; and (3) an equitable reason why the party holding the property should not be allowed to keep it\
• “Section 548(a) does not, moreover, test the knowledge or intent of the transferee. It is the debtor/transferor’s intent ... that is at issue.”
• statutory language makes clear that intent to defraud can be inferred merely from the operation of a Ponzi scheme

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).