Check out the story here. A short monograph, specifically in the series context of stiff-collar and inheritance crime, attempting to formulate and state in one place, separately and severably from the real-life case to which this initiative relates, some generic, jurisdiction-specific, estate-specific, heir-specific, situation-specific, issue-specific etc. rules on this important subject, of which the Terrier Controversy (intricate enough without touching on any criminality) covers perhaps two-thirds.

In this publication, the alien-estate jurisdiction is England and the host-estate jurisdictions are Vaud and federal Switzerland. I'll be considering some subjects, point and issues in principle, generically, and with reference to maybe a few other jurisdictions.

WHY RULES? It's important to attempt to state rules because this poorly expounded subject is fraught with nebulousness, abstruseness, misunderstanding, gudda, gibberish and bullshit and needs to be nailed definitively, both generally and specifically in relation to its alien-jurisdiction and host-jurisdiction criminal aspects.

In focusing on criminal participants and their criminality, this monograph should be read with Inheritance Crime. It all fits together! 

Especially in the context of inheritance crime, it deals with two simple fundamental questions (among others):-

• in principle, exactly how is the alien estate and its honest and dishonest estate manager personally involved in the the alien heirs' transporterisation to and ensconcement in the host estate?

• once transporterisation has occurred, exactly what express and implied, inherent and exherent roles, functions, obligations, duties, responsibilities, liability, powers, discretions, etc. does the alien estate's multiply criminal estate manager have, on any basis, in any jurisdiction, in any capacity, to any extent, at any time, in relation to the host estate and its immigrant heirs individually, in combination and collectively, especially where she has (for example):-

  • multiply criminally obtained an English interim administrator order

  • multiply criminally obtained an English ad col grant

  • multiply criminally purported to use that grant to multiply criminally infiltrate a 604, relating to the host estate and impinging on the alien estate, brought by a multiply criminal indigenous heir of the host estate against the alien estate's innocent testator

  • multiply criminally conducted English litigation in relation to the host estate, in conjunction with that now multiply-multiply criminal indigenous heir, purportedly on behalf of the immigrant heirs-in-waiting awaiting an English full grant for their transporterisation (if that's what they need; or whatever they do need)

  • multiply criminally obtained, retained and purported to utilise an English full grant

  • multiply criminally negotiated and concluded, purportedly on behalf of all the immigrant heirs, a multiply criminal agreement with that indigenous heir purporting to partition the host estate between him and all the immigrant heirs (ostensibly without distinction between any of the latter but the whole multiply criminal thing is occult: who knows what side agreements etc. she made with any of them and or with the indigenous heir co-principal and accomplice)

  • multiply criminally purported to multiply criminally distribute the host estate.

Note: the basis for the assertions of criminality is obviously relevant and is discussed quite fully in the text. On relevant criminal law, see this series' Criminal Law Companion. (How modular!)