FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DIMITRIOS S. ZAHARUIDAKIS, No. 1-90-01462
FEINGOLD & YOUNGLING,
v. A.P. No. 1-90-0256
DIMITRIOS S. ZAHARIUDAKIS,
Memorandum of Decision
Defendant Dimitrios Zaharuidakis holds joint U.S. and Greek Citizenship. In late 1987 and
early 1988, he transferred approximately $375,000.00 in cash from the U.S. to Greece, where
it was placed in another person's name. Zahariudakis admits that this was done in order to keep
the funds from his wife, who claimed a share in marital dissolution proceedings.
Zahariudakis filed his Chapter 7 petition on August 20, 1990. Since this was more than one
year after the transfer of his funds to Greece, the transfer itself cannot be a ground for denial
of his discharge under section 727(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, in his schedules
he made no mention of the funds in Greece whatsoever; they were not scheduled as a cash
deposit, nor any type of claim. Zahariudakis verified the schedules under penalty of perjury.
This action is brought by Zahariudakis' former law firm, seeking to deny him a discharge.
The law firm, represented by Stanley A. Feingold, has presented its case with an ineptness
bordering on contempt, ignoring procedural rules and rules of evidence and expecting the court
to assist it instead of impartially adjudicating the matter. Nonetheless, despite Feingold rather
than because of him, grounds for denial of the discharge have become clear.
There can be no doubt that in verifying his schedules the debtor made a false oath, which
is a ground for denial of the discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(4)(A) if done knowingly and
fraudulently. While such intent is sometimes hard to determine, it is very easy to infer when
the debtor has admitted prior fraudulent intent. The $375,000.00 was the debtor's primary
asset, fraudulently transferred to thwart his former spouse. Its omission from the schedules can
be nothing less than knowing and fraudulent.
The court finds no merit in Zahariudakis' arguments that fraudulent intent cannot be inferred
because he mentioned the funds in his statement of affairs and freely discussed them at his
meeting of creditors. The brief mention in the statement of affairs gives no indication of the
amount of the funds held for him, and could easily have been overlooked by a busy trustee.
Zahariudakis could see that his former attorney, who knew about the money in Greece, was at
the meeting of creditors. That the attempt at deception failed is not an excuse for trying to
For the foregoing reasons, the debtor's discharge will be denied. The court notes that the
discharge has already been entered on January 4, 1991, due to the inept way the original
complaint in this adversary proceeding was captioned. That discharge shall be vacated as
having been entered in error. The court having denied the discharge, dischargeability claims
are moot and will accordingly be dismissed without prejudice to state court proceedings.
This memorandum constitutes the court's findings and conclusions pursuant to FRCP 52(a).
Counsel for plaintiff shall submit an appropriate form of judgment.
Dated: May 23, 1991 _______________________