Memorandum of Decision Re: Denial of Discharge

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re DIMITRIOS S. ZAHARUIDAKIS,                                                                              No. 1-90-01462        Debtor. ___________________________/ FEINGOLD & YOUNGLING,        Plaintiff,    v.                                                                                                                                    A.P. No. 1-90-0256 DIMITRIOS S. ZAHARIUDAKIS,        Defendant. ______________________________/
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 deceive.      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                                                                           _______________________                                                                                                                      Alan Jaroslovsky                                                                                                                      U.S. Bankruptcy