So, the 4 million were transferred to the bad cop's account. Then the world will know he was actually the kidnapper. So the question is:
Can the money be extracted from a dead man's account for the legality of the situation?
What about if the account was off-shore?
Bump. I'm curious too.
Mullen would get his money back. All his lawyers would have to do is show he was held hostage - at gunpoint - and forced to transfer the money under the fear that if he didn't the guy would go after the boy again. The transfer would be reversed within a few days of seeing the filed papers with all the evidence they'd have at hand.
Bobby: "You don't shoot Bambi, jacka$$. You shoot Bambi's mother."
how was he held 'hostage'? they took pictures together at the bank.
shareHe was taken at GUNPOINT. He was told if anything happened, Shaker would slip away and Mullen would have to spend every waking moment wondering if "today was Jimmy Shaker Day", would it be the day Shaker came back and killed the kid. Shaker had the gun on Mullen most of the time (hidden under his coat, held by his injured hand), one wrong move and he'd pull the trigger.
They took the pictures because neither one wanted to raise any suspissions - Shaker was a "hero" so it would be strange if he refused the pictures, Mullen was supposed to be greatfull to Shaker for saving the kid, so it would look strange if he refused to have a picture taken with Shaker.
Bobby: "You don't shoot Bambi, jacka$$. You shoot Bambi's mother."
The transfer would be deemed illegal especially since the kidnapper went on a shooting spree against police officers.
sharewatched this movie last night pretty much came to the board to discuss this lol
---
What's in my VCR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zne30vcLFdU
I wondered about that. I think it could be returned.
shareLegally, it could be undone since Mullen was doing so at gunpoint.
Morally, I think the bank, or banks if Shakers account was somewhere else, would just go ahead and undo the transaction. I don't think you would want the word to get out that you're the bank that's refusing to give the father of a kidnapped son his money back, especially since the kidnapper was killed immediately after.
I think the banks would deem the transaction illegal and undo it since Mullen was being held at gunpoint. But the next thing I wondered: If you were Jimmy Shakers family, or whoever was inheriting his estate, would you sue the banks to keep that money, or would you just shut up about it, and want to distance yourself from being associated with a corrupt cop and kidnapper?
If I were the attorney for the family I would argue that the $4 million reward was offered by Mullen on his own free will, prior to his son being rescued. Shaker rescued his son, and therefore was entitled to that money (not sure if it would ever be proven that he was the kidnapper, or if that would even matter). Just because the actual transaction was done at gun point, the payment had already been agreed upon, and the Shaker family was entitled to the money.
I am not a lawyer, but I took a business law class. A contract is not enforceable if it is made under duress. I think gunpoint and ransom would be duress.
shareBut the $4 million was NOT offered at gunpoint. And if Mullen tried to argue that his sons kidnapping was putting him under duress, I would force him to admit that he had no intention of ever paying anyone the reward, and would try to weasel out of it, no matter who earned it. Remember, his public image had recently taken a hit, and people did wonder about his business ethics.
I'm not saying agree with this, or that it would work. But if the family wanted to try to get the money, and had a shady enough lawyer, this could be their Hail Mary plan.
Yes it would have been returned, Mullen’s family was being threatened if he didn’t give Shaker the money. It was clearly under duress and it would be beyond easy to prove.
share