Dishonesty or fraud in a transaction, such as entering into an agreement with no intention of ever living up to its terms, or knowingly misrepresenting the quality of something that is being bought or sold. Intent to deceive. A person who intentionally tries to deceive or mislead another in order to gain some advantage.

A criminal act of extortion. Malicious threatening to do injury to another to compel him to do an act against his will. Demand for money under threat to accuse of a crime, or the threat to release true information that will bring criminal actions against him.

The distinction between larceny and a breach of trust is to be found chiefly in the terms or way in which the thing was taken originally into the party's possession; and the rule seems to be that whenever the article is obtained upon a fair contract, not for a mere temporary purpose or by one who is in the employment of the deliverer, then the subsequent misappropriation is to be considered as an act of breach of trust.

In some cases, some bankruptcy trustees threaten Debtor(s) with serious consequences unless the Debtor(s) give them money without the Court being involved. The trustee confidently states what he will do, and have the Court do, without going before the Court to decide if what he asks of the Debtor(s) is lawful or not. He works all this out either through the attorney for the Debtor(s), or directly with the Debtor(s). We have seen this in cases where the bankruptcy trustee calls workman's compensation payments "vacation and sick pay," and alimony payments "settlements." The trustee sends correspondence to the Debtor(s) attorney saying he will object to the Debtor(s) discharge by alleging these things unless the Debtor(s) gives him a certain amount of money.

Some bankruptcy trustees also lead the attorney for the victim to convince their client that the trustee has laws that the bankruptcy judge will favor. The Debtor(s), not knowing the scheme of things, is lead to believe the trustee has law in his favor, and agrees to "settle" without ever going to Court to decide the matter. This is one way that some bankruptcy trustees use to obtain bribes.

The wrongful conversion of money or property taken into possession and under control of an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, in execution of such office or employment or under color or claim of authority as such officer or employee.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees often file proceedings alleging that money or property is for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate. After receiving money and/or property, the bankruptcy trustees then hold it for unreasonable periods of time, and finally divert the majority, or all, of what they alleged as a "benefit to the bankruptcy estate," to the their personal compensation. Therefore, the proceedings filed by the bankruptcy trustees are self-serving, and do not serve to benefit creditors.

The United States Trustee Program has changed the statutory description of embezzlement as it applies to bankruptcy trustees. U.S. Trustees limit embezzlement to trustee not reporting assets. As long as trustees obtain orders from the bankruptcy court to divert 100 percent of the assets to his/her personal enrichment, officials in the United States Trustee Program do not consider it as embezzlement.

(C) Even though the official is duty bound to take or withhold the action in question, if a public official misuses his office by threatening to take or withhold official action for the wrongful reason to coerce the victim to part with property, such a threat may constitute extortion.

U.S. Bankruptcy law has provisions for various acts that are judged worthy of being denied a discharge of debts. However, knowing the lawful sequence of procedures helps to determine if the bankruptcy trustee is misusing his office to threaten to take or withhold official action for the wrong reason UNLESS the victim submits to his demands. For example:

Without a Court Order for turnover of property, the threat of finding the Debtor or Defendant in contempt of court is an act of harmful intimidation. How can anyone be held in contempt of court without the court entering an order giving them instructions on what it expects and requires?

The entering of extensions to object to the discharge UNLESS the person voluntarily gives money and/or property to the bankruptcy trustee is another form of extortion under color of official right. What appears in case documents, to be voluntary surrender of property and/or a voluntary agreement to give the bankruptcy trustee money, does not reveal the threats of taking or withholding official action unless the victim parts with the money and/or property. Appearing to be voluntary surrender and/or agreement gives some Chapter 7 trustees and bankruptcy judges an excuse that they did not extort the money and/or property from their victim, because it was voluntarily surrendered or agreed to. It's much like the excuse rapists use when saying they had consensual sex. They do not reveal that they had a knife at their victim's throat to get her to submit to the rape without physical resistance. Unless the rape victim can produce scars, bruises, or cuts, she is placed under extreme stress and critical judgment for claiming a crime has taken place.

Under color of official right, the trustees do not reveal their use of threats, withholding the discharge of debts, revoking the discharge, filing lawsuits, going to prison, and entering of fraudulent charges, that intimidated their victims into giving them money and/or other property that trustees have no lawful right to receive.

In bankruptcy case number 00-71927, there is evidence that bankruptcy trustee Bernard Natale filed motions to extend time to object to the discharge of the Debtor for almost one year, in bad faith, to effect extortion. It was not until the victim's Chicago attorney withdrew, and she retained the services of a local lawyer, that trustee Bernard Natale made his demands known. By way of correspondence to the debtor's attorney, trustee Bernard Natale, through his attorney Craig Willette, asked for $100,000, or he would object to the debtor's discharge of debts, AND retain the alimony payments he had already received from the Debtor's ex-husband, AND acquire all alimony payments forthcoming. Since the money was requested behind the scenes, no one researching case documents will know about it.

Why would bankruptcy trustee Bernard Natale want $100,000 from the debtor if he truly believed she committed bankruptcy fraud? Why not object to her discharge, without offering financial alternatives? Maybe he believed that she could afford to part with her exempt alimony payments, and objecting to her discharge was used as "color of official right" to give him opportunity to demand $100,000, or he would deny her discharge, AND take her alimony payments.

Bad Faith	Blackmail	Breach of Trust
Bribes	Embezzlement	Extortion Under Color of Official Right