There are two distinct problems here, and they arrive in that order. The first is proving that you were deceived. The second is collecting from someone who saw the judgment coming and moved the money.
Both are proved from documents. Neither is proved from indignation.
What has to be proved: fraud
The elements. A material misrepresentation; false when made, or asserted recklessly without knowledge of its truth; made with the intention that it be acted on; actually and justifiably relied on by the claimant; causing injury. Each of those is separately contested, and a claim that is strong on four of them and weak on one is a claim that loses.
Justifiable reliance is where sophisticated-party cases are decided. A claimant who had the documents, had counsel, conducted diligence, and had every opportunity to verify faces a hard question about why it did not. Contractual provisions bear on this directly: a clear, specifically negotiated disclaimer of reliance, agreed at arm’s length between represented parties, can be decisive against a fraudulent-inducement claim. It is not automatic — a generic merger clause is not enough, and whether a particular clause defeats the claim turns on its exact language and the circumstances of the bargain — but it is one of the first things to examine in any fraud case arising out of a written transaction.
Silence is sometimes a misrepresentation and usually is not. Fraud by non-disclosure requires a duty to disclose, and in an arm’s-length deal that duty is the exception rather than the rule. It is firmly established where the parties stand in a fiduciary or confidential relationship; Texas courts have also recognized it in narrower situations, such as a partial disclosure that leaves a false impression or later-learned information that makes an earlier statement misleading. But the Texas Supreme Court has not adopted a general duty to disclose between arm’s-length counterparties, and there is no general duty to volunteer what the other side did not ask about. Claims that assume otherwise do not survive.
Statutory fraud in transactions involving real estate or stock. Texas provides a statutory cause of action in that setting with elements that differ from common-law fraud, and it carries distinct remedies including, in defined circumstances, exemplary damages and recovery of attorney’s fees. Whether it is available is a question about the nature of the transaction, and it materially changes the value of a case.
Intent is proved circumstantially, or not at all. Almost nobody documents their own fraudulent intent. It is established from the timing, the pattern, the inconsistency between what was said and what the records show, and what the defendant did with the money afterwards — which is why the accounting work and the legal theory are the same exercise.
Exemplary damages have their own requirements. Where they are sought, the standard of proof is elevated, statutory caps ordinarily apply, and there are specific findings that must be obtained. That is a charge problem and a preservation problem as much as a proof problem, and it is planned for from the pleadings.
Limitations, and when the clock starts. Fraud is the classic setting for the discovery rule and for fraudulent concealment, because the wrong is frequently designed not to be found. Those doctrines are fact-intensive and are not a substitute for acting promptly. If there is any question about timing, it should be examined before suit.
What has to be proved: fraudulent transfer
A judgment against an empty company is a piece of paper. Fraudulent-transfer law is the mechanism for reaching what left before the judgment did.
Two routes, and the second is easier than people expect. A transfer may be attacked as made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor — proved circumstantially through recognized indicia, commonly called badges of fraud. Or it may be attacked without any proof of intent at all, where the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and was insolvent, became insolvent, or was left with unreasonably small assets for its business. The constructive route requires no bad motive and is frequently the stronger claim, because it is proved from balance sheets rather than from state of mind.
The badges are a checklist, and they are documentary. Transfer to an insider; the debtor retained possession or control after the transfer; concealment; a transfer made after suit was threatened or filed; a transfer of substantially all assets; value received compared to what was given up; the debtor’s solvency around the transfer. No single one decides it. Several together usually do.
Who can be reached, and what can be recovered. Relief may include avoiding the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy the claim, attachment, injunctive relief against further disposition, appointment of a receiver, and in appropriate circumstances a money judgment against the transferee or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made. Subsequent transferees and good-faith purchasers are treated differently, which is why tracing the chain matters as much as identifying the first transfer.
Defenses exist and they are real. A transferee who took in good faith and gave reasonably equivalent value has a defense. So does a party who can show the transfer satisfied an antecedent debt. These cases are not one-sided, and where we defend them the work is the same in reverse: establishing value given, contemporaneous documentation, and the absence of the indicia relied on.
Timing rules are strict and are not the ordinary limitations period. Fraudulent-transfer claims are governed by their own extinguishment periods, which differ by theory and which can run from discovery in defined circumstances. Getting that calculation wrong forfeits the claim. It is checked first.
Where these cases are won
In the bank records. Both halves of this practice are reconstruction exercises. Where did the money come from, where did it go, what was it called at each step, and does the characterization survive contact with the ledger. The civil practice is led by a lawyer who is also a licensed CPA, and in this area that is the method rather than a line on a biography.
In the corporate filings and the property records. New entities formed near the relevant date, officers and registered agents shared with the debtor, deeds recorded shortly after a demand letter, liens granted to insiders — these are public, cheap to obtain, and frequently produce the shape of the case before discovery begins.
On moving before the assets do. Where a transfer is imminent or continuing, the remedy that matters is the one that arrives first. Injunctive relief, attachment, receivership and turnover orders can be available, and the order a court will sign is a drafting problem solved in advance. See Injunctions & Temporary Restraining Orders.
On restraint about what to plead. Fraud has to be pleaded with more than the label — the specific misrepresentations, and who made them, have to be laid out — and if the case is in or could be removed to federal court, the pleading must satisfy the stricter particularity standard that applies there. Pleading fraud reflexively alongside a contract claim invites a motion and can damage credibility with the court for the rest of the case. Where a dispute is really about a bargain that was not kept, the economic loss rule limits what tort framing can recover. We plead fraud where the facts support it.
On the charge. Fraud verdicts are undone on appeal more often than most, because the questions are complex, the exemplary-damages findings are specific, and a charge error not preserved correctly is a verdict that cannot be defended. We litigate with the appellate record in mind from the first hearing.
What we do
We handle common-law and statutory fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraud by non-disclosure, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting theories where they are available, and the full range of fraudulent-transfer and judgment-collection litigation — avoidance actions, receiverships, turnover proceedings, attachment and injunctive relief, and claims against transferees and insiders.
We act for claimants who were deceived, for creditors whose judgments have been rendered uncollectable, and for transferees and defendants accused of participating in either.
The civil practice is led by Shawn A. Johnson, a civil trial and appellate lawyer, licensed CPA, and former law clerk at the Supreme Court of Texas. We try and argue our own cases.
Representative results
$157 million jury verdict; judgment for more than $55 million to the client
Complex breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition case, resulting in a judgment for a direct award of derivative damages to the client of more than $55 million.
Laura Elizabeth Yosowitz v. Martin Lee Kay et al., No. 2018-37750, 334th District Court, Harris County, Texas (Feb. 21, 2023).
$7 million arbitration award; take-nothing award on all counterclaims
Direct award to the clients on breach of fiduciary duty claims against company managers and officers after a nine-day arbitration.
Salim v. Cochinwala, AAA Case No. 01-19-0003-9665 (Nov. 22, 2021).
Favorable settlement of UCC, warranty, and fraud claims against a manufacturer
Claims arising from delivery of nonconforming product.
Beauty Elite Group, Inc. v. Above Aerosol Labs, No. 2025-80806, 55th District Court, Harris County, Texas (July 16, 2026).
Questions we are asked
We were lied to in a deal. Is that fraud, or just a bad contract?
It depends on what was said, when, and whether you were entitled to rely on it. A statement about a future intention can be actionable if the speaker never intended to perform; a prediction that proved wrong ordinarily is not. And where the agreement contains a negotiated disclaimer of reliance, that clause may be dispositive. The contract is the first document we read.
The company that owes us has no assets left. Is it over?
Not necessarily, and this is one of the more common reasons clients come to us. If assets moved to insiders, to a new entity, or to family members around the time the debt matured or the suit was filed, the transfers may be recoverable. Those cases are proved from bank records, corporate filings and property records rather than from testimony, and they are sometimes stronger than the claim that produced the judgment.
Do we have to prove they intended to defraud us?
Not always, and that is the point most people miss. A transfer can be set aside without any proof of intent where the debtor did not get reasonably equivalent value and was insolvent or was left undercapitalised. That version is proved from financial statements.
We received money from someone who is now being sued. Are we exposed?
Possibly, and the analysis turns on what you gave for it and what you knew. A transferee who took in good faith for reasonably equivalent value has a defense, and one who was repaid an actual debt is in a different position than one who received a gift. Assemble the documents showing what you provided before responding.
How long do we have?
Less time than you would expect, and fraud and fraudulent transfer are governed by different clocks. Fraudulent-transfer claims have their own extinguishment periods that vary by theory. If a transfer happened some time ago, the timing question should be answered first, because it can decide whether there is a case at all.
Can we get punitive damages?
Sometimes, and the requirements are specific: an elevated standard of proof, statutory caps in most circumstances, and findings that have to be obtained correctly in the charge. It is planned for from the pleadings rather than added at trial.
Results depend on the facts of each matter. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.