Predator Tactics; Suspicions Circumstances


 (1) the identified victim’s susceptibility or vulnerability to influence (including among other things issues related to age, physical or mental deterioration, emotional state, education, finances, etc.);

 (2)a confidential relationship between the supposed perpetrator and identified victim;

(3) beneficiary’s active involvement or participation in procuring the legal instrument in question;

 (4) secrecy concerning the existence of the transaction or legal changes, or the events occurring in haste;

(5) lack of independent advice related to that transaction or new legal document;

(6) changes in the identified victim’s attitude toward others;

(7) discrepancies between the identified victim’s behavior and previously expressed intentions;

(8) the unjust or unnatural nature of the terms of the transaction or new legal instrument (new will, new trust, etc.);

(9) anonymous criticism of other potential beneficiaries made to the identified victim;

 (10) suggestion, without proof, to the identified victim that other potential beneficiaries had attempted to physically harm him or her;

(11) withholding mail;

(12) limiting telephone access;

(13) limiting visitation;

 (14) limiting privacy when victim is with others (which conduct is generally known as “chaperoning”); (13) discussion of transaction at an unusual or inappropriate time;

 (15) consummation of the transaction at an unusual place;

 (16) use of multiple persuaders against a single vulnerable person;

 (18) demand the business be finished at once;

(19) extreme emphasis on the consequences of delay;

 (20) obtaining a lawyer for the victim;

 (21) using victim’s assets ‐ such as property, money, credit cards, etc.;

(22) becoming conservator, trustee, beneficiary, executor, etc.;

(23) obtaining access to bank accounts;

 (24) obtaining access to safety deposit boxes;

(25) having the victim name the perpetrator on Power of Attorney forms;

 (26) isolating the testator and disparaging family members;

(27) mental inequality between the decedent and the beneficiary;

 (28) reasonableness of the will or trust provision;

(29) presence of the beneficiary at the execution of the will;

(30) presence of the beneficiary on those occasions when the testator expressed a desire to make a will;

(31) recommendation by the beneficiary of a lawyer to draw the will;

(32) knowledge of the contents of the will by the beneficiary prior to execution;

 (33) giving of instructions on preparation of the will by the beneficiary to the lawyer drawing the will; and,

 (34) securing of witnesses to the will by the beneficiary