Amber Heard could face police PERJURY probe, legal experts say

Legal experts say Amber Heard might face a police investigation over perjury allegations after she confessed not donating $3.5 million from her divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to charity despite claiming in the High Court she did.

Ms Heard stated when the pair separated in 2016 that she would share the £5.5 million ($7 million) settlement between the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

However, Heard stated in their libel trial on Monday that she has yet to make the entire amount “since Johnny sued her for $50 million in March of 2019.”

It occurred amid the actress claiming to have done so on multiple events, including under oath in their UK High Court libel action.

Camille Vasquez, Depp’s lawyer, also contended Wednesday that Heard had the money for months before the complaint, but failed to contribute it as she pledged.

The revelation has prompted claims that Heard deceived the public while discussing the donations on talk shows, and that may have lied under oath.

According to Sean Caulfield, a partner at legal firm Hodge, Jones and Allen stated that Heard might face a perjury investigation in the UK since deceiving a court “goes to the foundation of our judicial system.”

When asked if he believes police are looking into the allegations, he replied, ‘Indeed, he believes so.’ While it may not be a major issue in the case [the contributions], perjury is the greatest danger to our judicial system, therefore the police may be called in to investigate to demonstrate that any individual of the public who misleads before the court may be punished for perjury.

Perjury is tough to prove, according to Mr Caulfield, who added, ‘it is not a core issue before the court, yet assuming Depp’s legal team is attempting to build an image that she is trying to retain the money then it is.

Amber Heard has admitted in court that she didn't donate her $7 million divorce money to charity

Amber Heard has admitted in court that she didn't donate her $7 million divorce money to charity, despite previously testifying she had.

Posted by news.com.au on Monday, May 16, 2022

It is also critical that individuals do not perjure themselves.’ According to CPS guidelines, you will need to prove that what you claimed was inaccurate, which can be tough, yet it should not be hard to determine if she made the donations or not. He doesn’t see anything wrong with that.

Another point of contention is that she would have to be deported. If the CPS approves a charge, you must then deport her, which is improbable given that she is a US resident.

Legal expert Mark Stephens also suggested that authorities investigate the accusations, describing Heard’s legal team as being “seriously outgunned” by Depp’s attorneys’ “smooth, quick operation.”

He noted that it is famously challenging to bring and indict a perjury case. You must demonstrate that somebody purposefully stated a falsehood rather than being confused or misremembering. It would be quite tough, in his opinion.

Police might explore, although they are unlikely to prosecute. The lawsuit is about what happened during their relationship, not what she spent her money on.

He understands that deceiving a judge is a serious matter, however this is a line that Depp’s team used in London. How can you establish she was aware? She may have been informed that the gifts had been made.

Bank account access one  may be managed if you are a celebrity. You may feel you have made or committed to the donations.’

In his comments on the case, Mr Stephens stated that “nobody gets out of this case good.

He proceeded that Depp’s legal staff is just a different class. They are aware of the evidence, they are not mispronouncing names or misplacing items, and the procedure is seamless and quick. Heard’s attorneys appear to be outmatched.

In 2018, Heard went on the Dutch talk program RTL Late Night and stated, “$7 million total was donated.  She split it between the ACLU and the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. She  had no desires.

However, Terence Dougherty, the ACLU’s Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, affirmed prior in the lawsuit that just $1.3 million had been given by Heard or on her behalf.

Heard gave $350,000 immediately in December 2018 and has not paid anything since. Depp contributed another $100,000, while Fidelity, an investing firm, contributed another $350,000.

It comes after Amber was blamed by Depp’s attorneys of giving away “a percentage” of the massive money as part of a “determined and manipulative falsehood” to make herself seem better during their court struggle in the UK last year.

Heard has stated that she “fully wants to honor the vows” and would “would for him to quit suing her so that she can.”

‘Perjury is a very serious criminal under English law because it strikes at the very heart of the legal system,’ said Steven Heffer, Head of Privacy at law firm Collyer Bristow.

He continued that well-known persons, including important politicians, have discovered this to their detriment and have ended up in jail.

Perjury is committed in a court procedure in English law when a witness makes a statement significant to that proceeding that he knows to be untrue or does not believe to be truthful – and it carries a jail penalty of up to 7 years.

Assuming one of the witnesses was found to have lied throughout the course of the English libel lawsuit, they may face charges of distorting the course of justice and perjury, as well as a possible prison term.

Ms Vasquez also claimed on Monday that Heard purposefully did not contribute the money to charity so she could keep as much as possible for herself, a charge Heard categorically disputed.

At the court on Monday, Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, questioned the actress about why she took a $7 million settlement from Depp.

She explained that she didn’t care about the money. She was warned that if she didn’t agree to a figure, it may be reversed, and that they would never reach an agreement. She took substantially less than they were providing and far less than She was entitled to.

Heard stated that she gave the money to charity since she was “never interested in Johnny’s money.” She expressed that she only wanted her safety and her future and he jeopardized it.

She wished he would leave her alone. That’s something she has been saying since 2016.

The allegations come as Heard is already being investigated for perjury in an FBI-backed investigation into allegations she misled Australian authorities after importing her dogs into the nation in 2015.

Heard escaped biosecurity charges after publicly apologizing and blaming a lack of sleep for bringing her Yorkshire Terriers Pistol and Boo into the nation without the necessary documentation.

However, Australian police stated in October that they are reconsidering the smuggling dispute after new information surfaced during the former couple’s UK trial.

1 Response

  1. June 1, 2022

    […] ©POOL/AFP Via Getty Images/Reuters […]