It seems that the women of Wall Street have a financial intuition of their own, that is knowing when to get out of their marriages. Recently, court cases have continued to spring up pitting divorcees against each other for a second round of settlements. As Ponzi-schemers are forced to pay off their debts to investors, they look to their ex wives, who had claimed assets during divorce settlements prior to the unraveling of multiple Wall Street Ponzi schemes, to pay back the stolen money. While divorce lawyers opinions are largely divided, many believe that stolen property should be the claim of the rightful owner, whether or not the person in possession of such property was knowledgeable of the commission of the crime or not. They side with the government and claim that it is a slippery slope once you possessions obtained unlawfully to be retained permanently and legally by anyone other than the rightful owner.

On the other hand, however, New York State courts issued is ruling stating that the finality of business transactions is root for serious concern. Divorce settlements are final, and ex-wives were entitled to a final settlement, and as innocent recipients, they cannot be forced to pay back stolen money, just as a legitimate service provider who entered into a contract with a thief could not be forced to repay stolen money to his client’s victims. Another analogy is that an architect who built a home for a bank robber would not have to pay the bank back any remuneration he received for his services.

Many divorce lawyers (minus the cheesy court shows on Direct TV HD channels) on the other side of the fence, however, question New York’s emphasis on the finality of divorce proceedings as being too strongly favored in public policy. Judge Victoria Graffeo of the New York State Court of Public Appeals disagrees with their line of questioning; in the court’s ruling favoring Janet Schaberg, ex-wife of defrauder Stephen Walsh, Graffeo argues that “Ex-spouses have a reasonable expectation that once their marriage has been dissolved and their property divided, they will be free to move on with their lives.”

On the other hand, however, certain issues such as child-care and custody are allowed to be revisited after divorce proceedings, when new facts arise. So if we compare property stolen to live children, divorce proceedings could then be revisited and re-negotiated and settlements altered. But then the problematic infinite regress arises: if we can revisit finalized court proceedings concerning property matters “after new evidence arises,” then in how many other areas concerning agreements other than divorce settlements will be affected? Will people have a way to finalize a divorce without fear of having to go through the whole experience again somewhere down the line? When a child is concerned, the long-term livelihood for a human being is at stake. So the question becomes, concerning the billions of dollars lost in Ponzi schemes, including the life-savings of many hard-working Americans, how much money does it take for it the amount lost to amount to your long-term livelihood? I believe that number is different for everyone, and impossible to legislate.