Hello

MHNA Consulting is a global specialist consulting firm. 

This no-frills no-gimmicks website details our services and approach. 

We hope that what we say and how we say it strike you as committed and empassioned. We breathe fire, not hot air. We don't do superficial.

From small simple local to multi-million-dollar intricate undetectable offshore multi-national, MHNA fights inheritance crime — usually plain vanilla offenses such as (generically speaking) theft, handling, false accounting, concealment, misrepresentation, abuse of position, coercion, money laundering, assault, forgery, etc. (We consider terms such as 'inheritance theft' and 'inheritance hijacking' bogus, misleading and unprofessional other than to refer to specific statutory offenses expressly so named. We deplore their use in civil law firms' false advertising.)

Our innovative comprehensive services are particularly available to:-

• heirs

• estate managers (our generic term)

• civil lawyers

• criminal lawyers

• police

• prosecutors

• accountants, auditors

• others involved personally, professionally or commercially in any relevant inheritance-related situation.

We:-

• predict and model inheritance crime


• protect estates — especially high-value, intricate, vulnerable estates — and heirs from inheritance crime, if brought in early enough


• micro-examine and monitor estates for the slightest irregularity, especially if concealed in plain view

• generate and maintain location-specific inventories and valuations 

• identify, label and track every asset, liability and penny

• gather conclusive evidence of dishonesty and dysfunction

• compile reports, dossiers, logs, archives, financial statements and accounts

• challenge the lucrative speculative protracted conventional chancery litigation approach of some civil lawyers, especially if deceptively dressed up as litigating crime

• disrupt the dishonest characterisation of inheritance crime, especially by police, as a 'civil matter'


• present irrefutable complaints of inheritance crime on a plate, ready to eat, to police and prosecutors. All they then need to do, with our robust encouragement, is execute

• track down stolen assets and assist in their recovery.

And much more. 

No-one and nothing is above our suspicion. 

We use our own brains, our own proprietary methods and genuinely intelligent AI.

Nothing and no-one escapes our attention.

The MHNA approach

MHNA sees all relevant inheritance-related dysfunction as actually or potentially criminal. 

MHNA's particular line is the criminalising of inheritance crime. MHNA identifies, investigates, examines, analyses, assesses, evaluates, gross- and net-values, elucidates, exposes and pursues inheritance crime using the criminal justice system. We apply ordinary criminal law, in all its relative elegance and simplicity, to inheritance crime. We call it out as crime. 

MHNA also assists on the civil side. We deal with actionable dishonesty such as fraudulent breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent breach of trust, deceit, conversion etc. But we don't want to see victim heirs wasting their lives courting a Jarndyce-style chance'ry division of their inheritance in relation to inheritance crime that can and should be prosecuted.

Of course we deprecate law enforcement's standard "It's a civil matter" multiply dishonest, collusive, abusive, cowardly, irrational, pretentious, presumptuous brush-off, to which we keep returning insistently in various places on this site as established egregious law enforcement misconduct throughout our subject and a major obstacle to our work:-

• Since when do you consult a policeman for civil law information, opinion or advice? 

• Why would and how could he ever properly give it to you? 

• An offense is never actionable unless hybrid (it can properly be prosecuted and or litigated). Theft is almost never actionable anywhere on the planet

• So what if it is?

• Even in that beyond-rare case and even if correct, the most that a criminal law enforcement functionary can venture, always improperly, irrelevantly and pointlessly, is "As an eminent civil law expert, having minutely considered every detail of your entire file, I'd just like to mention, by the way, as an aside, incidentally, if you happen to be interested, that such-and-such offenses in this case happen, beyond exceptionally, to also be actionable and also by the way, in case you're interested, you do know, don't you, that there happen to be close or approximate civil law equivalents of some of the crimes in this case" (no, we're not interested)

• They have no right to say any of it even if (inexplicably) asked; no right to make or impose any presently relevant decision on the victim complainant, and no right to deprive him of any course of action in the criminal law system

• The case's facts, as well as disclosing crime, might be (otherwise) actionable. So what if they are?

• Since when does a policeman have clairvoyant telepathic knowledge of a case he knows nothing about?

• The simple truth: however patently criminal, law enforcement doesn't want your criminal case. (One might almost think they were running a racket with litigious civil lawyers, who happen to want your civil case. More about this below.)

How few crime victims get any of this!

Unravelling a mess

Now for a discussion about inheritance crime, because that's our real interest. We have no idea why treating inheritance crime as criminal should be difficult. We can explain why it is difficult. The situation takes a bit of unravelling. (We venture to suggest that the whole subject is a bit of a mess; and this doesn't take into account the unknowns of the criminal trial even when you've mastered both the subject and the case.)

Most fundamentally, MHNA's resolve to thrust inheritance crime into the criminal justice system comes up against active and interactive resistance from the very communities — four of them — we are trying to help:-

• civil lawyers

• criminal lawyers

• victim heirs

• law enforcement.

Each community behaves dysfunctionally. 

In soliciting victim heir customers, civil lawyers selling civil law services commit a multitude of false representations concerning themselves, their practices, civil and criminal law and practice, etc. 

In rebuffing complainant victims, law enforcement commit a multitude of false representations concerning themselves. their expertise, the scope of their jobs, civil and criminal law etc. in order to evade practising criminal law. 

The victim heir is in the middle. Confusing, ain't it?

Those four communities

More precisely (we largely have in mind the American situation but the dysfunction is largely ubiquitous), with no apologies for repetition (this is an important subject culpably misstated and badly misunderstood; setting it out at length on this website and in our forthcoming book on inheritance crime is appropriate):-

Civil lawyers:-

• generally favor civil law and practice

• especially like probate court 'probate litigation' (which often has nothing to do with probate), and chance'ry litigation: it pays better than prosecuting (if we're in a jurisdiction in which the civil lawyer or his firm can do that directly or indirectly)

• give victim heirs the false impression that torts are the same as crimes

• don't give the uninformed victim heir holistic information or advice about the most elementary fundamentals of the civil and criminal justice systems (they are separate, must be considered separately, are never synonymous and almost never overlap), or any directly or indirectly relevant criminal-law contacts

• have little or no expertise or experience in criminal law practice and for all their advertised implicit prowess specifically in invented crime and invented hybrid crime and invented actionable hybrid crime are not inclined to diversify into it, including the invented hybrid crimes featured in their own advertising

• invent crimes. The insinuation in your advertising is that 'inheritance theft' is a crime. By what law, exactly? Ditto 'inheritance hijacking'. What is 'inheritance hijacking' exactly, and what law criminalises it?

• invent hybrid crimes. A civil lawyer advertising his prowess in handling by civil means the (invented) criminal offense of 'inheritance theft' is insinuating that that specific offense not only exists (unless it exists, it doesn't exist) but can and positively should be dealt with —  even though a (hybrid) crime, perhaps dealt with only — civilly (not unless the offense exists and the criminalising law says that it's not criminal). Except in the case of a statutorily expressly hybrid offense that does exist, whoever heard of suing anyone for theft?

• represent that it is appropriate to not prosecute a non-existent offense that is also a non-existent hybrid offense but to sue on it

• represent to the multiple victim —  of inheritance crime and now the civil lawyer's misconduct, with more to come —that they will sue on a non-existent offense that is also a non-existent hybrid offense. How exactly do you propose doing that? 

• misrepresent their practice and intentions. You know, but your mark does not know, that your practice does not extend to either prosecuting or litigating any crime, real or invented, hybrid or not. Maybe you'll eventually confess that what you're doing or proposing to do has absolutely nothing to do with any crime, criminality or criminal law process — that you propose to deal with this invented crime and its invented hybridness not by prosecuting or litigating it but by suing on it not as a crime but as a tort, and only by using as yet undisclosed not-criminal not-hybrid civil law (conversion, deceit, trespass to goods, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, civil fraud etc.). Your mark is going to find himself litigating a tort when he thought from your false advertising that you were going to prosecute a crime. You'll try to get out of your own mess by telling him, "It's called something else technically, and it has nothing to do with any crime, and it's all civil, and the policeman was absolutely right about it all being a civil matter, but for us it's really inheritance theft, I assure you, and we're going to sue for inheritance theft." Or you might choose to never disclose to him the exact not-criminal not-hybrid cause(s) of action. Maybe you'll let him go on thinking that you are indeed suing on a fabricated-hybrid fabricated crime called 'inheritance theft'. Which is it so far? (Five or six deceptions so far on the victim heir by his own lawyer, in addition to the inheritance crime, with lots more to come because everyone is now in a hole.)

Prosecution-side criminal lawyers:-

• don't know enough about relevant inheritance-related factual events, incidents, episodes and sagas to be credible or effective in cases of intricate multi-jurisdictional multi-succession multi-million-dollar inheritance crime, especially when being committed in plain view right under your nose but undetectable unless you know exactly what you're looking at (especially true of inheritance crime by estate managers and their lawyers, and by the victim heir's own lawyers). Inheritance is not an ingredient in a particular crime unless the criminalising statute explicitly says otherwise. But inheritance facts are very relevant to how, when, where, by whom and against whom a relevant crime is committed. You risk missing them every time

• will tend to miss inheritance criminality's relevant civil law: we are not saying that civil law is irrelevant. Criminally obtaining, retaining, invoking and purporting to exercise a court appointment as estate manager, for example

• knowing that they are not fully equipped intellectually, will take the case or decline it. How does this dysfunction assist the victim heir?

• Practice note: it's probably easier and quicker to coach a generalist criminal lawyer about inheritance specifics than to train a chance'ry lawyer about crime.

Victim heirs:-

• don't understand the most elementary differences between the civil and criminal justice systems, between prosecuting and suing, between crimes and civil misconduct, or between genuine specialists and jackass opportunists

• labour under the false impression that litigating civil misconduct is the same as or equivalent to prosecuting criminal conduct

• are systematically misinformed about both the civil and the criminal systems by both civil lawyers and law enforcement, each dragooning the victim away from the criminal system by claiming, each for their own improper reasons, that patently obvious genuine real inheritance crime (averred one way or another by the civil lawyer in his advertising, disavowed by law enforcement when deigning to talk to the victim complaint) is not criminal, or cannot or should not be prosecuted

• think that there is such a crime as 'inheritance theft' and 'inheritance hijacking' and must be dealt with in the civil system, not in the criminal system

• are particularly confounded by civil lawyers' unexplained, deliberate, incongruous, irrelevant marketing averments of multiply irrelevant imaginary hybrid and not-hybrid criminality

• are particularly dismayed and disoriented by law enforcement's unexplained, deliberate, incongruous, irrelevant marketing averments of concocted multiply irrelevant hybrid or not-hybrid actionability

• don't bother to inform themselves of their concurrent, consecutive and alternative civil and criminal process options  

• are not intellectually capable of constructing or presenting an irresistible irrefutable brief for law enforcement

• are comprehensively uninformed, misinformed, bewildered, cowed and dumbfounded to the point of being intellectually unfit to manage their own affairs

• are likely to end up in civil court — highly gratifyingly to both opportunist civil lawyers and dysopportunist law enforcement, neither of whom wants the criminal case

• are in for what they deserve: a big bill from the civil lawyer

• maybe do understand that by going to a civil lawyer, especially in a jurisdiction where private prosecutions are not known and where law enforcement has already given him the heave-ho, he's in for litigation, not prosecution. Maybe it really is clear to you that 'inheritance theft' is the civil lawyer's improper, inappropriate, unprofessional, misleading, deliberately confusing euphemism for a bunch of torts and that you'll never see the right side of the inside of a criminal court, and that all of that is just, gee, swell. MHNA begs to suggest that such moral and intellectual dysfunction is not the correct way to go about it (and anyway we're off to criminal court so none of this really matters).

Police and public prosecutors (private prosecutors are motivated entirely differently) have their own explaining to do:-

• there's no culture of treating or even recognising intricate inheritance crime as either crime or criminal. You're supposed to treat this particular species of crime as criminal, go after it and prosecute the criminals, especially lawyers

• there's no specialty of doing any of that. You're supposed to meet the relevant standard of specialist professional competence specifically in the field of inheritance crime

• you have a thing about making trenchant dishonest grandiose irrelevant pronouncements of irrelevant expertise (which you have invented) in irrelevant law that doesn't exist and irrelevant civil process that doesn't exist. "It's a civil matter" — concerning the same misconduct that the civil lawyer avers, with intent to mislead and confuse, is criminal 'inheritance theft', possibly hybrid — is not only irrelevant, inaccurate, disingenuous, discourteous and always dishonest (however much it gets you off the hook and assists civil lawyers). It annoys us and distresses the victim heir. You declare and or opine — dishonestly averring relevant pertinent civil law expertise and its relevance, and dishonestly disavowing criminal law functions, duties and responsibilities — that patently obvious genuine real criminality is not crime at all (cf. the civil lawyer's invention of crime that really isn't crime) and can only be dealt with civilly, or that it is a peculiar type of hybrid crime that can, should and must be dealt with only civilly. All this is monstrous. We'd be pleased if you would do your job, without pretense, invention or evasion, in a way that squares with your sworn public duty. No more "It's a civil matter" when presented with genuine inheritance crime. (If you really don't get that the same facts can give rise to criminal as well as civil liability; that torts and crimes are different; that civil and criminal process in relation to the same facts can be pursued concurrently and or consecutively, and the essentials of the most complex and intractable inheritance crime scene especially involving lawyer criminals, you really shouldn't be in this business.)

More basics

Generally speaking:-

• a crime is never actionable (we make no apologies for a purist approach to law and terminology)

• an inheritance (or any other) crime as such is never 'a civil matter' (that accursed phrase beloved of so-called law enforcement), or also 'a civil matter', unless the relevant crime statute expressly says so. Out of hundreds of relevant crime statutes globally that we've reviewed, we've only ever seen two crimes — in US states — statutorily justiciable in both criminal and civil court (and neither concerns inheritance)

• there's almost no specific criminal law about it. There doesn't need to be: ordinary plain-vanilla criminal law already covers it

• inheritance crime is ordinary plain-vanilla crime committed in the context of inheritance

• there's no such crime as 'inheritance theft' or 'inheritance hijacking'. We take no issue with the concept of theft of an inheritance or even with the phrase 'theft of an inheritance' if 'theft' be correctly used. We have seen some inexcusable homespun definitions of an already invented 'inheritance theft' citing behavior that has nothing to do with theft or any other crime. We do object to the insinuation that there is a statutory offense specifically called 'inheritance theft' if there isn't one, and to outrageous definitions. We consider inexcusable gibberish the phrase 'inheritance hijacking', especially as used by lawyers with intent to mislead, deceive, confuse, induce, etc.

• there's no specialty among civil or criminal lawyers or law enforcement of inheritance crime. There does need to be. It's probably easier to train criminal lawyers in the finer points of inheritance crime than to train civil lawyers in the entirety of relevant criminal law. Criminal lawyers do need to be intimately acquainted with all relevant (and some irrelevant) procedural, substantive, financial, legal, technical and practical aspects of the crime scene in full context: what are the jurisdictional issues; who are the principal and accessory perpetrators and how do they work individually, in combination and collectively (including what they are supposed to be doing and not doing in civil law, if that's relevant to criminality, which it usually won't be); exactly what ordinary plain-vanilla and other criminality do they commit (including its concealment) and how, when, where and in relation to what do they do it; who are the victims; what assets, liabilities, business, situations, issues, activities, relationships and transactions in which locations (inner office, back office, front office, recourse, etc.) are the subject and object of what criminality; what points and issues, especially those raised in purported self-exculpation by the perpetrators, are relevant and irrelevant; where the perpetrators are lawyers, judges and relevant officials, what are the peculiar ways and circumstances in which they conceive, carry out, accomplish and attempt to consummate their criminality

• there's nothing inherently difficult about committing, identifying, investigating, examining, evaluating, valuing, expounding, elucidating, exposing or pursuing inheritance crime. 

More summary

Before- and after-death testamentary assets fall into the hands not only of criminal heirs but of an entire ecosystem of parasitic predators including lawyers (especially lawyers) and professional estate fiduciaries (mainly lawyers). And 'theft' is simplistic. The range of intra- and inter-jurisdictional, multi-dimensional, multi-layer, multi-stage, multi-party criminality that can envelope just one testator and one estate is encyclopedic: theft, criminal non-disclosure, criminal misrepresentation, criminal abuse of position, criminal accounting, money laundering, asset laundering, activity laundering, assault, kidnapping, impersonation, murder, forgery, obstructing justice, perjury…

MHNA is familiar with all this from real cases. A few favorite inheritance crime situations from our files:-

• a solicitor criminal, a partner in an English law firm, criminally obtains a court appointment as interim administrator of a high-value intricate vulnerable estate, lies to a succession of courts, criminally institutes, conducts and settles bogus litigation, and infiltrates, undermines, sabotages and comprehensively criminalises a relatively unrelated estate — in conjunction with (among others) some of her law firm partners and juniors, at least four outside barristers, a Swiss tax lawyer, possibly a Swiss notaire, a policeman, two judges and eight rogue heirs (this massive comprehensive in-your-face plain-view criminality is ordinarily undetectable)

• a victim heir hires at various points around ten self-professed specialist lawyers to help him deal with a case of massive inheritance criminality. They all behave criminally to him, and criminally give material criminal support and assistance to the inheritance criminals

• multiple 'expert' lawyers in multiple jurisdictions giving patently bad advice to the criminal standard

• 'leave everything to me' solicitous elder abuse including coercion to make lifetime gifts, new will, codicils, etc. + contemporaneous theft (art, furniture, cash)

• elaborate, brazen, flagrant inheritance crime hidden conspicuously in the plain sight of 'experts'

• committed by organised criminals, especially gangs of lawyers, gangs of heirs and hybrid gangs

• criminal cash, asset and activity washing, rinsing, bleaching, drying, ironing, starching etc. involving estate managers, power-attorneys, trusted insiders, lawyers, auction houses, corrupt private buyers, corrupt bankers, corrupt tax officials, corrupt police, corrupt judges, etc. 

• committed by estate manager criminals and their lawyers in criminal imaginary estate management 

• committed against high-value, intricate, vulnerable estates with complex factual and legal international and multi-jurisdictional dynamics

• a Cambridge college — specifically, one or more of its employees specialising in soliciting and administering legacies — sits on a substantial legacy from an alumnus for more than sixteen years, doing nothing to honor it, lies in plain view about it, and then instructs (with whose money, knowledge and approval?) a firm of notoriously venal belligerent lawyers to write a comprehensively idiotic letter —  this is not idiocy just from the law firm but specifically from the already dishonest customer college — to the incredulous concerned residuary heir that it will get round to doing something (unspecified) 'in the coming months' (there's nothing honest about any of this)

• inherent and exherent duty-interest conflict crime (criminal evidence tampering a specialty)

• sagely pronounced  by 'expert' lawyers to be 'unprecedented', 'interesting', 'too difficult', etc.

• criminal numbers: books of account, draft and final financial statements, tax filings etc. We are deeply concerned about accounting, accounts, accountants, auditing, audits, auditors and others in relation to interim and final draft and final estate manager financial statements prepared for the inner office, the back office, the front office, tax authorities etc. 

• criminal imaginary estate front-office litigation by the estate manager criminal and her lawyer accomplices against co-criminal front-office opponents: phoney claims, data criminality, brazen dishonesty to the court, 'eye-watering' criminal billing, etc. (and criminal chance'ry judges and costs judges)

• committed by a succession of the victim heir's own multiply dishonest specialist saboteur lawyers colluding with heirs and the criminal estate manager and her gangs

• sabotage of the testator's unfinished front-office business by the estate manager criminal in collusion with front-office opponents and others.

This barely scratches the surface of a vast subject. 

MHNA is on top of it.