Top Five Excuses People Accused of Elder Exploitation Always Seem to Have

Maryland’s Statute Against Financial Exploitation (the SAFE Act) has been in effect since October 1, 2021. Since then, a significant portion of my practice has involved investigating and litigating claims of elder financial exploitation. I have represented families seeking to recover assets that were wrongfully taken, and I have represented people who were falsely accused because family conflict, grief, or suspicion pointed the finger in the wrong direction.

Every financial exploitation case is different. The facts differ. The financial records differ. The family dynamics are almost always their own unique mess. But in an otherwise highly inconsistent area of law, one thing remains remarkably consistent: the defenses asserted by alleged exploiters tend to sound strikingly familiar from case to case.

These five explanations appear with striking regularity in financial exploitation cases. Standing alone, they prove nothing, and the fact that an accused individual offers one of these explanations does not establish that exploitation occurred. They are simply recurring themes that often point investigators toward the transactions, relationships, and financial records that deserve closer scrutiny.

1. “They wanted me to have it.”

Maybe they did. But when the alleged gift leaves one person owning nearly everything and everyone else learning about it after the fact, questions usually follow.

There may be no note, email, prior estate-planning document, or discussion with the older adult’s attorney. There is simply the person who received the money, property, or newly favorable will provision insisting that this was exactly what the older adult wanted.

An unexpected gift or dramatic change to a will is not automatically improper. Context matters. Was the transaction consistent with the older adult’s prior conduct and relationships? Did the older adult understand what was being signed? Who arranged the meeting, selected the attorney, supplied the instructions, provided transportation, and ultimately benefited?

“They wanted me to have it” may be entirely true, it is also remarkably often the first sentence of a very long deposition.

2. “I was the only one helping.”

Caregiving is difficult, time-consuming, and often thankless. Many caregivers deserve compensation for the work they perform. But “I was the only one helping” is not a legal doctrine, and it does not create a blank check.

The explanation begins to lose momentum when the alleged compensation includes mortgage payments, a new vehicle, vacations, transfers to relatives, or an ownership interest in the older adult’s home.

Legitimate caregiver arrangements usually leave some evidence behind, such as a written agreement, invoices, payment records, calendars, text messages, or at least a consistent explanation of the services provided and how payment was calculated. That documentation protects both the older adult and the caregiver.

Helping someone is commendable. Helping yourself to their assets because you believe you earned them is a different arrangement altogether.

3. “The family is mad because they are not getting anything.”

Sometimes that is true - estate, guardianship, and financial exploitation disputes have a remarkable ability to revive sibling rivalries, old grievances, and arguments everyone thought had been buried decades ago.

If substantial funds disappeared, a deed was signed under suspicious circumstances, or one person suddenly became the beneficiary of nearly everything, “They are just jealous” is not much of an explanation. It is a change of subject.

Attacking the accuser’s motives does not answer the allegations. The relevant questions remain the same. Were the transactions authorized? Did the older adult understand them? Who arranged them? Who controlled the information? Who benefited?

Sometimes family members are upset because they received less than they expected. Sometimes they are upset because something improper occurred. Those possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

4. “I had power of attorney.”

A power of attorney gives someone authority to act for another person. It does not make the other person’s money theirs.

An agent may be authorized to pay bills, manage accounts, communicate with financial institutions, sign documents, or sell property. But that authority comes with duties. The agent must act within the powers granted, for the principal’s benefit, and with sufficient care and recordkeeping to explain what was done and why.

That is often where this explanation begins to unravel.

Access to an account does not justify every withdrawal. Authority to sell property does not necessarily authorize transferring it to yourself. Possession of a debit card does not convert the principal’s money into a reimbursement fund, emergency reserve, or family assistance program.

When the records show unexplained transfers, gifts to relatives, personal expenses, or a newly acquired interest in the principal’s home, “I had power of attorney” does not answer the important questions.

Was the transaction authorized? Was it consistent with the principal’s wishes? Did it benefit the principal? Was it documented? Why did the agent personally benefit?

A power of attorney explains how someone gained access to the assets. It does not explain what they did once they got there.

5. “It was all cash.”

Cash is harder to follow than a check or electronic transfer, but it does not vanish once it leaves an account.

Bank statements still show when, where, and how much was withdrawn. ATM records may identify the machine used and preserve surveillance footage. Text messages, receipts, phone location data, later deposits, and sudden purchases may help fill in the rest.

Patterns often matter as much as any individual withdrawal. Did the older adult regularly use large amounts of cash? Could the older adult physically travel to the bank or ATM? Did the withdrawals begin only after someone else obtained the debit card, PIN, or online access? Were ordinary expenses left unpaid while cash withdrawals increased?

No one may be able to account for every dollar. That does not mean the money cannot be traced, the pattern cannot be established, or the explanation cannot be tested.

Cash complicates the investigation. It does not end it.

The bottom line

SAFE Act cases are fact-intensive, and none of these explanations proves exploitation by itself. Older adults remain free to make gifts, compensate caregivers, revise estate plans, and spend their money in ways their families may dislike.

But after handling these cases from both sides, I have learned that alleged exploiters often tell on themselves by reaching for the same familiar script. The explanation comes first. The records come later. And sometimes, the excuse is the very thing that reveals where the investigation should begin.

These five statements are not automatic proof of wrongdoing. They are, however, recurring signals that a closer look at the financial records, surrounding circumstances, and who benefited may be coming next.

The excuse is not always the answer, but sometimes it is the roadmap.

How we can help

Elder financial exploitation disputes rarely remain confined to a single issue. They can quickly expand into guardianship proceedings, estate litigation, trust disputes, property claims, emergency injunctions, and civil actions in multiple courts.

At Leffler, Bayoumi & Oliver, LLC, we represent clients in complex elder financial exploitation matters throughout Maryland, whether they are seeking accountability for actual exploitation or defending against allegations that are false, exaggerated, or being used as leverage in a broader family dispute.

Early legal guidance can help preserve evidence, identify the real issues, and prevent one dispute from becoming five.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every matter depends on its particular facts and circumstances.

To discuss your situation confidentially, contact our office to schedule a consultation.