Brief: The false vagabond
The story is trivial but quite typical nowadays: a litigation between the former spouses for the children’s right of permanent residence at their father’s house. Ex-husband objects strongly to it as from his words he does not live at this living-space, being a person with no certain residence. And even if the children are registered in the apartment, in fact they won’t be able to live there either.
Decision of the case:
The lawyer of the ex-wife of the defendant addressed to our agency with the request to find out if her ex-husband didn’t really live at his permanent address. There were serious doubts on this occasion as the defendant was often seen near the house which he was registered in. After signing the contract with the lawyer our detective went on the assignment to interview the citizens living in the same house with the defendant. The detective found out that the former husband actually has been living to the address for five years. In addition, our detective was able to convince two witnesses to testify on the trial.
The court took into account the detective’s report as an evidence and attached it to the court case.
It’s quite obvious that not every lawyer can indepently gather sufficient evidence for trial. Even in a civil case it is often impossible to do without the help of a private detective.
