N.J. Stat. » Title 25 — FRAUDS AND FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26 (2026)

Factors in determining intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

25:2-26. Factors in determining intent.

In determining actual intent under paragraph (1) of subsection a. of R.S.25:2-25 consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:

a. The transfer or obligation was to an insider;

b. The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;

c. The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;

d. Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;

e. The transfer was of substantially all the debtor's assets;

f. The debtor absconded;

g. The debtor removed or concealed assets;

h. The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred;

i. The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;

j. The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and

k. The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Those Parties Listed on Exhibit a (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 313 B.R. 612 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Those Parties Listed on Exhibit a (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 313 B.R. 612 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2004). · cites it 4× “N.J.S.A. 25:2-26 lists the badges of fraud that New Jersey courts are to consider in determining whether a debtor conveyed property with the actual intent to place it beyond the reach of creditors.”
Dobin v. Hill (In Re Hill), 342 B.R. 183 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2006). · cites it 4× “N.J.S.A. § 25:2-26. Case law developed various factors that evidenced fraud, which were then codified by the UFTA.”
Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707 (D.N.J. 2013). · cites it 2× “LEXIS 98594 at *24-25 (citing N.J.S.A. § 25:2-26). While a finding of one badge of fraud may cast suspicion on the transferor’s intent, a finding of several badges in one transaction generally provides conclusive evidence of an actual intent to defraud.”
MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v. Venuto, 875 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D.N.J. 2012). · cites it 4× “Gilchinsky holds that the Court should look to the “badges of fraud” enumerated in N.J. Stat. Ann. § 25:2-26 in order to evaluate whether the facts alleged state a claim for intentional fraud.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Antar, 120 F. Supp. 2d 431 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 2× “See N.J.S.A. § 25:2-26 (providing that facts such as these, if true, are proper bases for an inference of fraudulent intent).”
Forman v. Jeffrey Matthews Fin. Grp., LLC (In Re Halpert & Co.), 254 B.R. 104 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1999). · cites it 4× “The Court cannot rule on this issue without considering whether the transfer of property to JMFG as alleged at the liquidation value rather than the market value was done in good faith or with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Chiorazzo, 529 F. Supp. 2d 535 (D.N.J. 2008). · cites it 2× “N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(i). 12 . The complaint included the list of equipment as a series of exhibits and matched those items to the specific types of fraud alleged.”
Forman v. Salzano (In Re Norvergence, Inc.), 405 B.R. 709 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2009). · cites it 2× “The Complaint also fails to identify any badges of fraud relied upon to determine actual intent, as set forth by N.J.S.A. 25:2-26 with the possible exception of Debtor’s insolvency when the transfers occurred.”
United States v. Patras, 909 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D.N.J. 2012). · cites it 4× “To determine whether the debtor had the requisite intent, courts look to the “badges of fraud” listed in N.J.S.A. § 25:2-26. Id.; see also MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v.”
Advanced Telecomm. Network, Inc. v. Allen (In Re Advanced Telecomm. Network, Inc.), 321 B.R. 308 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 2× “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 25:2-26 ; Gilchinsky, 732 A.”
Dobin v. Taiwan Mach. Trade Ctr. Corp. (In Re Victor Int'l, Inc.), 278 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2002). · cites it 2× “N.J.S.A. § 25:2-26. Factors in determining fraudulent intent In determining actual intent under subsection a.”
Geltzer v. Bloom (In Re M. Silverman Laces, Inc.), 404 B.R. 345 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 2× “N.J.S.A. § 25:2-26. 18 *360 Courts consider similar “badges of fraud” giving rise to an inference of intent under Bankruptcy Code section 548(a)(1)(A).”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(a) — 5 cases
Wilen v. Pamrapo Sav. Bank, S.L.A. (In Re Bayonne Med. Ctr.), 429 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010).
5 Perry Street, LLC Vs. Southwind Props., LLC (c-21-15, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
Main Land Sussex Co., LLC Vs. Priti Shetty (l-0480-14, Morris Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
Aetna Health Inc. Vs. Biodiagnostic Lab'y Servs., LLC (l-2994-14, Camden Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
Gurevitch v. Curtis (D.N.J. 2024).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(b) — 1 case
Main Land Sussex Co., LLC Vs. Priti Shetty (l-0480-14, Morris Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(c) — 2 cases
Ame, Inc. v. T.R. Ricotta Elec., Inc. (D.N.J. 2023).
J.P. v. J.N. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(d) — 1 case
5 Perry Street, LLC Vs. Southwind Props., LLC (c-21-15, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(e) — 4 cases
Ame, Inc. v. T.R. Ricotta Elec., Inc. (D.N.J. 2023).
5 Perry Street, LLC Vs. Southwind Props., LLC (c-21-15, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
Thahabieh Khater Vs. Etidal Issa (l-0198-14, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
Main Land Sussex Co., LLC Vs. Priti Shetty (l-0480-14, Morris Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(g) — 1 case
Main Land Sussex Co., LLC Vs. Priti Shetty (l-0480-14, Morris Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(h) — 2 cases
5 Perry Street, LLC Vs. Southwind Props., LLC (c-21-15, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
Aetna Health Inc. Vs. Biodiagnostic Lab'y Servs., LLC (l-2994-14, Camden Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(i) — 3 cases
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Chiorazzo, 529 F. Supp. 2d 535 (D.N.J. 2008). “N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(i). 12 . The complaint included the list of equipment as a series of exhibits and matched those items to the specific types of fraud alleged.”
Ame, Inc. v. T.R. Ricotta Elec., Inc. (D.N.J. 2023).
5 Perry Street, LLC Vs. Southwind Props., LLC (c-21-15, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-26(j) — 1 case
Ame, Inc. v. T.R. Ricotta Elec., Inc. (D.N.J. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.