It should be noted that the central element of the argument

[mahbubamim077]

Whoever takes (therefore diverts) from the couple to transfer to something that is not considered common and normal by the spouse/partner, appropriates someone else's property: half of the value. I can do it for my sister, for a religious or mystical entity or of another nature, for some movement or cause. The destination is not what matters here.

The illicit act lies in the lack of consent/adherence of the joint bulk sms south africa owner of the common property, which characterizes an undue appropriation of his/her half. If the property is common, there must be consent (which may even have specific outlines in a specific agreement: nuptial, in affective relationships, in the constitutive act or parasocial agreement, in corporate relationships).

Let's not even talk about the duty of vigilance, of suspicion. That would be absurd and goes against the principle of the presumption of good faith, the right to trust. We are not legally obliged to keep watch and suspicion and snooping and checking and asking and checking and doubting and demanding and... damn it! That's the recipe for hell. There would be no marriage (or business partnership) without a presumption of good faith to support a right to trust that, if we pay attention, strengthens the idea of ​​the duty of fiduciary.