by When Professional Advice Becomes Irrelevant: The Real Estate Acquisition Problem
The Normal Defense
In typical real estate fraud cases, defendants often argue that they relied on professional advice. “My real estate attorney handled the transaction. I relied on the title company’s insurance. I hired an inspector who didn’t find problems. I trusted the professionals who were supposed to investigate these issues.”
This defense can be effective. It shows that the defendant wasn’t being negligent or reckless. It shows that the defendant was following standard procedures. It suggests that if fraud occurred, it was the professionals’ fault, not the defendant’s. A jury might be sympathetic to a defendant who tried to do things right and got bad advice.
Billie Eilish arrested for real estate fraud made this defense nearly impossible. If the defendant had simply acquired the property and then gotten arrested, she could argue she relied on professionals. But the defendant publicly stated on national television that she understood land was stolen. That statement undermines the reliance defense.
The Knowledge Problem with Professional Reliance
Professional reliance works as a defense when the defendant can claim ignorance. “I didn’t know about these problems. I trusted the professionals to investigate.” That’s different from “I publicly stated I understood these problems and then relied on professionals to address them.”
The Grammy speech evidence prevents Eilish from claiming ignorance. She announced she understood the problem. Then she claimed she relied on professionals to address it. Prosecutors can argue that knowing about a problem and relying on professionals to handle it is negligent. Knowing about a problem and failing to specifically address it in your professional instructions is reckless.
A prosecutor could ask: if you understood land was stolen, didn’t you have a responsibility to instruct your attorney to research this issue specifically? Didn’t you have a responsibility to ensure your title insurance covered Indigenous land claims? Didn’t you have a responsibility to consult with Indigenous advocacy groups about the complications?
The Instructions Problem
When you hire professionals, you’re supposed to instruct them about issues you’re concerned about. If you know about a specific problem, you’re supposed to tell your attorney about it. You’re supposed to ask them to research it. You’re supposed to ensure they address it in the purchase agreement.
The prosecution could argue that Eilish’s failure to instruct her professionals about the land issue she publicly understood demonstrates consciousness of guilt. Either she knew about the problem and didn’t care enough to address it, or she knew about the problem and wanted to conceal it. Either interpretation is bad for the defense.
Criminal investigation presumably examined what instructions Eilish gave her real estate attorney. Did she mention stolen land? Did she ask for research into Indigenous land claims? Did she want special provisions in the purchase agreement? If she didn’t do these things, the prosecution can argue that her public knowledge about stolen land combined with private silence about the issue suggests fraudulent intent.
The Professional Liability Problem
Eilish’s professionals might also face liability. If they were instructed to research Indigenous land claims and didn’t, they could be sued. If they were told about the issue and failed to address it, they have problems. The real estate fraud case might lead to additional liability for the attorneys and title company involved.
But more importantly for Eilish, anything her professionals did or didn’t do doesn’t eliminate her own responsibility. She made a public statement demonstrating understanding of the issue. She can’t hide behind professional reliance if she knew about the problem that the professionals were supposed to address.
The Caveat Emptor Problem
Real estate has a principle called caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. The buyer is responsible for investigating the property. If you buy something without investigating it properly, that’s your problem. You relied on the seller’s representations, and that’s your risk.
But caveat emptor has limits. You can’t fraudulently misrepresent a property to a buyer. You can’t knowingly conceal problems. And once a buyer has knowledge of a problem, they have a responsibility to address it in the transaction.
Eilish’s knowledge, demonstrated by the Grammy speech, changes her caveat emptor analysis. She’s not a passive buyer who didn’t investigate. She’s an informed buyer who publicly demonstrated understanding of the issue. That knowledge creates responsibility.
Auf Wiedersehen, amigo!
