There’s a sense of urgency about Barrister Mathias Hendrick’s e-mail, and for good reason. He’s a London–based attorney who had a very rich client, a Mr. Irvine Wang, who died in a car crash . . . without heirs. Now, Mr. Wang’s attorney wants to give me — me! — a 30-percent share of the $17,500,000 left in Mr. Wang’s estate if — and I’m not sure how this works — I claim to be an heir. I’m Irish-American, not Chinese-American, but what the heck; I must be heir-able.Barrister Hendrick says Mr. Wang wanted to build a multi-million-dollar steel plant in Florida. That’s where the money was to go, and that’s where the bulk of it still will go. After we take our cuts.
Why does Barrister Hendrick need me? Why has this e-mail been sent? “The company/firm cannot release the deposit unless someone applies for claim through me as the next-of-kin to the deceased. . . . Upon this discovery, I now seek your permission to have you stand Next of kin to the deceased. . . .” There follows a lot of pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo.
We’ve all gotten this kind of e-mail before. I’ve spiked dozens of them on the spot, but this time curiosity got the better of me. What if I pursued this to at least some logical end?
Barrister Hendrick acknowledges there might be “great doubt and distrust in my heart.” Yes, sir, there is. I e-mail to ask if I’m the only one to receive his query. He assures me that I am. I decide to pursue the opportunity, in the guise of an interested, but skeptical, recipient.
I soon find more reasons to be suspicious. During the course of our five-day e-mail exchange, my correspondent’s name goes from Mathias Hendrick to Mathias Jefferson Taylor and then to Mathias Hendrick Taylor. Once, he is Dr. Taylor. He spells receive “recieve,” which I believe is not one of those British alternate spellings like “labour.” And he seems a little linguistically off for an attorney. His use of tenses and syntax leaves a lot to be desired. Certainly, this man wasn’t raised with the Queen’s English. Consider this: “I write to confirm if you did recieve [sic] my yesterday mail. . . . Please I would like if you urgently reply back to me so as to commence the documentation process.”
Yeah, okay, how is this going to work? The barrister writes: “My plan is to carry this money over to you there in United States through Diplomatic Means so that you will take appropriate care of it.” Then, I am subsequently told, a diplomat will carry a box, of which he won’t know the contents, and will travel here with his wife.
Hendrick (et al) says he’s undertaking these steps to sidestep a “Bank to Bank” transaction and avoid taxes. The barrister, who says he served in the World Court in The Hague, wants my phone and fax numbers.
I e-mail specific questions about how this money exchange would go down. I never get a satisfactory answer. I also write that when he or his representatives get to Boston, we should all meet at a Starbucks. Surprisingly, he’s fine with that.
