I'm looking for a bit of case law - as an inspiration more than as valid precedent - for the following scenario:
- A person has some prospective rights w.r.t. some physical objects, or future rights w.r.t. the distribution of property or profits.
- That person engages in some legal procedure in a fraudulant (and possibly criminal) way, to obtain recognition of expanded rights (e.g. can use objects more extensively, entitled to larger part of future profits or ownership etc.)
- The person is found by a court to have engaged in said wrongful acts or behavior.
- The court not only strips the person of the excess or additional rights they had tried to secure, but prevents or limits that person from realizing even the rights they had initially had grounds to realize.
I realize this is a bit vague, but I wanted to make it general enough to make it easier to find such an example.
I am most interested in such scenarios in Common Law systems, despite the fact that the adage in the title is Latin; other systems are also relevant, altough a bit less so. Cases which are discussed in juristic literature are the most relevant, and otherwise cases heard by higher courts. I don't need a long list, but rather a prominent example in which the ruling is explicitly justified based on more fundamental legal principles and/or by appeal to justice.
Note: The case or the ruling need not actually use the phrase "fraus omnia corrumpit" anywhere, I just used it in the title because it seems relevant.