Amber Heard Could Face Police PERJURY Probe, Legal Experts Claim

It is suggested that Amber Heard could face a police probe amid claims of perjury, as per legal experts. The probe might come after Amber Heard admitted to not giving $3.5 million from her divorce settlement to the charity despite telling the court that she did.

Heard got divorced back in 2016 and allegedly said that she would split the £5.5million ($7million) settlement between the Children's Hospital Los Angeles and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

However, in her recent testimony, the actress admitted that she is yet to make the total donation 'because Johnny sued me for $50million in March of 2019.' 

It came despite the fact that the actress has claimed that she had on several occasions, including under oath at their UK High Court libel case.

Depp's lawyer Camille Vasquez also argued yesterday that Heard had the money for months before the lawsuit, yet failed to donate the money as she promised.

The admit made by the actress has led to accusations that she had misled the public when talking about the donations on talk shows and may have lied under oath.

Mr Caulfield said perjury is difficult to prove, adding: 'It is not a central issue before the court, but if Depp's legal team are trying to paint a picture [that she is trying to keep the money], then it is. 

'And it is always central that people do not perjure themselves. CPS guidance says you will need to know what you said was false, which can be hard, but it should not be that difficult to know whether she had made the donations or not. I can't see a problem there.

'The other confusion is that she would need to be extradited. If the CPS authorizes a charge, you then have to extradite her which is unlikely, especially as she is a US resident.'  

Legal expert Mark Stephens also said police could decide to probe the claims as he described how Heard's legal team is being 'severely outgunned' by the 'smooth, swift operation' being run by Depp's lawyers.

He added: 'It is notoriously difficult to bring and prosecute a perjury case. You have to show that someone deliberately told an untruth as opposed to them being confused or misremembering. I think it would be a very difficult thing to do.

'Police could investigate it, but they probably would not prosecute it.  The case is not about what she spent her money on, but what took place during their relationship. 

'I accept misleading a court is a big issue, but this is a line that Depp's team ran in London. How do you prove that she knew? She may have been given advice that the donations were made. 

'Access to bank accounts if you are a celebrity may be managed. You may well believe that you made or have committed to the donations.'

And commenting on the case, Mr. Stephens said 'nobody comes out of this case well'. 

He continued: 'Depp's legal team are just a different class. They know the evidence is there, they are not getting names wrong, misplacing things - it is a smooth, swift operation. Heard's lawyers looks like they are being outgunned.'

Heard appeared on the Dutch talk show RTL Late Night in 2018 where she said: '$7million in total was donated - I split it between the ACLU and the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. I wanted nothing.' 

But Terence Dougherty, the ACLU Chief Operating Officer, and General Counsel testified earlier in the case. They said that only a total of $1.3m has either been donated by Heard or on her behalf.

Of that money, Heard contributed $350,000 directly in December 2018 and she has not paid any money since. A further $100,000 was paid by Depp and another $350,000 came from a fund at Fidelity, an investment company.

It comes after Depp's lawyers accused Amber of giving away 'a fraction' of the huge sum as part of a 'calculated and manipulative lie' to make herself look better during their legal battle in the UK last year.

Heard has insisted that she 'full intends to honour the pledges' and would 'love for him to stop suing me so I can'.

Steven Heffer, Head of Privacy at law firm Collyer Bristow, said: 'Perjury is a very serious offence under English law as it strikes at the very heart of the justice system.

'Well known individuals including prominent politicians have found this to their cost and ended up serving prison time

'Under English law Perjury is committed in a judicial proceeding when a witness makes a statement material to that proceeding which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true - and it carries a prison sentence of up to 7 years

'If one of the witnesses had been proved to have lied in the course of the English libel case, they could expect a prosecution for perverting the course of justice and perjury and a likely custodial sentence.' 

Depp's attorney Ms Vasquez also alleged on Monday that Heard had purposely not donated the money to charity so she could keep as much as possible for herself - a claim strongly denied by Heard.

Heard's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft asked the star why she accepted a $7m settlement from Depp at the hearing on Monday.

She said: 'I didn't care about the money. I was told if I didn't agree to a number it could be overturned, we would never settle. I took far less than what they were offering and what I was entitled to.'

Heard said she donated the money to charity because she was 'never interested in Johnny's money'.

She added: 'I just wanted my safety and my future and he compromised that….I wanted him to leave me alone. I've been saying that since 2016.'

These fesh accusaitons come as Heard is already facing a probe for perjury in an FBI-backed probe into claims she lied to Australian officials after smuggling her dogs into the country in 2015.

Heard avoided biosecurity charges after she publicly apologized and blamed a lack of sleep for jetting into the country without the required paperwork for Yorkshire Terriers Pistol and Boo.

But Aussie authorities confirmed in October that they are revisiting the smuggling spat after fresh details emerged during the former couple's UK hearing.