my cart | check out | my account | customer service

Compare and Judge Gift Companies
Delivered Chocolate Covered Strawberries,  Caramel Apples, Raspberries, Bananas and Roses
Unethical treatment of wives and children

Shocking dirt


This information has been collected as a public service, we'd much rather that there were no "bad players" in the industry, but since their fraud has continued unchecked we thought it only fair that you be told the truth.

This is one of the most shocking things we've ever found.
Normally we'd stay away for peoples personal lives but once you read you'll understand this is just the start of it.

Defendants:
  • Tariq Farid  Owner/CEO of Edible Arrangements�, Dipped Fruit� and other companies


The Charges:
  1. Claimed to divorce his wife while he was in Pakistan and she was in the US.
  2. No notice to his wife in the US.
  3. Divorce paperwork provided no child support, custody, alimony, or  division of assets.
  4. Internet postings (no public proof as of this writing) claim the Pakistani divorce was backdated to block charges of bigamy.


The Proof:

  1. Most  of the readily available information is available in the court filing (1)
    1. The defendant initiated divorce proceedings against the plaintiff in Pakistan on December 31, 2007. (1) 
    2. At that time, he and his wife were residing in Connecticut with the couple's three minor children. (1)
    3. The defendant's home was Connecticut,(1)
    4. His wife denies ever receiving any paperwork associated with the filing. (1)
    5. Mr Fariq had no proof of notice of the proceedings to his wife.
    6. The divorce decree obtained by Mr. Fariq in Pakistan did not address the custody of the children, child support, alimony or any property distribution.(1)
    7. The US court has already found the Pakistani "divorce" as having "lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process of law" . "In cases in which a divorce decree was issued in a foreign court without one party's knowledge or consent, Connecticut courts have refrained from recognizing the foreign divorce decree "
    8. Mr. Farid's motion to dismiss the case was denied.
    1. An internet quote from someone that apears to be familiar with the situation: "Tariq Farid was caught in a lie. Tariq had two wives at one time and tried to lie to the court that he was divorced three years earlier in Pakistan. Tariq Farid�s ex-wife proved that she never traveled to Pakistan in the year Tariq claims he divorced her. In fact she hasn�t traveled to Pakistan for the past five or six years. Tariq bribed Pakistan�s official to get false divorce documents so he wouldn�t get in trouble for polygamy and he wouldn�t have to (share) his wealth with his three daughters and ex-wife." (2)(bold letters added for clarity)
    2. If in fact the divorce was not ligitimate, was backdated or the result of a bribe then Mr Farid could possibly be charged with bigomy, perjury and bribery.   

    Summary:
    It's clear that something was seriouly wrong with this divorce, bouncing over to another country for a divorce, even if it was not backdated, is not how someone who respects his family or this countries laws behaives. That there has been no public outcry is also surprising because this behavior is far worse than the offensive things conservative talk show hosts have said.


    Verdict:
    You be the judge:
    Is this an Ethical person? Would you expect to be treated better than his family?

    How we differ: No one is perfect, and divorces can be ugly, but this type of behavior is so far off the norm that it shows something is truly wrong. A divorce outside of your country of residence is a stunt to try to get around the laws of that country, it's wrong and shows a general disrespect for the laws, your children and family. It shows a general lack of ethics and morals. (we've never been married or had children) 


    References:
    1) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1541673.html

    2) http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/edible-arrangements-tariq-farid-franchise-complaints/

    All Company names and trademarks are property of their respective companies.



    Read next case