Amber Heard could be subjected to a police probe amid claims of perjury, legal experts have said. The news comes after the Aquaman actress, 36, admitted she did not donate the $7m from her divorce settlement with Johnny Depp, 58, to charity, even though she previously told the UK High Court she had.
While giving evidence on day three of her testimony yesterday at the court in Fairfax, Virginia, Amber gave some legal experts reason to believe that she could face a perjury probe.
After she and Pirates of the Caribbean actor Johnny divorced in 2016, Amber had promised to donate $7m to charity.
At the time, she claimed she would evenly split the large sum of money between the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
However, she has since admitted that she has not yet handed over the money to said charities.
READ MORE: Dan Walker spurned by Sally Nugent as she refuses to appear in video
The star insists her ongoing libel battle with ex-husband Johnny is to blame.
Giving evidence at her libel trial yesterday, Amber claimed she has yet to make the full donation “because Johnny sued me for $50million in March of 2019.”
This was after Amber had claimed on several occasions, including under oath at their UK High Court libel case, that the money had already been paid
It came despite the actress having claimed on several occasions, including under oath at their UK High Court libel case, that she had.
Yesterday, Johnny’s lawyer Camille Vasquez also argued that Amber had the money for months before the lawsuit, yet failed to donate the money as she had promised.
The disclosure has sparked discussions over whether Amber lied under oath in the British court of law.
Sean Caulfield, partner at law firm Hodge, Jones and Allen, described how Amber could now face a police perjury probe over misleading the court.
Asked if he can see police investigating the claims, he said: “Yes, I think so. While it may not be a central issue to the case [the donations]perjury is the single biggest threat and cuts to the core of our justice system, so the police may be invited to investigate to show that any member of the public who lies to the court can be prosecuted for perjury.”
He went on to point out that perjury is difficult to prove, but pointed out that while it wasn’t a “central issue” to the case, it might be helpful to Johnny’s team if they want to paint her as less charitable than she has been portrayed in the past.
He also told MailOnline that it “should not be that difficult” to find out if Amber had made the donations or not.
Legal expert Mark Stephens also offered the paper his take on the issue, explaining that it is “notoriously difficult” to prosecute a perjury case.
He argued: “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.”