Really would like some advice about the below please. I realise it is best to seek legal advice in this situation, however would appreciate anyones thoughts on the matter also:). My brother lent me money in August 2005. In November 2005 he went bankrupt. In February 2006, the announcement he was bankrupt was advertised in the local paper. It was the first anyone within the family had heard about it. In May 2006, I paid him back the money I had borrow, 1/3 in cash and the other 2/3 to a firm that had completed the work on the house, which was run by his wife. At the time I did not see anything wrong with repaying family in this way. This month i recieved a letter informing me that as I had paid my brother back after he was made bankrupt, that was irrelevent, and I owed them the money. if not paid back within 2 weeks, they would commence court proceedings to obtain the money and incured costs etc. The people asking for the money is the official reciever indirectly via a solicitors firm, the no result no fee type. What I would like to know if anyone has come across this...firstly, surely if I can prove I paid him the money, they would take him to task on it? Afterall he didn`t declare it. Secondly, being totally ignorant of the dealings of bankruptcy, I realise this is no defence, but is this taken into account? The original money lent myself was via cheques from my brother, all above board and could be seen easily enough. Surely if he had intended to hide the money, it would have been done via cash? Totally confused by this. Hope the above makes some sense.