As a result, the Court concludes that sanctions should be imposed. The Court recognizes that the traditions associated with individual names vary among cultures, and that Josef Daud and Yousif David could be culturally interchangeable versions of the same name. See In re Shah, 350 B.R. 69, 73 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2006) (rejecting the same “cultural differences” excuse from a debtor who also used a false name and social security number in his bankruptcy petition). Granted, the Debtor did, in fact, disclose the name Josef (or “Gosef”) Daud as an “aka” in his original petition.
The Debtors' knowledge that their statements were false may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Shah v. Shah (In re Shah), 350 B.R. 69, 73 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006). Here, the evidence shows that the eminent domain proceeding resulted in a significant cash award to the Debtors less than two months prior to the filing of the Case.
The Court believes that, as this matter is presented to the Court, the terms and conditions of dismissal are not appropriate. Tighe v. Valencia (In re Guadarrama), 284 B.R. 463 (C.D.Ca. 2002) (the use of a false Social Security number was a "material" misstatement providing the basis for denial of discharge as a false oath) and In re Shah, 350 B.R. 69 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. 2006) (use of a false Social Security number and an incorrect name warranted denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A)).In re Riccardo, 248 B.R. 717 (Bankr.