Bryan Singer
EXCLUSIVE

Bryan Singer Oddly Responds to Rape Allegations by Highlighting His Accuser’s Bankruptcy

Bryan Singer is finally responding to the lawsuit accusing him of raping a then 17-year-old boy back in 2003 — not by refuting the allegations but instead focusing on the accuser’s past financial troubles.

In court documents obtained by The Blast, Singer does not address the sexual abuse allegations made by Cesar Sanchez-Guzman. Instead, the director reveals that Sanchez-Guzman filed for bankruptcy in 2014 and received a discharge of his debts.

Singer says Sanchez-Guzman’s bankruptcy petition never mentioned any claims against him over the alleged rape, which would have become property of the bankruptcy estate and could have become an asset to pay off his debt.

Singer says that since the alleged incident took place years before the bankruptcy was filed, it would mean Sanchez-Guzman violated the law by not disclosing it. He points out that bankruptcy law clearly states if a debtor makes false statements, they could be fined up to $500,000 and imprisonment for up to five years or both.

He claims that Sanchez-Guzman “should not now be permitted to benefit from his violation of the law.”

Singer also claims that since the alleged incident occurred in 2003, the statute of limitations has expired.

In his suit, Sanchez-Guzman claims while on a yacht in Seattle, Singer forced him to perform oral sex and proceeded to perform oral sex on Sanchez-Guzman and then allegedly anally penetrated him.

Following the incident, he alleged Bryan Singer talked to him about helping him get into acting but only if he stayed silent about the rape.

He sued seeking unspecified damages.

The case is ongoing.

A lawyer for Singer tells The Blast, “Bryan has publicly denied the 15-year old allegations since they were first made last year. We issued a statement to that effect. This was a motion to dismiss based on procedural grounds. The plaintiff never asserted this claim as he was required to under federal law when he filed for bankruptcy protection in 2014. Indeed, in response to our motion, the plaintiff was forced to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding and moved to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as the real party in interest.”