and (6) the general chronology of the events and transactions under inquiry. See Nate B. & Francis Spingold Foundation, Inc. v. Halperin (In re Halperin), 215 B.R. 321, 329 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1997) (citing Salomon v. Kaiser (In re Kaiser), 722 F.2d 1574, 1582-83 (2d Cir.1983)). The one-year requirement can be extended under the Continuing Concealment Doctrine (the “Doctrine”). The Doctrine loosens the one-year requirement by precluding a discharge when the acts constituting the debtor’s fraud began before the one-year period prior to the petition date and continued into that time period. The fraudulent act can extend into the pre-petition year even if the debtor merely allowed the property to remain concealed during that critical year. See Rosen v. Bezner, 996 F.2d 1527, 1531 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). A typical Continuing Concealment claim
recognizing the term act includes a failure to do any act which the law requires one to perform holding that a mere failure to reveal hidden assets can invoke the doctrine even without any other act in the prepetition year recognizing doctrine holding defendant must demonstrate prejudice in order to invoke duplicity doctrine because the doctrine is more than an exercise of mere formalism holding that the mere failure to investigate does not constitute suppression of the evidence