same office, with employees for one of the entities permitted access to the corporate documents of the other. Also significant is the fact that the entities were not financially independent. Accounting services rendered to one entity were invoiced to another entity, and a statement for legal services performed on behalf of many of the veil-pierced entities was sent to Nancy Thompson at IPA. Moreover, wire-transfer receipts and financial statements obtained by the investors demonstrate that money was transferred between entities and withdrawn from them in large sums by the Thompsons. A negative inference can also be drawn from the Thompsons’ decision to invoke their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. See Crockarell v. Crockarell, 631 N.W.2d 829, 833-34 (Minn.App.2001) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. Oct. 16, 2001). Based on
holding that although witness may invoke right against selfincrimination in civil proceeding district court may make negative inferences from invocation of right holding that the fifth amendment right against selfincrimination was not prejudiced by a prior administrative proceeding based on the same facts holding that a witness may invoke the privilege against selfincrimination at trial despite testifying previously before a grand jury in the same case holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific holding that the privilege against selfincrimination does not prohibit the trier of fact in a civil case from drawing adverse inferences from a witness refusal to testify