a fortune that had obviously been stolen or embezzled

[Tony_M]

Hello.

The dialogue is mine.

A: Some people inherit a lot of money from their parents. Do you think that money should be taxed by the government?
B: Well, that depends on a few different factors. First, the amount of money being inherited matters, and, probably, if we know that the children of a wealthy politician are going to inherit a fortune that had obviously been stolen or embezzled, it makes sense to tax the money. But, of course, there should be some evidence.

Should I use the past perfect for the part in bold?

Thank you.

 

[5jj]

I'd use present perfect; I see no need for a 'past past'.

 

[Tony_M]

That sentence sounds ambiguous. The politician might still be alive.

1. If we know that the children of a wealthy politician are going to inherit a fortune that has obviously been stolen or embezzled, it makes sense to tax the money. (It's a possible future situation. The politician might be alive, and he's already stolen a lot of money.)

2. If we know that the children of a late wealthy politician are going to inherit a fortune that had obviously been stolen or embezzled, it makes sense to tax the money. (The politician died, but before that he'd stolen a lot of money.)

3. If we know that the children of a wealthy politician who has just passed away/passed away are going to inherit a fortune that had obviously been stolen or embezzled, it makes sense to tax the money.

Are the tenses in bold appropriate?

Thank you.