Name changed for obvious reasons...
It's not really a relationship question but I'm not strong enough for AIBU and I don't really know where it fits. I don't need relationship advice exactly just an opinion on this...
DH can't handle checking details, he often makes mistakes. But he can also lie and be manipulative.
Recent examples: No one watches Sky in our house so we decided to cancel it. It's in DH's name so he had to do it. He instead signed up for the basic package because "otherwise we can't get BBC". True, we don't have an aerial but you get BBC if you are churning. He just doesn't research or check things. On the other hand, in the same week he happily admitted to "screwing someone over a bit" (someone who works for us).
I don't want to influence people so I am going to set out the bare basics.
He set up a new business for us in November. The new business is based in an area of expertise that is my field but he also has some skills. We have an old business in a related field that we both have skills in but it is declining and not doing well. We own it 50:50.
In January, he closed the old business. He then needed to set up a bank account for the new business. He signed my signature for convenience. He told me he had signed after he had done it. He's signed things for me before.
Nothing arrived for me for the new bank account. I called the bank to ask why and they said that I was an "authority" on the account but not a signatory. DH says that he thought he the forms he had signed my name on made me a signatory. Having requested a copy of the forms, it is clear to anyone that reads the small print that is not the case. Except he doesn't read things...
Then I checked Companies House. I only have class B shares in the new company. He owns all the class A shares. I am company secretary. He is the only director.
I confronted him about the bank account. He was confused as to why I wasn't a signatory and said it was a mistake - he was in a rush when he did it. He pointed out that he had told the bank that I am company secretary so clearly he wasn't hiding anything, he had made things the same as they were with the other company. So I asked him about how he had set up the new company. His reply was "it's 50:50. Well, not 50:50, 'they" don't like that any more so I had to set it up with class A and Class B shares, that's how it's done now, but you can set them up so they have the same rights". He said that is what what the formation company who set it up advised him. I read to him from our company formation documents on Companies House, which doesn't give the class shares equal rights. He then said, "that's not how I did it, you can set them up differently" so I pointed out that it was our docs I was reading from. His reply was that he didn't tell them to do that, he'd had to speak to different people to do what he wanted because they didn't understand, they were multiple phone calls and an email because they didn't understand what he wanted, they must have got it wrong. He then said "I did it that way because you said you don't want liability". I didn't say that but I did say I was unhappy about things he had done with the old company without my knowledge.
I called the formation company. They seemed surprised that any of their staff would have said that 50:50 share distributions weren't normal as that is quite common.
Sorry for rambling. Please be objective, don't read between the lines to look for motivations. On the basic evidence, just what he said, do you think he is lying?