A man robs a bank of $10K and
1. goes to a casino and loses all of it
2. goes to a big restaurant and orders dinners for everyone and drinks for the house
3. goes to basketball, football and other sporting events
4. buys all of Frank Scobletes books
5. gives a 10K donation to his church
6. buys his sons automobile and pays his sons rent for six months
He is caught by the police who know exactly where he spent his unearned money.
Do any of the above have to give back the money to the bank?
(My new book is "Confessions of a Wayward Catholic.")
1. Nope.
2. Nope. Food is down the drain.
3. Nope.
4. Yep, however many books that are still in new condition.
5. I think yes as well, unless the money's already legally committed to something.
6. Yes. Return the car for fair value and 5 month's rent back.
However, anyone who unknowingly received the dirty money is not liable.
Quote: FrankScoblete(I do not know the answer to this --- if there is an answer.)
A man robs a bank of $10K and
In all cases, the man is liable to the bank for $10K. That's an easy one. Here's a harder question from a case I worked:
A man steals $10K worth of free play dollars from another casino player. (The details about how he did it aren't important, but basically it was an inside job.) He then plays games at the casino, attempting to turn those comp dollars into real ones. Unfortunately for him, he loses. His free play coin-in is $22K and his coin-out is $13K for a net loss of $9K free play. He cashes out with $1K in USD.
How much is he liable for, and to whom?
Quote: FrankScobleteDo any of the above have to give back the money to the bank?
It depends. If they knew the money was stolen, yes. If they didn't know, then no.
I think of these as ticklish scenarios. But now look at this:
If you KNOW the money is stolen then should you accept it as payment --- is that legal? If it is legal, is it moral? What about Bernie Madoff's lawyers? He paid them with stolen money. They took it and defended him. People were devastated by Madoff's theft yet his lawyers profited.
And what about casinos who accept laundering money --- as they do in AC, although the casinos don't "know" (they know, they know) that the scruffy, low-life guy cashing hundreds of dollars in fives and 10s and 20s to play for a few minutes is a drug dealer using his drug profits. (Some have white powder under their damn noses!)
So, horrors, the innocent can be helped by crime --- even if they know it is a crime. (These are all guesses on my part. This is the first time I ever thought of this stuff.)
Unless you have been stealing money, buy my new book "Confessions of a Wayward Catholic."
Quote: MathExtremistIn all cases, the man is liable to the bank for $10K. That's an easy one. Here's a harder question from a case I worked:
A man steals $10K worth of free play dollars from another casino player. (The details about how he did it aren't important, but basically it was an inside job.) He then plays games at the casino, attempting to turn those comp dollars into real ones. Unfortunately for him, he loses. His free play coin-in is $22K and his coin-out is $13K for a net loss of $9K free play. He cashes out with $1K in USD.
How much is he liable for, and to whom?
He owes the casino player $10K.
He owes the casino $12K.
He stole 22K.
Quote: DJTeddyBearIt is my understanding that the crook, if found guilty, can then be sued to get the money back.
However, anyone who unknowingly received the dirty money is not liable.
So a lady is always in the casino ..losing night after night, thousands upon thousands of dollars.. insane amounts of money...does the casino who knows her name via her card have any moral obligation to check on her background to see if she has this kind of coin to lose? If they did check and her action doesn't match her earnings is it alright for them to let the gambling continue?
A lady embezzled roughly $4 million from her employer. She spend most of it at the casino. Her employer is now suing the casino, basically suggesting that they should have know that the money was stolen. Of course a good part of the reason they're suing the casino is because the former employee has no money to go after.
Quote: boymimboHe owes the casino player $10K.
He owes the casino $12K.
He stole 22K.
I don't understand this logic. Why does he owe the casino $12k? If he pays the other player $10k, everyone has been made whole. The casino has not lost anything (the actual results of the gambling are irrelevant)
Is the issue here that he gambled with someone else's freeplay, which is not allowed (since freeplay is non-transferrable?)
also by the way math extremist- what was the result in that instance?