If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courthouse News Service)   "Ma'am, there's no way you can afford to gamble all of this money away." Said no casino employee ever   (courthousenews.com) divider line 28
    More: Strange, accounts receivable, slot machines, Jane Doe, Ameristar  
•       •       •

2422 clicks; posted to Business » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-29 11:23:20 AM
"Ameristar knew the money Doe was using to gamble was embezzled or stolen or had information that would lead a reasonable person to believe the money Doe was using to gamble was embezzled or stolen."

That's a real longshot. But how many lawyers will say "your case has low odds and would only waste my $350 per hour fee?"

"Ameristar patrons specifically asked Ameristar cashiers what the source of Doe's funding was.

I hope the cashiers told them "none of your business." If I am giving a casino millions I expect employees to turn down the gossip.
 
2013-04-29 11:25:54 AM
Look, you've got to expect these sorts of things when you hire someone named Jane Doe to be your controller.

Though I suppose Doe could have been her married name.  Anyway, still, be cautious.
 
2013-04-29 11:28:50 AM
That's a lot of Doe
 
2013-04-29 11:37:37 AM
It claims its employee, Jane Doe, blew more than $3 million of the $4 million she embezzled

If your internal controls are shiatty enough to let someone siphon off $4 million, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Sign your own damn checks next time, and things like this won't happen.
 
2013-04-29 12:01:02 PM
This lady that I used to work with was telling me about how when Mississippi legalized river boat gambling they set up one near the town she grew up in. She said within 5 years the company that owned the riverboat owned close to 70% of the homes and property in the surrounding towns.
 
2013-04-29 12:13:38 PM
"Please gamble responsibly."
 
2013-04-29 12:15:41 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It claims its employee, Jane Doe, blew more than $3 million of the $4 million she embezzled

If your internal controls are shiatty enough to let someone siphon off $4 million, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Sign your own damn checks next time, and things like this won't happen.


This.

The casino has no responsibility to run a background check on everyone who plays in the casino to find out where they get their money.
 
2013-04-29 01:03:16 PM
Well, I can kind of see the point of the suit.  If someone walks up to you in the parking lot of the local grocery store and offers to sell you a brand new iPad for $50, and they take you to a beat up van, and have a stack of them in the back, claiming "I didn't realize it was stolen" is NOT going to let you dodge the charges of receiving stolen property if the cops catch up with you.  If you're running a casino, and some middle aged woman in a JC Penny's pantsuit comes in and starts cashing multiple $10,000 checks a week, you can't tell me that doesn't raise some red flags, and it might be smart to do some checking up.  You know she probably didn't get that money legally.
 
2013-04-29 01:06:45 PM

devildog123: Well, I can kind of see the point of the suit.  If someone walks up to you in the parking lot of the local grocery store and offers to sell you a brand new iPad for $50, and they take you to a beat up van, and have a stack of them in the back, claiming "I didn't realize it was stolen" is NOT going to let you dodge the charges of receiving stolen property if the cops catch up with you.  If you're running a casino, and some middle aged woman in a JC Penny's pantsuit comes in and starts cashing multiple $10,000 checks a week, you can't tell me that doesn't raise some red flags, and it might be smart to do some checking up.  You know she probably didn't get that money legally.


This isn't James Bond, people aren't dressing up to go to casinos.
 
2013-04-29 01:09:25 PM
So what happens with embezzled money in a case where it's been spent and there is no tangible asset that you can sell off to recoup the loss? Get it back from the seller (or casino in this case)? Or are you just SOL?
 
2013-04-29 01:57:24 PM

JustMatt: So what happens with embezzled money in a case where it's been spent and there is no tangible asset that you can sell off to recoup the loss? Get it back from the seller (or casino in this case)? Or are you just SOL?


Doe has entered into a settlement agreement that admits to the embezzlement  [...] Doe cannot repay the amount embezzled or stolen from plaintiff.

My guess? SOL.
 
2013-04-29 01:59:33 PM
I'd also find it hard to believe that casino employees would direct some to winning or losing slot machines.  That sounds like a great way to end up in the back room with 2 broken hands.
 
2013-04-29 02:19:43 PM
They might have the casino if the checks she was cashing had the company logo or something. I would say that should raise red flags. Or if she put in a credit application and stated her income as 60K a year, then proceeded to blow 4 mil in a few years. Also a red flag.
 
2013-04-29 03:16:26 PM

Honest Bender: Doe cannot repay the amount embezzled or stolen from plaintiff.


D'oh!
 
2013-04-29 03:38:07 PM

JustMatt: So what happens with embezzled money in a case where it's been spent and there is no tangible asset that you can sell off to recoup the loss? Get it back from the seller (or casino in this case)? Or are you just SOL?


Or do you give her more money and let it ride, baby!

/Nothing sadder than the oxygen tank, SS check lever pullers.
 
2013-04-29 03:40:49 PM
I can't see this lawsuit going anywhere.
 
2013-04-29 04:43:10 PM
I've blown plenty money at that casino, an ex of mine worked there for awhile, and I'm pretty tight with a lawyer at the firm that's representing Columbo Candy, so you can imagine that I got a bit of a kick out of that story.
 
2013-04-29 05:01:44 PM
She was writing checks out of her own personal account, not out of the business account.  The business had terrible internal controls if it couldn't notice that all these ACH transfers were going into a non-vendor account.

So as to the pathetic argument that somehow the casino is responsible for the business not knowing its comptroller was an incompetent crook:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-29 05:36:03 PM
When I first read the story, I didn't think there was a case, but when I read "Doe would routinely obtain cash in $10,000 increments several times a night." I started rethinking my stance.
If the casino followed Title 31 regulations and reported all these $10K transactions to the IRS, then there is no case.
If they didn't, then they did f*** up.
/Been working in casino for 15 years
 
2013-04-29 06:14:57 PM
The candy company is also suing an independent accountant for "strongly" recommending this woman for her job as controller, and for not catching her shenanigans when he "reviewed" their books.  But I guess his pockets aren't deep enough, either.

From TFA, I don't see where the casino had any duty to the candy company.  I don't see the company having standing to sue the casino.
 
2013-04-30 01:47:26 AM
Casinos know your financial data. That's how they manage comps and pain points. They knew something was up.

Also, IANAL, but if I sell you stolen goods, those goods are still stolen and must be returned to the owner. Neglect is no excuse, and certainly not willful neglect.

Just because Doe's company was run by morons doesn't mean that the casino isn't a bunch of pig-farkers.
 
2013-04-30 09:31:50 AM
Anyone else read the headline in Archers voice?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 09:47:37 AM
goatleggedfellow

You can acquire good title to stolen property if you buy it from somebody that does business in that sort of property. America decided that avoiding uncertainty in commercial transactions is worth the occasional unrecoverable stolen item. If you buy it off the back of a truck, or from your neighbor, you do so at your own risk.

Rules for checks are also designed to reduce commercial uncertainty. Banks are generally not responsible for unauthorized use of an account by an authorized person. There was a case in the First Circuit recently where the customer's computers got hacked and generated unusual transfers. The bank had tried to contract away liability but the court said its poor security and failure to investigate was too egregious to overlook. The transfers could be considered unauthorized.
 
2013-04-30 11:42:36 AM
Can't post pics cause I'm on mobile but I'm shocked nobody has posted Philip Seymour Hoffman yet.
 
2013-04-30 02:49:05 PM
Courts have very little sympathy for companies that do not follow their own SOP's.
The candy co. has a good chance of winning this one.
 
2013-04-30 04:33:55 PM

goatleggedfellow: Casinos know your financial data. That's how they manage comps and pain points. They knew something was up.


Wrong.  Depending on your bank the most many casinos will know is how many digits you usually maintain in your bank accounts.  As long as the check is going to clear, they don't care about your credit score.  Additionally your financial data has nothing to do with comps and bonus points.  How much you play does.
 
2013-04-30 07:03:53 PM

BizarreMan: goatleggedfellow: Casinos know your financial data. That's how they manage comps and pain points. They knew something was up.

Wrong.  Depending on your bank the most many casinos will know is how many digits you usually maintain in your bank accounts.  As long as the check is going to clear, they don't care about your credit score.  Additionally your financial data has nothing to do with comps and bonus points.  How much you play does.


So you're saying they knew she was dropping her yearly salary on a daily basis?

I'm sure you're right that the casino doesn't know your credit score, but they have a rough idea of what you can afford to lose.

They know your background and marketing data. That's how they estimate when to step in and "comfort" you with free stuff. If you lose so much relative to your means that you start having a bad day, they start comping you with little bitty bonus so your money keeps flowing at a maximum. They may comp your cheap ass with cheap drinks, but big spenders get big comps.
 
2013-04-30 07:09:43 PM

ZAZ: goatleggedfellow

You can acquire good title to stolen property if you buy it from somebody that does business in that sort of property. America decided that avoiding uncertainty in commercial transactions is worth the occasional unrecoverable stolen item. If you buy it off the back of a truck, or from your neighbor, you do so at your own risk.

Rules for checks are also designed to reduce commercial uncertainty. Banks are generally not responsible for unauthorized use of an account by an authorized person. There was a case in the First Circuit recently where the customer's computers got hacked and generated unusual transfers. The bank had tried to contract away liability but the court said its poor security and failure to investigate was too egregious to overlook. The transfers could be considered unauthorized.


Good points.

Given how much number-crunching casinos do, where would this situation fall on the scale of: 1= unknowing and 10= buying off the back of a truck? How likely were they to know that something was seriously amiss?
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report