Why isn&#39;t a casino forced to return funds lost by an embezzler? If person A steals something, say a bicycle, and sells it to me (I have no knowledge that the bicycle was stolen) the law says I must return the bike to its rightful owner without any compensation - except that I can pursue legal action against the person that sold me the bike. If this is true, why is not a casino forced to return gambling losses (winnings from the casino's perspective) from a person that used embezzled funds to gamble with? (for instance, see this recent article) Question 1: Is my assumption correct? Question 2: What is the difference between these two scenarios?
Because casinos don’t accept bicycles They insist on cash With normal property, a possessor can never pass on better title than they have. Since the thief never owned the bicycle, you don’t own the bicycle. Cash (which includes electronic cash) is a negotiable instrument and different rules apply. A holder in good faith of a negotiable instrument owns it. So if a thief stole cash, they don’t own it but when they spend that cash (at a casino or otherwise) the seller does own it. The previous owner can pursue the thief for their loss but not a person who received the cash in good faith (i.e. without knowing it was stolen). The reason for this distinction in the law is to provide certainty. If you can’t trust the money (and other things like bearer bonds) the system collapses.
You are conflating the crime against the state of possession stolen goods with the common law tort against the owner for conversion. To your questions: How would this proceed? It seems like it would be very difficult to prove (short of getting public surveillance footage) that I even bought the item. If you read the second paragraph of the page you linked it says: In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods or property and knew they were stolen, then the individual is typically charged ... If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Proof of the crime involves a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of evidence of both the fact that you have the goods and that you knew they were stolen. If you become aware that they were stolen (e.g. the police tell you) and try to keep them then you have just committed the crime. Proof of the tort requires a "balance of probabilities" standard of evidence that you have the goods and that they belong to someone else; your knowledge that they were stolen is immaterial. In the first instance, the police would probably knock on your door, tell you why they were there and ask if the version of the story they have from the thief is essentially true. What happens next depends on your response: "Yes, I knew it was stolen; you better arrest me and I will plead guilty." This will play out as you expect. "Yes, I didn't know it was stolen, I will go and get it for you." You return the goods, give a statement and may have to act as a witness in the prosecution of the thief. You are down $1,000 but are now older and wiser. "No, I have no idea what you are talking about." Well, you have now committed the crime of hindering a police investigation and have also committed the crime of possessing stolen goods - you can no longer claim that you didn't know the goods were stolen; the police have told you they are. What happens next depends on if the police believe you or the thief. Surely they couldn't/wouldn't get a warrant to search my house? Want to bet? They certainly have enough to get a search warrant if they want one (probably). Whether they seek one probably depends on the value of the goods, how busy they are and how much you pissed them off. Could I be prosecuted if I didn't know it was stolen? Not if you return it as soon as practicable after being made aware that they were. The scam This seems like a lot of work for a very small return - spend your time worrying about things that are more likely to happen. Good Title All of this is tied up with the concept of good title. Basically, you cannot gain good title to property from someone who does not have good title themselves; if you buy goods from a thief you do not own them. For example, if A has good title to the goods, B steals them and sells them to C who sells them to D then A still owns them and can demand their return from D, D could demand the return of their money from C and C could do likewise with B but as far as A is concerned it doesn't matter that C &amp; B have lost money; that is simply too bad for them.
Free draws are outside the remit of the Gambling Act 2005 per this guidance from the Gambling Commission (section 4 from page 5 onwards). an arrangement is a lottery only if the participants are required to pay to enter. Therefore, free draws always have been and remain exempt from statutory control. Schedule 2 to the Act gives details of what is to be treated as amounting to ‘payment to enter’ for the purposes of distinguishing free draws from lotteries. Given that there is an alternative route (sending a letter by post) to entering the prize draw, it can be regarded as a &quot;free draw&quot; and is not considered gambling. To answer the other questions: Does that sound like a scheme for gig organisers to avoid having to refund / being held to account? Is it legal proof? No. It seems entirely pragmatic to be upfront that the gigs will not be going ahead until it's safe enough to withdraw social distancing guidelines. I don't know what you mean by &quot;legal proof&quot; here. If someone wins entry (having paid a &quot;donation&quot;) but the organisers never deem it safe for the gig to happen, will the donor be entitled to a refund? It seems unlikely that there is a contract here. You are not buying a ticket, merely the right to enter a draw which may reward you with a ticket. I suppose you could argue that a contract has been formed if you have the right to dispose of your right to enter the draw, but it seems worthless to me and I can't imagine that any valuable consideration has exchanged hands as a result. Still, it would be a matter for a court to decide on the facts at the end of the day.
No. This would not be illegal. You are not trespassing or breaking and entering since you have permission to be on the premises, and you are the rightful owner of the guitar so you are not depriving him of property that belongs to him. If you did this with the assistance of a law enforcement officer, rather than Bob's family, without a court order describing the property to be retrieved, this would be called a "civil assist". If the guitar were collateral for a loan, it would be a self-help "repossession" (a.k.a. "repo") authorized by the Uniform Commercial Code if it could be accomplished without a breach of the peace, and it would not require a court order. If you did this pursuant to a court order the case you brought to retrieve the guitar would be called a "replevin action" and you would also need to obtain a "writ of assistance" to authorize a trespass in the presence of law enforcement to retrieve the guitar. Also, Bob would still be be guilty of the crime of theft of the guitar, even though you got it back, because he took it with an intent to permanently deprive you, its owner, of the property that belongs to you. You could also probably sue him for conversion or "civil theft" in some jurisdictions, but your damages would be nominal except for punitive or statutory damages under a civil theft statute, because you ultimately got the guitar back, and so you suffered only minimal economic harm.
california This is a lottery, and thus illegal as a for-profit business Calfornia Penal Code § 319 defines a &quot;lottery&quot; as any scheme for the disposal or distribution of property by chance, among persons who have paid or promised to pay any valuable consideration for the chance of obtaining such property or a portion of it, or for any share or any interest in such property, upon any agreement, understanding, or expectation that it is to be distributed or disposed of by lot or chance.&quot; Under Calfornia Penal Code § 320 (with some later exceptions for nonprofit charities), Every person who contrives, prepares, sets up, proposes, or draws any lottery, is guilty of a misdemeanor People v. Settles held that an obligation, such as the one you propose, is &quot;property&quot; within the meaning of the above section of the Penal Code: The duty of the operators of this game to permit the winner to play further games free is an obligation arising from contract, and the right of the player in the matter is personal property (Civ. Code, sec. 663), and a thing in action. It is, therefore, property within the meaning of [29 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 787] section 319, Penal Code. Therefore, running this scheme as a for-profit business would constitute a misdemeanor in California.
In at least one jurisdiction for at least one game type, the answer is "Yes". Modern slot machines and internet slot games are software, and yes, payout ratios are set as a parameter in the software, as an explicit bias in the software. There are statutory minimum payouts in some jurisdictions. The exact parameterized payout ratio for any specific game does not need to be made clear to a player. The jurisdiction may test, approve, and gather and publish aggregate statistics for all casino games. As I am most familiar with New Jersey casinos: as a recent innovation in the law, New Jersey casinos can operate internet games. They are regulated by the Casino Control Commission of New Jersey. The Commission approves all games, and gathers and publishes statistics about the aggregate payout ratio which is shared by third party sites and becomes cited in advertisements (so there is a market based component to keep casinos from setting the parameters too far out of the pack of their competitors: NJ's statutory minimum payout ratio is 83% but you can see at the second link that all NJ casinos hover around 90-91% for the 2014 year of data). http://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/gamingsites.html http://www.americancasinoguide.com/slot-machine-payback-statistics.html#New-Jersey If there is a new game or new software, before it is placed in service, it must be tested by the Commission; and the code employed by the casino must be a "true copy" of the code as tested. I don't know for certain if "pseudorandom" artifacts are a sufficient reason for failure in game testing for the Commission, but maybe you can find more to your specific case here: http://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/tsb_mission.html
I am just a foreign patent attorney who is studying common law to pass the California Bar Exam, but I will present my personal view. (I cannot guarantee the validity of my theory) There is an equitable theory called Constructive Trust. If it is established, the victim is entitled to benefit of any increase in value of defendant's (thief) property, meaning in this example victim (plaintiff) can recover $100 million. In order to assert CT, the following must be met: Wrongful appropriation; Here, D stole lottery ticket. Met. D has title; Here, D has title to $100 million. Met. P can trace his property to D's property; P can trace from P's $1 lottery ticket to its possession by D and collection by D of $100 million. Met. Unjust enrichment by D; D was enriched by stealing P's property (the lottery ticket). Met. Thus, it is highly possible that a court will order D to hold the property ($100 million) in constructive trust for P. This means, in plain language, that P will recover $100 million.
In the worst case if they shut shop, then how might I go about getting my money back? It is unlikely that you can. A SAFE is not a loan (and for that matter isn't even a share in the company) and doesn't create an enforceable contractual right to get your money back. If you make an equity investment and the company loses money and goes out of business, you lose everything you invested. If the promoter made false representations that induced you to invest, or actively concealed material facts about the investment, you might be able to sue the promoter for securities fraud under federal regulation 10b-5, or under a state securities law, or under a common law fraud theory. You could also sue to issuer of the investment (i.e. the company) but that would usually be futile because the company is broke and hence judgment proof. State or federal securities regulators or a local district attorney or state attorney-general might pursue the case in lieu of a private civil action by you, but getting them to take action is often quite difficult. But, if your investment wasn't induced by fraud and instead the management of the company simply made bad decisions that caused the company to fail, you have no remedy. The investment was for a SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity). I have the signed SAFE with me. This is a very unusual way for a QoZ to be structured, which adds to the sense that this may have been a shady venture.