I doubt she legally gets to keep all of it. In theory she probably cannot keep any, but if it's sufficiently hidden or already spent or given away it may be impossible to recover. The people she defrauded may accept recoverable cents on the dollar to get something back, and she may have access to more than she has to return.
I love these kinds of stories, and almost always hope that the mistaken receipient gets to keep all or at least a nice chunk of the accidental windfall.
I'm confused by the responses of people who say seriously that they would have kept it or skimmed some. Do they intend to just ignore the inevitable felony theft charges? Use up all of the stolen money in a losing legal defense?
Much of the money Bernie Madoff stole in his ponzi scheme was recovered, however the difference is that his assets were "real" things vs derivatives on made up things (like FTT) so in this case, I'm thinking the losses are lost.
That said, there are participants in the crypto-coin market who have alternative resources for recovering losses so if any of them had exposure here it might go poorly for her in prison.
Yes supposedly that's the stolen amount. I'm asking how you go from that to a mixer getting access to the 6% in its entirety. One would need to be colossally impaired to take _all_ their earnings and put them anywhere at once. Personally I'd keep 90% or more in an offline wallet stored in many places. Then slowly launder a bit of it at a time...
It’s not theft to keep a gift. The bank may have terms and conditions that allow them to try to take back the money but that won’t work if the money is gone and then the bank will have absolutely no problem telling the party that sent the money that it is their problem and they are out 10 million.
Did she file a complaint? Others have mentioned that the money is establishing a fund to refund transactions, but I doubt you'll get far into that process if a formal complaint wasn't filed.
I assume there are legal implications here, but I'm surprised that Quintillion hasn't tried to make the woman who "invested" $40,000 whole. $40K isn't a huge sum to pay for the positive PR. If the issue is that returning that money could set a precedent for other investors to try to pull their money out, could they issue her $40K in shares? Even at the highest price she could have been subject to, it would at least expose her to upside.
No. They hold onto it precisely so that no involved parties have any clue what just happened, and to allow LE time to act if necessary. If the parties are proven innocent, then monies are returned, but that usually requires a party to lawyer up.
I’ve seen it happen, with bank accounts, and sizeable sums of legitimately obtained money. HSBC sat on several million dollars of a friend’s business for two years - they couldn’t make payroll etc., and resultantly folded. They ultimately got their money back, but it took a fortune in lawyers, court visits, etc.
reply