I wonder if you could (or they did) set up a scheme like that. āAccidentallyā send money to some homeless guy who would āgamble it awayā while in reality transfer it to whoever set up the scheme.
Itās just a quick thought but these schemes certainly exist in real life. Itās not at all uncommon for companies to be registered onto some alcoholic half-homeless guy so when courts and police get involved officially criminals have nothing to do with the company and good luck seizing anything from a person who doesnāt own anything.
Gambling 287000 pounds sounds odd, since that is the kind of money you expect to WIN from a lottary, not lose it ā¦
now I enjoy a good bet myself and Iād bet good money that the dude knew exactly where that money came from and that eventually the mistake would have been found out and the town would want its money back. Ergo, he knew that this kind of money couldnāt stay in his bank account and he had to funnel them somewhere else and the āgamblingā is an excuse/smokescreen to never return the money.
It would have been funny if he āgambledā it on LUNA, eh?
Yes and no, if you pardon the expression.
Letās say if you are Charles Barkley who is so known and open about his excessive gambling that he even made fun of himself on SNL (video below), then yeah, 287000 pounds might be just āa night outā or even a couple of hours worth of gambling, because he is so rich. His gambling āgoalā is to get millions and in the process he is naturally losing hundreds of thousands.
A normal person gambling, letās say 10-20 euros per week is dreaming to hit the jackpot to GAIN a few hundreds of thousands and in the process lose an acceptable amount of money each time (in their case, dozens of euros). It is very unlikely that someone that is a poor person just happened to land the jackpot via bank accident and also happened to be a massive gambling addict that went and burned all that money away so fast.
It is more likely that he exchanged all that money that he knew heād have had to give back, for some winning lottery tickets that soon some of his family members (who are not liable to return any money) will āhappen to winā in the coming weeks
If we were to bet on which of the two scenarios is more likely, Iād put good money on the second one, thatās all I am saying.
P.s.
The SNL video on Barkleyās gambling. I love that dude.
I really donāt want to respond, since I know from experience how this ends, but Iāll bite just once and then go to sleep.
What you describe is not a gambling addict; gambling addicts donāt spend 10-20 euros per week, they spend every penny they have and then some. Gambling addiction is a pretty serious psychological condition, comparable to things like substance abuse, itās not based on reason, like you portray it to be.
A gambler might think that the āgoalā is to win a big sum of money, they may even rationalise their gambling addiction like that, but thatās not what physiologically is the case. Gamblers get a rush from winning, and itās that rush that theyāre after, not the money. A problematic gambler wonāt stop gambling after winning the jackpot for more or less the same reason that a heroin addict wonāt stop using heroin after getting a great high. Itās because gambling is an addiction, itās not rational.
I did once watch a documentary about gambling, where they interviewed several gamblers. They all had similar stories, and each included hitting ājackpotā from time to time, but somehow losing all that money more or less immediately with more gambling. Itās part of the reinforcement of the addiction to have huge upsets from time to time.
Then he doesnāt have a gambling problem.
Now, as for betting on which of the two scenarios is more likely, Iād like to introduce you to two (or three) factors that you mightāve missed:
The recipient of the money was already very poor, since the money was coming out of a relieve fund. Guess in which income layer of the population youād have most chance to find a gambler with such a bad addiction that they literally spent all their money on gambling? The percentages differ by country, but itās not uncommon for 1 in every 100 people to have a gambling problem. The fact that this person is known to be poor significantly increases that percentage.
The second factor is survivor bias. If this was a wrongful transaction and the money got returned by a good samaritan, then it wouldnāt be a news article.
Sure, it could be fraud or corruption, but then we know that this is a Japanese man and Japan is not typically known for its rampant corruption.
I think Iād take that bet from you, and bet that this man is actually a gambling addict.
Yes, I see the misunderstanding, but I am pretty sure I said: āA normal person gamblingā
People are assuming that he is telling the truth and that this fellow is indeed a gambling addict and all those things, but I made no such assumptions.
gambling addicts donāt spend 10-20 euros per week, they spend every penny they have and then some. (and the other paragraphs)
So, you are quite correct on that, and I totally agree, but it was just not part of my point
He does/did. Just because he is rich that does not mean that he does not suffer from the addiction. It is just that he is less likely to end up bankrupt and homeless from it, but it can happen.
The only stereotypes I operate with are the ones concerning my nationality because a lot of them contain quite a bit of truth and I can actually check if their points are true.
Since Iāve never been to Japan, Iād take a stereotype with a few grains of salt, so while I do understand that the Japanese society has a good reputation on following rules and laws, I would bet my money on the broader concept of human nature when it comes to individuals.
and Japan is not typically known for its rampant corruption.
I saw a YT ādocumentaryā about "what happened to TOSHIBA - which was very interesting and I remembered this:
When it comes to odds, I bet on:
human nature >> social contract
I think we prefer break-ins: āI took the files/money home for convenience and got robbed on the very same day!ā
The āaccidental depositā is a common scam scenario and I think the ones who deposited should be looked into more than the āgamblerā (probably same team). Receivers get scared, try to get out fast, look suspicious and get all the heat, while the āsendersā have it easy.
(They can often be the same team, but someone has to be the victim, I guess)
I read about stuff like this, but wouldnāt say itās common. What seems to be really common though are guys who have their company (and also their house) registered on their wife in order to minimize the child support payments for the kids from their previous relationship(s).
might have been a better choice.
