Erika Girardi/Erika Jayne: Let them eat cake

[RoseAllDay]

On 8/30/2021 at 11:59 AM, funnygirl said:

"For Erika" is currently a trending topic on my Twitter, and it's a bunch of people submitting their RHOBH reunion questions to Andy.  Needless to say, they are keeping their foot on Erika's neck and calling out the others. Will be interesting to see if Andy actually hits Erika with the hard questions. He has that annoying tendency to go light on his favorites.

She’ll most likely do what a lot of them have done when their seat gets a little too hot. She’ll get all indignant and then leave. (If that happens, I hope they get reaction shots of Garcelle and Sutton.) I can’t imagine her answering anything related to the case, anyway. (At least I hope she’s learned that lesson.) 

When are they taping the reunion? I would think Erika’s degree of radioactivity will determine the level of Andy’s groveling.

[Adeejay]

Seems Erika Jane spent  $156,600 at DNA Inc. 

Ronald Richards tells Radar, “We have no reason to believe those charges are for any other company than her friend Lisa Rinna’s daughters’ company. It looks like she threw them a large bone with these excessive purchases. Lisa and Erika have a close relationship including sharing business managers and Lisa has taken an active role in assisting Erika since she left Tom Girardi.”

Edited September 1, 2021 by Adeejay

[Carolina Girl]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:17 AM, Mar said:

Looks like some of the law firm money went into Erica’s account, from which she gave or loaned $156,000 to Rinna’s daughters’ attempted clothing line. Aha!

So many payments to talent accounts, entertainment accounts.  I'm starting to wonder if SHE paid the venues to let her perform.  

[chlban]

Gee looks like Lisa needed an attorney more than Sutton did. I doubt there would be legal repercussions but stolen money has to be returned. I somehow doubt Lisa, and certainly not her kids, have that much money laying around.

[Cosmocrush]

3 hours ago, chlban said:

Gee looks like Lisa needed an attorney more than Sutton did. I doubt there would be legal repercussions but stolen money has to be returned. I somehow doubt Lisa, and certainly not her kids, have that much money laying around.

If the merchandise, services, etc. were bought even with stolen money, DNA Inc does not need to return money.  IF a vendor/friend/person was HOLDING the money for Erika then it needs to be returned.   For example, Tom gave a ton of money to worthy, real charities.  Those contributions do not need to be returned.  If however they were just holding/hiding the money then yes, it would need to be returned. 

At least that's the way attorney Emily D. Baker explained it the other night on her podcast.  

[glowbug]

2 hours ago, Cosmocrush said:

If the merchandise, services, etc. were bought even with stolen money, DNA Inc does not need to return money.  IF a vendor/friend/person was HOLDING the money for Erika then it needs to be returned.   For example, Tom gave a ton of money to worthy, real charities.  Those contributions do not need to be returned.  If however they were just holding/hiding the money then yes, it would need to be returned. 

At least that's the way attorney Emily D. Baker explained it the other night on her podcast.  

It's interesting that there is a difference in the law apparently when it comes to stolen goods and stolen money. If you purchase a stolen good (car, jewelry, etc.) even without realizing it's stolen, you have to return it to the original owner and be out the money unless you can somehow recoup it from the person who sold you the stolen good, but if you provide a service or good in exchange for stolen money you don't have to return the money so long as you didn't know it was stolen. I wonder what the justification is for treating these two things differently in terms of the law. 

[hoodooznoodooz]

11 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

So many payments to talent accounts, entertainment accounts.  I'm starting to wonder if SHE paid the venues to let her perform.  

Look how much money they poured into this con, to make it seem as if Erika was a pop star. At a certain point, don’t you look at the numbers and say, “We aren’t fooling anyone.” I would not be surprised to learn that they paid people to attend her “concerts.” 

[nexxie]

Conning people and money laundering are business-as-usual in the U.S. - many people admire the perpetrators, even when they see the con.

[Lady Lucy]

Quote

Those contributions do not need to be returned.  If however they were just holding/hiding the money then yes, it would need to be returned. 

At least that's the way attorney Emily D. Baker explained it the other night on her podcast.  

That's interesting. In Bernie Madoff's bankruptcy, charities had to return money. Lots of innocent investors had to return money. (It's called claw back.) I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the legal basis. Maybe it has something to do with it was a criminal case in addition to a bankruptcy. But isn't Tom's case also a criminal case? (I don't think Erika has been charged criminally. Yet. But remember Mrs. Madoff had to return the vast majority of her money and assets.  This may get very interesting.) 

 

[tvfanatic13]

12 hours ago, Cosmocrush said:

If the merchandise, services, etc. were bought even with stolen money, DNA Inc does not need to return money.  IF a vendor/friend/person was HOLDING the money for Erika then it needs to be returned.   For example, Tom gave a ton of money to worthy, real charities.  Those contributions do not need to be returned.  If however they were just holding/hiding the money then yes, it would need to be returned. 

At least that's the way attorney Emily D. Baker explained it the other night on her podcast.  

That is generally true. I have been a bankruptcy lawyer for 32 years. If the law firm fraudulently transferred assets to EJ or her LLCs (without consideration, actual fraud, etc.), a subsequent transferee from her if they took in good faith and without knowledge of the original fraudulent transfer, may keep the money. 

However, even if EJ received the money without knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the transfer, she still is liable to repay it. 

[pasdetrois]

How much of the money to DNA was actually used for the girls' "salaries," I wonder.

I keep thinking about money laundering (which I've never understood). Years ago I'd pop into a dress shop that never had customers. Not one, although the merchandise would change. Eventually I read that the owners were indicted for money laundering.

[Door County Cherry]

3 hours ago, Lady Lucy said:

it has something to do with it was a criminal case in addition to a bankruptcy.

I'd imagine that if it's goods that were purchased, that would be part of the estate that  would be sold.  For instance,  they're not going to go after the jewelers who sold her jewelry; they'll try to sell the jewels even though it's unlikely they'll get what was paid for them.

[WhatAmIWatching]

Would they add that to Erika's tab? If she invested/donated/paid for something, and the receiver isn't responsible to repay, will she be on the hook for those amounts?

[gingerella]

20 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

So many payments to talent accounts, entertainment accounts.  I'm starting to wonder if SHE paid the venues to let her perform.  

I wonder what all these accounts really are...

[pasdetrois]

In some cases, there should be IRS 1099s (reporting of payment to sole proprietors and some LLCs for services rendered). The social media shade I read stated that Erika had failed to handle some 1099s to glam staff properly. For large dollar amounts, or for significant numbers of vendors, that's a red flag to the IRS.

[Cosmocrush]

4 hours ago, tvfanatic13 said:

That is generally true. I have been a bankruptcy lawyer for 32 years. If the law firm fraudulently transferred assets to EJ or her LLCs (without consideration, actual fraud, etc.), a subsequent transferee from her if they took in good faith and without knowledge of the original fraudulent transfer, may keep the money.

However, even if EJ received the money without knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the transfer, she still is liable to repay it. 

Would that be because the law firm is listed as community property?  

 

Edited to add:  I was generally referring to persons/vendors/etc. outside of Erika Jayne Giradi in my post but thank you  @tvfanatic for clarifying.  

Edited September 1, 2021 by Cosmocrush

[izabella]

3 hours ago, WhatAmIWatching said:

Would they add that to Erika's tab? If she invested/donated/paid for something, and the receiver isn't responsible to repay, will she be on the hook for those amounts?

Erika is responsible for paying back the stolen money she received, so, yes, even if she gave it to someone else, she is on the hook to pay it all back.  Hopefully, with interest.

[WhatAmIWatching]

40 minutes ago, izabella said:

Erika is responsible for paying back the stolen money she received, so, yes, even if she gave it to someone else, she is on the hook to pay it all back.  Hopefully, with interest.

That's great to know! Thank you! I'm glad she can't just wash her hands of this mess and walk away.

[nexxie]

So that payment didn’t go to Rinna’s daughters - but to a video firm.

https://radaronline.com/p/erika-jayne-denies-spending-156000-lisa-rinnas-daughter-clothing-store-embezzlement-court/

[charliesan]

Quick question: so as of now (because things literally change week-to-week) Erika is not facing any jail time, but rather she's only on the hook for re-paying 25 mill? If she has to pay, it wouldn't be any different since that was supposed to be a loan, but I guess she never intended to pay that. 

[Julyolo]

On 8/29/2021 at 12:22 AM, RealHousewife said:

I do think Erika is a very beautiful woman, but she's all looks. Whoever would bankroll her must be pretty desperate. Most women don't expect lives of such luxury and aren't dealing with lawsuits where they could end up owing many millions. I feel like any sane man who has his choice of women would run. There are lots of gorgeous women in LA. 

There are probably a lot of rich masochists out in Beverly Hills. She would be able to perform as a dominatrix fairly well from what I've observed.

[RealHousewife]

Erika probably misses the good ol' pantygate days now. 

[Stats Queen]

I hope this vile, uncaring about actually victims, person does jail time.

If both she and atom are incarcerated, maybe he can finally see her performance in Chicago - the live version.

[hoodooznoodooz]

Erika’s legal problems don’t impact Sutton’s life, yet here we have Rinna scrambling to clarify where the money for Rinna Beauty came from. And people are wondering if the DNA company Erika wrote a check to is the clothing company of Amelia and Delilah. 

[LemonSoda]

On 8/29/2021 at 12:38 PM, RealHousewife said:

And she was most aggressive towards Eileen, who did go above and beyond to cheerlead her and be kind. 

Yeah, she’s begging for compassion but where was her compassion for anyone? 

[BusyOctober]

So in last night episode, Erika claims the other women are torturing her, and is begging the others to look at my life!, then faux-cries and blubbers asking the women to “have compassion “.  What the actual fuck, lady???  

Go ask the burn victims and cancer patients Tom (& and you) swindled about what torture is after receiving multiple operations and chemotherapy.  Ask their families about the torture of having false hope that bills will be paid via their settlement money, but never receiving it.  Drop a line to the families and children who lost loved ones in a plane crash about their torture knowing the compensation due to them is as dead and gone as their parent, child, wife, husband.

Why don’t you pull you EXXXPENSIVE bleached head out of your bleached asshole and look at lives of all the people irrevocably damaged by you and your despicable octogenarian scum bucket sugar daddy.  

Try to use your acting skills to emote empathy.  Maybe watch a few clips of Mother Theresa, Princess Diana, or Eunice Kennedy Shriver to learn what it means to have compassion.

Save the fake tears and emotionally choked speeches. Stop twisting your stories that have become so obviously a tangled ball of lies that only illiterate idiots like Kyle and Rinna could possibly believe. Do not demand unquestioned respect, friendship, support.  Refrain from your threats, because everyone except Kyle and Rinna know they are as empty as your soul.  

Without your stolen millions and the entire sham of existence you created, you have nothing but your c**ty self to go home to every night. 

Let this be everyone’s answer to Erika’s  pleas for compassion:

How many fucks do I give?
How many fucks do I give?
None, not one, zero, zero, zero, done

Edited September 3, 2021 by BusyOctober
Spellcheck failed me

[laprin]

It’s too bad filming ended a few months before “The Housewife and the Hustler” documentary aired. I am curious how much Erika knew about the doc being filmed. I’m sure the filmmakers reached out to her at some point. It is telling that the lawyers who had been advising her while she filmed RHOBH, dropped Erika a day after the documentary citing a breakdown in trust. Doesn’t that imply she lied to them?
 

https://www.insider.com/erika-jaynes-attorneys-dropped-her-after-new-documentary-2021-6

 

[Booger666]

I don’t follow SM.  Are the ladies still supporting Erika or have they started to distance themselves?

[chlban]

On 9/1/2021 at 8:17 AM, tvfanatic13 said:

That is generally true. I have been a bankruptcy lawyer for 32 years. If the law firm fraudulently transferred assets to EJ or her LLCs (without consideration, actual fraud, etc.), a subsequent transferee from her if they took in good faith and without knowledge of the original fraudulent transfer, may keep the money. 

However, even if EJ received the money without knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the transfer, she still is liable to repay it. 

Yes, this is the important point here. They may not be able to prove she knew about the fraud, which may get her off the hook from any criminal charges, but she still has to pay back. So, she will be broke. 

[Carolina Girl]

6 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

So in last night episode, Erika claims the other women are torturing her, and is begging the others to look at my life!, then faux-cries and blubbers asking the women to “have compassion “.  What the actual fuck, lady???  

Go ask the burn victims and cancer patients Tom (& and you) swindled about what torture is after receiving multiple operations and chemotherapy.  Ask their families about the torture of having false hope that bills will be paid via their settlement money, but never receiving it.  Drop a line to the families and children who lost loved ones in a plane crash about their torture knowing the compensation due to them is as dead and gone as their parent, child, wife, husband.

Why don’t you pull you EXXXPENSIVE bleached head out of your bleached asshole and look at lives of all the people irrevocably damaged by you and your despicable octogenarian scum bucket sugar daddy.  

Try to use your acting skills to emote empathy.  Maybe watch a few clips of Mother Theresa, Princess Diana, or Eunice Kennedy Shriver to learn what it means to have compassion.

Save the fake tears and emotionally choked speeches. Stop twisting your stories that have become so obviously a tangled ball of lies that only illiterate idiots like Kyle and Rinna could possibly believe. Do not demand unquestioned respect, friendship, support.  Refrain from your threats and intimidation because everyone except Kyle and Rinna know are empty.  

Without your stolen millions and the entire sham of existence you created, you have nothing but your c**ty self to go home to every night. 
 

Let this be everyone’s answer to Erika’s  pleas for compassion:

How many fucks do I give?
How many fucks do I give?
None, not one, zero, zero, zero, done

My only regret is that I can only like this ONCE.  

[Carolina Girl]

6 hours ago, laprin said:

It’s too bad filming ended a few months before “The Housewife and the Hustler” documentary aired. I am curious how much Erika knew about the doc being filmed. I’m sure the filmmakers reached out to her at some point. It is telling that the lawyers who had been advising her while she filmed RHOBH, dropped Erika a day after the documentary citing a breakdown in trust. Doesn’t that imply she lied to them?
 

https://www.insider.com/erika-jaynes-attorneys-dropped-her-after-new-documentary-2021-6

 

Yes, that can be the case - and I think that she probably misled them about the facts.  It can also happen when the client REFUSES to follow the attorney's advise or direction.  Tom Mesereau withdrew from Robert Blake's defense team when he told Blake point blank he was NOT to submit to press interviews and Blake ignored him and did it anyway.  

[hoodooznoodooz]

Interesting WWCL: one of the guys thinks Sutton is a stand-in for Erika’s mother. She both draws Erika to her and enrages her when she’s critical.

[tvfanatic13]

10 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

So in last night episode, Erika claims the other women are torturing her, and is begging the others to look at my life!, then faux-cries and blubbers asking the women to “have compassion “.  What the actual fuck, lady???  

Go ask the burn victims and cancer patients Tom (& and you) swindled about what torture is after receiving multiple operations and chemotherapy.  Ask their families about the torture of having false hope that bills will be paid via their settlement money, but never receiving it.  Drop a line to the families and children who lost loved ones in a plane crash about their torture knowing the compensation due to them is as dead and gone as their parent, child, wife, husband.

Why don’t you pull you EXXXPENSIVE bleached head out of your bleached asshole and look at lives of all the people irrevocably damaged by you and your despicable octogenarian scum bucket sugar daddy.  

Try to use your acting skills to emote empathy.  Maybe watch a few clips of Mother Theresa, Princess Diana, or Eunice Kennedy Shriver to learn what it means to have compassion.

Save the fake tears and emotionally choked speeches. Stop twisting your stories that have become so obviously a tangled ball of lies that only illiterate idiots like Kyle and Rinna could possibly believe. Do not demand unquestioned respect, friendship, support.  Refrain from your threats, because everyone except Kyle and Rinna know they are as empty as your soul.  

Without your stolen millions and the entire sham of existence you created, you have nothing but your c**ty self to go home to every night. 

Let this be everyone’s answer to Erika’s  pleas for compassion:

How many fucks do I give?
How many fucks do I give?
None, not one, zero, zero, zero, done

Bravo. Bravo. Fucking Bravo!!!

[RealHousewife]

3 hours ago, tvfanatic13 said:

Bravo. Bravo. Fucking Bravo!!!

[CrinkleCutCat]

14 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

So in last night episode, Erika claims the other women are torturing her, and is begging the others to look at my life!, then faux-cries and blubbers asking the women to “have compassion “.  What the actual fuck, lady???  

Go ask the burn victims and cancer patients Tom (& and you) swindled about what torture is after receiving multiple operations and chemotherapy.  Ask their families about the torture of having false hope that bills will be paid via their settlement money, but never receiving it.  Drop a line to the families and children who lost loved ones in a plane crash about their torture knowing the compensation due to them is as dead and gone as their parent, child, wife, husband.

Why don’t you pull you EXXXPENSIVE bleached head out of your bleached asshole and look at lives of all the people irrevocably damaged by you and your despicable octogenarian scum bucket sugar daddy.  

Try to use your acting skills to emote empathy.  Maybe watch a few clips of Mother Theresa, Princess Diana, or Eunice Kennedy Shriver to learn what it means to have compassion.

Save the fake tears and emotionally choked speeches. Stop twisting your stories that have become so obviously a tangled ball of lies that only illiterate idiots like Kyle and Rinna could possibly believe. Do not demand unquestioned respect, friendship, support.  Refrain from your threats, because everyone except Kyle and Rinna know they are as empty as your soul.  

Without your stolen millions and the entire sham of existence you created, you have nothing but your c**ty self to go home to every night. 

Let this be everyone’s answer to Erika’s  pleas for compassion:

How many fucks do I give?
How many fucks do I give?
None, not one, zero, zero, zero, done

Yes, yes and YES to everything you wrote here. 
Erika demanding sympathy is absolutely disgusting to me, disgusting.

I’m hoping Bravo drop her, but then… Vicki from RHoOC and Teresa RHoNJ spring to mind so I’m not holding my breath.

Edited September 3, 2021 by CrinkleCutCat

[RealHousewife]

Garcelle was kind to say she thought Erika had a hard exterior but was really soft; that's what I initially thought too. But PK definitely turned out to have the more accurate read on her being "inherently cold."

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 9/1/2021 at 10:17 AM, tvfanatic13 said:

I have been a bankruptcy lawyer for 32 years. If the law firm fraudulently transferred assets to EJ or her LLCs (without consideration, actual fraud, etc.), a subsequent transferee from her if they took in good faith and without knowledge of the original fraudulent transfer, may keep the money.

Does your example include only vendors who received the money for providing a good or service?  What if Erika gave money to someone as a gift?  Would the recipient have to pay it back if the recipient took it in good faith and without knowledge of the original fraudulent transfer?

[hoodooznoodooz]

I would enjoy a Thunderdome scenario with Dorinda and Erika. Limited alcohol.

[emmawoodhouse]

1 hour ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

I would enjoy a Thunderdome scenario with Dorinda and Erika. Limited alcohol.

Erika's not much of a drinker. She can remain sober, but keep 'em coming for Dorinda. She's at her nastiest when she's blotto.

[tvfanatic13]

4 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

Does your example include only vendors who received the money for providing a good or service?  What if Erika gave money to someone as a gift?  Would the recipient have to pay it back if the recipient took it in good faith and without knowledge of the original fraudulent transfer?

Any subsequent transferee. But showing good faith and lack of knowledge is not necessarily easy. 

[Stats Queen]

4 hours ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

I would enjoy a Thunderdome scenario with Dorinda and Erika. Limited alcohol.

With Camille doing color commentary.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Stats Queen

[hoodooznoodooz]

Can anyone explain to me why “Chicago” casts some impressive, legitimate singers, but also casts Rinna, Erika and Christie Brinkley?

Edited September 4, 2021 by hoodooznoodooz

[RealHousewife]

7 minutes ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

Can anyone explain to me why “Chicago” casts some impressive, legitimate singers, but also casts Rinna, Erika and Christie Brinkley?

Lol! At least Christie seems like a sweet lady.

[emmawoodhouse]

9 minutes ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

Can anyone explain to me why “Chicago” casts some impressive, legitimate singers, but also casts Rinna, Erika and Christie Brinkley?

They cast Rinna? That bitch can't carry a tune.

[hoodooznoodooz]

8 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

They cast Rinna? That bitch can't carry a tune.

Right? It tarnishes the reputation of the show, in my opinion.

Gwen Verdon and Ann Reinking portrayed Roxie Hart. I think it disrespects them to cast someone who cannot record without auto tune.

[StatisticalOutlier]

2 hours ago, tvfanatic13 said:

Any subsequent transferee. But showing good faith and lack of knowledge is not necessarily easy. 

Thanks for the reply.  That seems to me how it should operate, but in an episode thread, several posters were insistent that subsequent transferees have to give it back no matter what, including if they acted in good faith.  I asked for the legal doctrine that covers this because I'm interested in the justification for it, but didn't get any replies to that.  But people said things like this, which seem to contradict what you're saying:

Quote

The Bankruptcy Trustee is going to claw back all of the money that should never have been paid out

 

Quote

 If you receive stolen property as a gift or a loan you have to give it back, and this is so even if you pay for it.  

 

Quote

Yes, if your dad robbed a bank and gave you the money you would absolutely be responsible to pay it back. Your dad cannot give you someone else's money.

 

Quote

you are not entitled to keep "gifts" that were stolen.

As I asked before, if somebody could just point me to any statutes or case law, or just a general legal doctrine, that cover this, I'd be happy to go read up on it myself.  But I'm having zero luck doing google searches.

And to clarify--this isn't about whether Erika can be required to pay anything back.  It has to do with anyone Erika transferred the money to can be required to pay it back, for example as payment for a product or services, or as a gift, if they accepted the money in good faith.  Lots of people are saying they can be, and that just seems wrong to me, so I'd like to know how courts or legislatures justify it.

I suppose that in the case of buying something that turned out to be stolen, the remedy could be that the purchaser can sue the seller to get his money back, which makes sense.  But that makes me wonder about the actual mechanics of making the purchaser give the item he bought to the original owner.  How does that actually happen? 

In a bankruptcy proceeding, I assume there would be a judge who could order it.  But if it's just that somebody robbed a bank and made a gift to somebody who accepted it in good faith, who orders the recipient to return the money to the bank?  Cops?  How do they make it happen if the person refuses to do it?

 

[hoodooznoodooz]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3449873/rhobh-erika-jayne-slammed-ltrimm-stole-song-cars/amp/

Did you all know about this?

[glowbug]

1 hour ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

Thanks for the reply.  That seems to me how it should operate, but in an episode thread, several posters were insistent that subsequent transferees have to give it back no matter what, including if they acted in good faith.  I asked for the legal doctrine that covers this because I'm interested in the justification for it, but didn't get any replies to that.  But people said things like this, which seem to contradict what you're saying:

 

 

 

As I asked before, if somebody could just point me to any statutes or case law, or just a general legal doctrine, that cover this, I'd be happy to go read up on it myself.  But I'm having zero luck doing google searches.

And to clarify--this isn't about whether Erika can be required to pay anything back.  It has to do with anyone Erika transferred the money to can be required to pay it back, for example as payment for a product or services, or as a gift, if they accepted the money in good faith.  Lots of people are saying they can be, and that just seems wrong to me, so I'd like to know how courts or legislatures justify it.

I suppose that in the case of buying something that turned out to be stolen, the remedy could be that the purchaser can sue the seller to get his money back, which makes sense.  But that makes me wonder about the actual mechanics of making the purchaser give the item he bought to the original owner.  How does that actually happen? 

In a bankruptcy proceeding, I assume there would be a judge who could order it.  But if it's just that somebody robbed a bank and made a gift to somebody who accepted it in good faith, who orders the recipient to return the money to the bank?  Cops?  How do they make it happen if the person refuses to do it?

 

When it comes to property, the person who purchases stolen goods unknowingly is known as a bona fide purchaser in common law. In the United States we follow the legal rule nemo dat quod non habe which translates to no one gives what he does not have. This means that the original owner retains ownership of the property because the thief who sold it to the bona fide purchaser did not have the ability to give ownership to anyone else. The bone fide purchaser can sue the thief to try to recover the cost of the property but the property is returned to the actual owner. Here is a short discussion on the topic in the National Law Review that references specific judicial opinions, including one out of California. It’s not clear though what happens when a person receives stolen money instead or stolen goods. Someone above mentioned that a lawyer discussed on a podcast that a person who received stolen money doesn’t have to return it so it seems that is handled differently. 

ETA: Investors who made millions from the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme were ordered to pay back the profits they made. They were allowed to keep their original investment. I’m not sure how applicable that is to Erika’s case though. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by glowbug

[pasdetrois]

Quote

Can anyone explain to me why “Chicago” casts some impressive, legitimate singers, but also casts Rinna, Erika and Christie Brinkley?

It's called stunt casting. It's meant to sell tickets, kinda like selling tickets to a car crash. If it works, it helps keep a show financially solvent.

The first instance I can remember was when Madonna was cast in Mamet's prestige-ish Speed-the-Plow.

[chlban]

16 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

Does your example include only vendors who received the money for providing a good or service?  What if Erika gave money to someone as a gift?  Would the recipient have to pay it back if the recipient took it in good faith and without knowledge of the original fraudulent transfer?

Charities had to pay back money Bernie Madoff had donated. It wasn't his money to give, it was stolen.

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by chlban