Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 20, 2017, 3:06 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Three men charged with stealing $1M from lottery winner

Topic closed. 30 replies. Last post 9 years ago by LottoL.

Page 2 of 3
PrintE-mailLink
Litebets27's avatar - power
Maryland
United States
Member #10465
January 14, 2005
6065 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 27, 2008, 9:34 pm - IP Logged

wow 1,000,000 in safe at home a small bank dont keep that much there safe over night they let federal reserve lock it up. 

I was about to contribute the same comment. And, it must be a pretty big safe.

litebets

Feeling,  PRICELESS!!!Banana

Come on Jackpot!!!

    Avatar
    NY
    United States
    Member #23835
    October 16, 2005
    3502 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: February 28, 2008, 2:15 am - IP Logged

    I stopped re-reading and can validate that the persons *opinion* is narrow minded and lacking common sense. 

    Temptation to steal isnt any less prevalant whether the product is in sight or out of sight.  It just makes it more challenging to get!

    I  can understand anyone wanting to keep their funds in close proximity. THe Bank industry only guarantees 250K of it be insured. So if they lose 750k of it from your account, ohh well, that interest compounding wont mean a thing. So the guy did the right thing by getting a safe.  And the police are doing the right thing by taking the matter serious enough to charge the men.

     A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Nothing wrong with the guy retaining what is his money.

    If all the bank does is "lose 750k of it from your account" all you have to do is prove that you actually had the money in the account and you will be able to withdraw it, subject to the normal rules for the account. You don't have to pay for their accounting problems.

    OTOH, if the bank fails, FDIC insurance will cover up to $100,000 for each depositor, or $250,000 for an IRA. Current banking regulations makes failure fairly unlikely, especially for large banks. I still wouldn't want my accounts to represent a portion of the bank's assets that didn't start with a few zeroes after the decimal point.

    I think it's awfully stupid to keep that much cash on hand, especially when he obviously didn't have any need for it, but it is his choice.  The article doesn't offer any clues on this specific situation, but I think it's phenomenally stupid to keep that much cash in a safe that can be easily opened without significant skill or work, or in one that can be carried away. If you can afford to keep  that much cash laying around, you can afford a good safe.

    "it must be a pretty big safe"

    Just for fun: US currency is 2.61 inches wide by 6.14 inches long and 0.0043 inches thick. Multiply by 10,000 $100 bills and it's not quite 690 cubic inches. At 1728 CI per cubic foot, that's  0.4 CF. Figure the money came from a bank and is still fairly new and in neat bundles, allow for a bit of wasted space, and it will probably fit in a microwave. Maybe that's the problem. You can fit $1 million in a safe that's far to small for something that valuable.

      Avatar
      Pittsburgh, PA
      United States
      Member #58600
      February 21, 2008
      43 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: February 28, 2008, 10:03 am - IP Logged

      If all the bank does is "lose 750k of it from your account" all you have to do is prove that you actually had the money in the account and you will be able to withdraw it, subject to the normal rules for the account. You don't have to pay for their accounting problems.

      OTOH, if the bank fails, FDIC insurance will cover up to $100,000 for each depositor, or $250,000 for an IRA. Current banking regulations makes failure fairly unlikely, especially for large banks. I still wouldn't want my accounts to represent a portion of the bank's assets that didn't start with a few zeroes after the decimal point.

      I think it's awfully stupid to keep that much cash on hand, especially when he obviously didn't have any need for it, but it is his choice.  The article doesn't offer any clues on this specific situation, but I think it's phenomenally stupid to keep that much cash in a safe that can be easily opened without significant skill or work, or in one that can be carried away. If you can afford to keep  that much cash laying around, you can afford a good safe.

      "it must be a pretty big safe"

      Just for fun: US currency is 2.61 inches wide by 6.14 inches long and 0.0043 inches thick. Multiply by 10,000 $100 bills and it's not quite 690 cubic inches. At 1728 CI per cubic foot, that's  0.4 CF. Figure the money came from a bank and is still fairly new and in neat bundles, allow for a bit of wasted space, and it will probably fit in a microwave. Maybe that's the problem. You can fit $1 million in a safe that's far to small for something that valuable.

      If youre married, this is how you can structure your $1,000,000 to have it 100% FDIC insured at ONE bank.

      Wife (Individual Checking & Savings)-$100,000

      Husband (Individual Checking & Savings)-$100,000

      Husband & Wife (Joint Checking & Savings)-$200,000

      Husband (Individual IRA)-$250,000

      Wife (Individual IRA)-$250,000

      Husband & Wife (Living Trust with Benefactor)-$100,000

      TOTAL: $1,000,000 (100% FDIC Coverage)

        Avatar
        New Member

        United States
        Member #58875
        February 28, 2008
        1 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 28, 2008, 11:00 am - IP Logged

        No worries on money he was losing.... he has more money where that came from.  I wouldnt be surprised if he didnt disclose of other money he was keeping in there.  The people who stole from him are total scum.  They deserve to rot in jail but I wasnt really surprised that his son in law stole the money from him... I was shocked that his grandson stole from him though.  I knew them years ago and feel bad for the victims.  They definitely did not deserve this.

          justxploring's avatar - villiarna
          Wandering Aimlessly
          United States
          Member #25360
          November 5, 2005
          4461 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 28, 2008, 12:13 pm - IP Logged

          I stopped re-reading and can validate that the persons *opinion* is narrow minded and lacking common sense. 

          Temptation to steal isnt any less prevalant whether the product is in sight or out of sight.  It just makes it more challenging to get!

          I  can understand anyone wanting to keep their funds in close proximity. THe Bank industry only guarantees 250K of it be insured. So if they lose 750k of it from your account, ohh well, that interest compounding wont mean a thing. So the guy did the right thing by getting a safe.  And the police are doing the right thing by taking the matter serious enough to charge the men.

           A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Nothing wrong with the guy retaining what is his money.

          The GameGrl Writes: THe Bank industry only guarantees 250K of it be insured. So if they lose 750k of it from your account, ohh well, that interest compounding wont mean a thing. So the guy did the right thing by getting a safe. 

          Who told you this "fact?"  Not true.  You can keep $250,000 in a bank IRA, but otherwise that $250,000 limit is not mentioned anywhere on the FDIC web site or in their rules. People keep much more than that in banks. 

          Forgetting about all the entitlements ($100,000 for each beneficiary) that are covered by the FDIC (i.e., revocable trusts) any person can deposit up to $100,000 in any one bank as an individual account and be 100% insured.  I could have up to $100,000 in as many banks as I want and be completely covered, so I don't know what you are talking about here.  The only way anyone has ever lost money in a bank over the last 50+ years is if he/she exceeded that limit when it failed, used unqualified beneficiaries in a trust, or exceeded the FDIC limit, perhaps with accrued interest.  Many people keep $1 million or more in banks. Losing $50,000 a year in interest just doesn't make sense.  Then there are very safe investments like savings bonds purchased through the U.S. Treasury or Municipal Bonds that are tax exempt.  The insurance companies that have been in business for 200 years that survived through the World Wars and the Great Depression and aren't going anywhere either, so a fixed annuity is very safe.

          I won't go on to list the many safe investments, but keeping that kind of money in your home is really stupid.  Maybe he watched too much TV where they show rich people with safes behind paintings on the wall.

          That said, nobody should ever blame the victim for being an idiot.  People leave keys in cars, but it doesn't mean someone should steal them.  Still, there's a lot more going on here.  Why would anyone keep that kind of cash in a safe?  Anyway, I just wanted to correct your statement about the banking industry. I don't know what you do for a living, but it's not in finance.  (No, I am not being a know-it-all.  I know what I am saying from my work experience.)

            justxploring's avatar - villiarna
            Wandering Aimlessly
            United States
            Member #25360
            November 5, 2005
            4461 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 28, 2008, 12:33 pm - IP Logged

            If youre married, this is how you can structure your $1,000,000 to have it 100% FDIC insured at ONE bank.

            Wife (Individual Checking & Savings)-$100,000

            Husband (Individual Checking & Savings)-$100,000

            Husband & Wife (Joint Checking & Savings)-$200,000

            Husband (Individual IRA)-$250,000

            Wife (Individual IRA)-$250,000

            Husband & Wife (Living Trust with Benefactor)-$100,000

            TOTAL: $1,000,000 (100% FDIC Coverage)

            You are partly correct.  However, you can't just deposit $250,000 into an IRA at one time, that is, unless you roll it over from another investment. There are annual limits for qualified money.

            Also, I am very sure you are wrong about the wife and husband having both $100,000 in individual accounts and joint accounts insured.  Each can name the other ITF (in trust for) and any qualified beneficiaries (children, siblings) but not have separate savings/checking and ALSO joint accounts. Still, since the FDIC rules can become confusing it's best not to take a chance.  If an individual has more than $100,000 or a couple has more than $200,000 the FDIC then considers all deposits, but that might take time. If I had lots of money, I wouldn't put it all in a bank anyway, especially now. But if that was my choice, then I'd just run around to several different banks or credit unions, which are also insured. 

            Keep in mind, that no matter what the FDIC says is safe, it's probably best not to keep any more than the $250,000 limit for an IRA (per social security number) and $100,000 (including all interest) in any one bank per person, although the huge banks like Bank of America, Chase, Wachovia, Citi, etc. are pretty safe anyway. Chances are your local bank that's been in town since 1890 isn't going anywhere either.  Last year everyone panicked when the newspaper said Countrywide (a fairly new lending institution) was going under, and depositors lost money by cashing out CDs that had not yet matured, yet 6 months later, they're still in business.  Even when another bank takes over, your deposits are still covered if the limits aren't met. 

              Avatar
              NY
              United States
              Member #23835
              October 16, 2005
              3502 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 28, 2008, 5:23 pm - IP Logged

              I believe Destined is correct about  the individual and joint accounts, because FDIC insurance is for "each depositor" and "Bob Smith and Sue Smith" are a different depositor than "Bob Smith"or"Sue Smith". Destined is incorrect about insurance on trust accounts. For each owner there is 100k of insurance for each beneficiary. If a husband and wife have a trust account with 3 children as beneficiaries there is 600k of insurance coverage.

              The explanations I've seen explain coverage for different categories, but I don't recall seeing info on multiple categories, so I may have misunderstood how the insurance applies in those situations.  Checking with an advisor who is thoroughly familiar with the intricacies would be advisable for  anyone with anything more than a simple situation.

              FWIW, coverage is for each bank.  Any depositor can have 100k of coverage  at 100 different  banks. Note that a different branch  of "Security Savings" is still "Security Savings" and not a different bank.

                Avatar
                Pittsburgh, PA
                United States
                Member #58600
                February 21, 2008
                43 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 28, 2008, 5:56 pm - IP Logged

                Money market rates at big reputable banks are around 3-4% so youd be getting about $35,000 a year in interest.  Rates are a lot lower than they were a year or two ago.  If any of you monkeys ever hit the big one, invest in real estate!  Make 10% a year in interest by owner financing homes.  Its a buyers & landlords market right now with foreclosures at a record high obv.  Id also get some 4-week Treasury Bills to have a monthly income coming in regularly.

                  Avatar
                  Pittsburgh, PA
                  United States
                  Member #58600
                  February 21, 2008
                  43 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 28, 2008, 6:09 pm - IP Logged

                  Actually I was 100% right about both issues.  I understand what youre saying about the trust and benefactors.  However I was just showing how you could structure the money if you had $1,000,000 in cash.  Technically the MAXIMUM protection in MY EXAMPLE would be $1,100,000 if you decided to add $100k extra to the trust.  You are right though, if you had more kids you could get more coverage, but in my example I was assuming 1 kid/benefactor.   

                    TheGameGrl's avatar - character catafly.jpg
                    A long and winding road
                    United States
                    Member #17084
                    June 10, 2005
                    4576 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 28, 2008, 7:27 pm - IP Logged

                    JustEx, normally I can agree with your detailed explanation. And I commend you for being accurate in what you state. My point was gleened over , so be it.. Thanks for seeing a difference in our views. I don't consider anyone *stupid* or having *stupid* actions by keeping money in their personal safe, no matter how little or much it is. The Point of a SAFE is to secure it. Ask any bank why they do it. Its no different. As to the poster who proclaimed that having such in their house was their own undoing , is ludricous! If a bank or a business carries CASH in their banks, then why can't a citizen do such and NOT be criticized for it. I am NOT saying that I would keep such in my household, but I certainly can have an open mind to understand those that keep rainy day funds close at hand. Even if that fund is 1 milllion. That is his business and he took the measures to place it in a secure device. That doesnt mean he should be partly to blame. Are banks to be blamed when they get robbed? Because that is the same thought pattern the one poster had.

                    ~~Is it true, Is it kind,Is it necessary. ~~~

                    pa:888,4445,6132,4444,8008

                      Avatar
                      NY
                      United States
                      Member #23835
                      October 16, 2005
                      3502 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 29, 2008, 2:42 am - IP Logged

                      "If a bank or a business carries CASH in their banks, then why can't a citizen do such and NOT be criticized for it."

                      The cash requirements of a business, and certainly a bank, are rather different from the requirements of the typical individual, even if that individual has won the lottery. What kind of rainy day do you envision where having a million dollars makes some kind of sense? That it apparenty took the vistim at least 6 weeks to notice that the money was missing says something about his need to have cash on hand.

                      "Are banks to be blamed when they get robbed? Because that is the same thought pattern the one poster had."

                      Banks have to keep cash on hand, and that's why people rob them. Unless you believe the victim took precautions that are somehow comparable to a bank's precautions the thought process of the poster definitely isn't the same. Blaming the victim isn't right, but this victim appears to have made himself a very inviting target. I agree completely that he has the right to do so, but I'm certainly curious if he did it with deliberate knowledge, or through stupidity.

                        justxploring's avatar - villiarna
                        Wandering Aimlessly
                        United States
                        Member #25360
                        November 5, 2005
                        4461 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 29, 2008, 4:19 am - IP Logged

                        This is way off the topic about the man who put money under his mattress, but I want to answer KY Floyd and Destined. 

                        It's been a while since I've studied the FDIC rules. I just checked the joint coverage section and it's either changed or it's a different video.  I'm not trying make excuses, but I was pretty sure they said both joint & individual accounts cannot be combined for coverage. However, now they are saying the joint account is separate. So Destined is correct about that, and I apologize, but I still wouldn't want to keep up with all the changes. The bottom line is what would happen if a bank ever failed and how easy would it be to get your money.

                        Well, hopefully someday I'll need to worry about all this money!  LOL

                        Edit:  I take back my apology.  I just read Destined's other comment.  Anyone who says "you monkeys" to express his so-called expertise isn't worth answering.   

                        BTW, I know a lot of landlords who have several empty units and are stuck with mortgages and high tax bills & rising property insurance.  The ones who own the properties still need to cover taxes, insurance and maintenance.  My neighbor finally hired a real estate agent and the home has been empty since October. 

                          justxploring's avatar - villiarna
                          Wandering Aimlessly
                          United States
                          Member #25360
                          November 5, 2005
                          4461 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 29, 2008, 4:44 am - IP Logged

                          JustEx, normally I can agree with your detailed explanation. And I commend you for being accurate in what you state. My point was gleened over , so be it.. Thanks for seeing a difference in our views. I don't consider anyone *stupid* or having *stupid* actions by keeping money in their personal safe, no matter how little or much it is. The Point of a SAFE is to secure it. Ask any bank why they do it. Its no different. As to the poster who proclaimed that having such in their house was their own undoing , is ludricous! If a bank or a business carries CASH in their banks, then why can't a citizen do such and NOT be criticized for it. I am NOT saying that I would keep such in my household, but I certainly can have an open mind to understand those that keep rainy day funds close at hand. Even if that fund is 1 milllion. That is his business and he took the measures to place it in a secure device. That doesnt mean he should be partly to blame. Are banks to be blamed when they get robbed? Because that is the same thought pattern the one poster had.

                          GameGrl, I didn't skip over your point.  I respect what you are saying.  I don't like it when people tell me how to run my life either.

                          I was only saying that I'm guessing the million dollars was not insured. It is insured in a bank.  (not a safe deposit box)   That's all.  If a bank is robbed, the bank will replace your money.   It's 4:30 in the morning. If I went outside and took a walk to 7-11, it would probably be foolish. I used to take walks at night all the time, but I was told it's not safe. That still doesn't mean someone has the right to assault me.  Still, we all need to use a little common sense once in a while.

                            dumars798's avatar - batman17
                            Atlanta
                            United States
                            Member #28656
                            December 20, 2005
                            5675 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 29, 2008, 11:05 am - IP Logged

                             Back Stabber Family members!     No No





                                    Smart bets...... Equal Phat Pocket$!

                                                 

                                         





                              ThatScaryChick's avatar - x1MqPuM
                              Idaho
                              United States
                              Member #56506
                              November 21, 2007
                              6537 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 29, 2008, 11:50 am - IP Logged

                              GameGrl, I didn't skip over your point.  I respect what you are saying.  I don't like it when people tell me how to run my life either.

                              I was only saying that I'm guessing the million dollars was not insured. It is insured in a bank.  (not a safe deposit box)   That's all.  If a bank is robbed, the bank will replace your money.   It's 4:30 in the morning. If I went outside and took a walk to 7-11, it would probably be foolish. I used to take walks at night all the time, but I was told it's not safe. That still doesn't mean someone has the right to assault me.  Still, we all need to use a little common sense once in a while.

                              I Agree! Thank you! All it is is common sense. Does the guy have a right to keep millions of dollars in his home? Sure. Does he deserve to get robbed? No. But if you don't have a very good safe or security in your home, then odds are something like this will or could happen. He was robbed by his relatives, so something was lacking in his security and odds are he won't get most of his money back. If it had been in a bank, he probably would not be going through this. 

                              "No one remembers the person who almost climbed the mountain, only the person who eventually gets to the top."