Shady potential fraud and thievery (long)

Not to beat a dead horse, but resolving debt by letting someone play on your account is asking for trouble. I gave my friend my Party account info to let him play. He did, he lost, he gave me what he lost. Fine so far.
Couple days later suddenly there's about $70 discrepancy in the account. I asked him, and he said yeh I played a few tournaments last night. Now, he gave me the cash right away, but that's not the issue. I don't want to log-on just before a tournament I thought I had enough in which to play, find it's no longer there, and don't have free cash to throw in just then. He also played a few FPP freerolls w/o consulting me.
He gets pissed at me because I decided to go ahead and change my password. In short, think long and hard before you let someone play on your account.

[StellarWind]

1. It's grand larceny and several other felonies and it can probably be proven. How high a risk of prosecution makes this plan -EV?

2. Party may detect the fraud before Sean gets the money out the door. Even if they don't, Dave will eventually tell them and Party will easily trace the money to Sean. Sean could be banned by Party and have his account balance seized. Party may also notify Neteller and that won't be pretty either. Sean might even wind up on some shared blacklist maintained by the online gambling community.

3. Someone might complain to Sean's parents.

4. Dave might think outside the procedural box and retaliate in some other fashion.

I have painfully discovered that Poor Richard was right,

"Neither a borrower or lender be."!


[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[Maddenboy]

Even if he HAD a legally enforceable debt, he is not entitled to, essentially, steal the money to repay the debt.

The bank cannot "repo" your car unless they go through certain procedures, like having you agree to that method in the original loan, and having the car serve as collateral for the loan.

Dave's bank account is not collateral for his loan.

If Sean walked into the open door of daves appartment, saw $700 lying there, and took it, he is still guilty of theft, and possibly burglary if he formed the intention of committing the theft prior to entry.

Outlaw street justice feels good, but its almost always illegal.

[flatline]

It is probably true that you don't have a legally enforcable debt.

Morally, however, you have every right to take that money. If you could do it with no risk, I'd say go for it. Being that there is some risk, it would still be cool to do it, just be very very careful how you execute your plan so that it can't be traced to you. Obviously chip-dumping is a much better idea than a transfer(which would be idiotic).

[Maddenboy]

doesnt "grand" larceny have a dollar limit?

Isnt it a "grand" in most jurisdictions? (its only $400 in California).

[mattw]

[ QUOTE ]
I have painfully discovered that Poor Richard was right,

"Neither a borrower or lender be."!


[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, that was ben franklin.

[Losing all]

Dave follow sean,

Dave see good time to stick knife in sean neck,

Dave take wallet,

Dave do not clean knife and put back in mom kitchen, Dave do not tell tale to stranger with next buzz.

Dave feel like man, Sean die like animal.

[tomdemaine]

Dear juggabear's friend

Never give your party poker password out to anyone. (especially idiots who will never pay you back)

Party Poker Support.

Moran!

[pokerswami]

If your friend gets his money back through surreptitious means he won't be able to discontinue trying to collect the debt because it will look as though he is the guilty party.

Then what... continue trying to collect a debt that is not owed you, er, your friend? <another very moral move>