LDS Church agrees to repay donations from $25 million fraud case

[Thinking]

Story

Quote

The church had been sued in federal court by the court-appointed receiver of the DeYoungs' company, American Pension Services, for return of $239,755 in donations. The receiver, Los Angeles attorney Diane Thompson, argued the money came from the DeYoungs' ill-gotten gains and should be returned.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints countered, claiming in part that the receiver had to show that each transfer of money from APS to the DeYoungs was fraudulent.

Do you think the Church should have returned the asked for $239,755 in donations or was it prudent in settling for less?

Edited June 1, 2017 by Thinking

[Calm]

Was it shown all the money received was fraudulent or not?

[RevTestament]

If the court is returning the money to whomever the DeYoung's apparently defrauded, then I believe the Church should probably return at least the amount proved to have been acquired by DeYoung's fraudulently. 

I was sued by Florida for the return of my profits from a company that was supposed to be using my money to buy accounts receivables - this is called factoring. There was a statute on point. I ended up paying the "profits" i had received back to the court which was supposed to distribute them among the other clientele which had lost all their principal investment. I at least didn't lose my principal investment as I had pulled out of the company. It seems kind of a similar principle here. My profits were viewed as their principal. I believe he may have actually bought some accounts receivable, which I may have been able to argue was legit profit sent to me, but I pulled out when I stopped seeing this kind of evidence, and ended up paying back all my "profits." I never did amend my tax returns for the prior years taxes I had paid on that income.

[mrmarklin]

Pretty standard in bankruptcy and Ponzi schemes. The trustees have a duty to recover and they sue everyone. 

 

Church prudently assesses costs and hazards of litigation and settles. Standard stuff. We're not in possession of all the facts so we cannot reasonably answer the question. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by mrmarklin

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Story

Do you think the Church should have returned the asked for $239,755 in donations or was it prudent in settling for less?

The Church should not accept tithing on ill-gotten gains (and I would include in that category gambling winnings), but it was justified in insisting it be shown that each transfer of money on which tithing was paid was fraudulent. The settlement seems the best way to dispose of the matter. I'm comfortable with it.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church should not accept tithing on ill-gotten gains (and I would include in that category gambling winnings), but it was justified in insisting it be shown that each transfer of money on which tithing was paid was fraudulent. The settlement seems the best way to dispose of the matter. I'm comfortable with it.

The church does accept tithing on gambling winnings.  I had occasion as a leader to research this as far as I could and could not get a straight answer from headquarters.

Part of the problem is that the entire economy of Las Vegas is based on gambling and many members work in casinos.  It is difficult to determine what constitute "gambling winnings" in these circumstances and so they allow the members to decide if a) their income is honest and b) whether or not they are tithing worthy.

At some point the distinctions become undefinable.

Remember tithing settlement is ultimately a yes or no question.

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church should not accept tithing on ill-gotten gains (and I would include in that category gambling winnings), but it was justified in insisting it be shown that each transfer of money on which tithing was paid was fraudulent. The settlement seems the best way to dispose of the matter. I'm comfortable with it.

A member in Cardston when I was younger won several million dollars in the Canadian lottery and donated a substantial amount to the Church which I believe was used to help restore the temple there as well as host a pagent for several years.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The church does accept tithing on gambling winnings.  I had occasion as a leader to research this as far as I could and could not get a straight answer from headquarters.

Part of the problem is that the entire economy of Las Vegas is based on gambling and many members work in casinos.  It is difficult to determine what constitute "gambling winnings" in these circumstances and so they allow the members to decide if a) their income is honest and b) whether or not they are tithing worthy.

At some point the distinctions become undefinable.

Remember tithing settlement is ultimately a yes or no question.

I'm not disputing any of this. I'm just saying that, in principle, gambling is dishonorable behavior and that the idea of tithing the proceeds of gambling is odious to me because it tends to defile the principle.

My opinion only, but I'm standing by it.

 

[The Nehor]

I bought my first set of temple clothing when I was called as a worker with the winnings from a scratch-off lottery ticket my employer gave me as a gift. I was a poor college student and could not reasonably afford them at the time so I prayed for help, bought them on my credit card, and got the ticket the next day.

Not the kind of inspiring story you can share in sacrament meeting.  

[Calm]

 My dad taught my brother not to gamble by giving him $.25 for a gas station slot machine when we were driving through Nevada. My brother, around 6 or 7 at the time, won like five bucks. That is the problem with not following Church mandated lesson plans.  

Edited June 1, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

This 1972 article by Dallin H. Oaks expresses what I understand to be the Church's position on gambling.

I'm fairly certain he has spoken on it more recently, since becoming a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, but this piece is the first one that pops up when I do a Google search.

Edited to add:

Here is a more recent one.

Edited further to add:

Here is a "Gospel Topics" entry on gambling with an overview, learning resources and statements by Church leaders.

This paragraph from Elder Oaks's 1987 talk is consistent thoughts I've had and past statements i've made:

 

Quote

 

What does gambling do to its participants? The attitude of taking something from someone else in order to enhance our own position—the essence of gambling—leads us away from the giving path of Christ and toward the taking path of the adversary. The act of taking or trying to take something from someone else without giving value in return is destructive of spiritual sensitivities.

Do these degrading effects apply to such seemingly innocent and trivial acts as buying a lottery ticket or giving political support to a state-sponsored lottery so that others can do so? What do you think? Remember Screwtape’s observation that “the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope.” As Nephi foresaw, in the last days, “there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; … there is no harm in this.” (2 Ne. 28:8.) But according to the prophets of ancient and modern times, “the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” (D&C 1:31; see also Lev. 5:17; Alma 45:16.)

 

To me, "the attitude of taking something from someone else in order to enhance our own position" is even worse than the intent to get something for nothing. It is, at its core, an attitude of hostility and the opposite of generosity and charity.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

19 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Pretty standard in bankruptcy and Ponzi schemes. The trustees have a duty to recover and they sue everyone. 

 

Church prudently assesses costs and hazards of litigation and settles. Standard stuff. We're not in possession of all the facts so we cannot reasonably answer the question. 

Just to clarify on this statement - I'm currently serving as deputy receiver in two cases; one is a large fraud case and the other a divorce involving a family business.  While a lawsuit is one remedy available to a receiver, it is also one of the most expensive.  Typically, there will be some significant efforts put into reaching a settlement behind the scenes.  If the receiver perceives he or she is getting nowhere, then a lawsuit will often be filed.  In both of the cases with which I am currently associated, we've managed to succeed at staying away from filing additional litigation, so far.  Hopefully, it stays that way.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I bought my first set of temple clothing when I was called as a worker with the winnings from a scratch-off lottery ticket my employer gave me as a gift. I was a poor college student and could not reasonably afford them at the time so I prayed for help, bought them on my credit card, and got the ticket the next day.

Not the kind of inspiring story you can share in sacrament meeting.  

You sound lucky...would you follow me around in Wendover for about an hour??Just razzin..

Edited June 2, 2017 by Jeanne

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You sound lucky...would you follow me around in Wendover for about an hour??Just razzin..

Once while struggling financially I kind of off-handedly at the end of a prayer pointed out to God that if I had about $10,000 it would sort out a lot of problems and I would appreciate it. That weekend I got it.

I am buying a house right now and told God that if he wants to arrange a windfall so I can pay it off early I will pay half the mortgage amount split evenly between fast offerings and the General Missionary Fund monthly for the duration of the mortgage. I am hoping God takes me up on it.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Once while struggling financially I kind of off-handedly at the end of a prayer pointed out to God that if I had about $10,000 it would sort out a lot of problems and I would appreciate it. That weekend I got it.

I am buying a house right now and told God that if he wants to arrange a windfall so I can pay it off early I will pay half the mortgage amount split evenly between fast offerings and the General Missionary Fund monthly for the duration of the mortgage. I am hoping God takes me up on it.  

Peradventure,  could you get him to take a better deal?  You don't ask, you don't get.

I mean if Abraham could pull it off..

Edited June 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Once while struggling financially I kind of off-handedly at the end of a prayer pointed out to God that if I had about $10,000 it would sort out a lot of problems and I would appreciate it. That weekend I got it.

I am buying a house right now and told God that if he wants to arrange a windfall so I can pay it off early I will pay half the mortgage amount split evenly between fast offerings and the General Missionary Fund monthly for the duration of the mortgage. I am hoping God takes me up on it.  

Gees..whatever works!  I have had some simular experiences with prayer..and a plea to God.  Good luck with this new home!

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Peradventure,  could you get him to take a better deal?  You don't ask, you don't get.

I mean if Abraham could pull it off..

You probably get more leeway to bargain if, like Abraham, you are trying to save other people.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This 1972 article by Dallin H. Oaks expresses what I understand to be the Church's position on gambling.

I'm fairly certain he has spoken on it more recently, since becoming a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, but this piece is the first one that pops up when I do a Google search.

Edited to add:

Here is a more recent one.

Edited further to add:

Here is a "Gospel Topics" entry on gambling with an overview, learning resources and statements by Church leaders.

This paragraph from Elder Oaks's 1987 talk is consistent thoughts I've had and past statements i've made:

 

To me, "the attitude of taking something from someone else in order to enhance our own position" is even worse than the intent to get something for nothing. It is, at its core, an attitude of hostility and the opposite of generosity and charity.

 

 

While that seems to accurately describe the Ponzi schemes that seem to have been successfully run by some of our Church members, it doesn't seem to apply to gambling at all.  Gambling in a Las Vegas setting seems to be nothing more than people giving money to play a game and on rare occasions someone walks away with more than they came in with. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

While that seems to accurately describe the Ponzi schemes that seem to have been successfully run by some of our Church members, it doesn't seem to apply to gambling at all.  Gambling in a Las Vegas setting seems to be nothing more than people giving money to play a game and on rare occasions someone walks away with more than they came in with. 

At the expense of every poor loser who comes in there and loses his shirt. It's myopic indeed not to consider this. 

By the way, if anything, I'm more contemptuous of ponzi schemes than I am of gambling, so that rationalization won't work with me.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the expense of every poor loser who comes in there and loses his shirt. It's myopic indeed not to consider this. 

My FIL refers to the lottery (for example) as a "tax on the poor"...there's some truth to that.

Edited June 2, 2017 by ttribe

[halconero]

On 5/31/2017 at 11:32 PM, clarkgoble said:

A member in Cardston when I was younger won several million dollars in the Canadian lottery and donated a substantial amount to the Church which I believe was used to help restore the temple there as well as host a pagent for several years.

Hey Clark, it's your poor cousin, Bob.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

My FIL refers to the lottery (for example) as a "tax on the poor"...there's some truth to that.

Indeed.

But it's worse than that. It's predatory in that it exploits individual weaknesses.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed.

But it's worse than that. It's predatory in that it exploits individual weaknesses.

 

Especially since most gambling places also push alcohol consumption, which lowers the ability to make rational choices.  There are those who are capable of saying "I will play until I lose so much", but plenty who can't.

When I was stuck in a Las Vegas car dealership on a Saturday night with the kids while my husband was driven across town to pick up a rental car so we could finish our trip to So. Cal after having our electrical system fried an hour out of town, I got to talk to one of the dealers there.  It was an opened all night, all week and weekend dealership as they did a lot of their sales in the middle of the night when winners would come to blow their big haul....and be back the next night to sell it back at a much lower amount.  There were a number of dealerships like this one, largest one I had ever seen; had to have been lots of careless buyers out there in order to support them all.

It worked out great for us, finding a place that could take the van in to be fixed while we took off, we might have had to wait until Monday or at least stayed overnight, but I felt so sorry for some of those who were in there buying cars that night.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Calm

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the expense of every poor loser who comes in there and loses his shirt. It's myopic indeed not to consider this. 

By the way, if anything, I'm more contemptuous of ponzi schemes than I am of gambling, so that rationalization won't work with me.

Certainly good to hear you rank Ponzi schemes as more contemptible than gambling.  Seems pretty rude to characterize all people who lose money while gambling as being so ignorant.  But, to each their own, I suppose.  I think most people who lose in gambling, walk away happy enough (I do recognize some have problems in this area though).

[Calm]

" I think most people who lose in gambling, walk away happy enough...."

I would be very interested to find that out.  I would anticipate that is so, otherwise the casinos wouldn't be so big and so many.  Once or twice, the only repeaters would be the addicts.