A woman has plead guilty to fraud charges after using her position as the accounts manager at a veterinary hospital to steal around $680,000, which she spent entirely on a mobile gambling game that did not and could not ever pay out with real cash.
As the ABC reports Rachel Naomi Perri, from Tasmania, Australia, appeared in court on Monday facing “25 counts of computer-related fraud and one count of fraud”, over allegations she made 475 “fraudulent transactions” during the three years she was employed at the hospital (2016-2019), stealing a total of AUD$940,221 (USD$680,000).
Those transactions were made to support her addiction to the gambling game Heart of Vegas, which incredibly was not an online gambling portal paying out real cash, but a video game that simulated real slot machines, and paid out its winnings in virtual, in-game currency. Meaning that no matter how much money Perri spent and how much she won, she would never see a cent of actual cash she could withdraw from the game.
Here are Heart of Vegas’ terms, listed on the game’s website and store pages:
The games are intended for an adult audience. The games do not offer “real money gambling” or an opportunity to win real money or prizes. Practice or success at social casino gaming does not imply future success at “real money gambling”. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
I've lost thousands in our casino here.
God damn, looks like you’re doing the same thing. How the hell do you get negative casino cash? And 8k worth? Better hope that bookie never comes to collect. [Reply]
It's worse than spending money on skins in video games like CS:GO. At least if you sell your skins you get steam cash to spend again on other video games, skins, etc. Still never can get your money back, but at least you get something back. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coochie liquor:
God damn, looks like you’re doing the same thing. How the hell do you get negative casino cash? And 8k worth? Better hope that bookie never comes to collect.
They'll break his thumbs up and thumbs down buttons, I bet. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mennonite:
So, slightly worse odds than playing the lottery and slightly better odds than paying into social security if you're under 40.
They've been saying that since I was a kid in the 70s. SS will be there. It won't support you, just like it doesn't now. But it will be there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
They've been saying that since I was a kid in the 70s. SS will be there. It won't support you, just like it doesn't now. But it will be there.
Yeah. I've built a reduction of benefits into my retirement planning (as a very late boomer), but my hunch is that they'll end up raising the annual payment cap and/or increasing the retirement age. So I think people will still get full benefits, but it also may come a little later in life.
Not to take this to DC, but man, without Social Security we'd have a lot of elderly people starving in the streets. It may be the single most important thing that the federal government does. [Reply]
