Well, no. Even if we are to stipulate that the embezzled funds were used in a poker game, once they hit the table, they were gone. The alleged victims of embezzlement are seeking money from other players in the poker games. How do you determine that Maguire "won" $300,000 from the embezzler? How do you know Maguire did not subsequently "lose" that money to another person at the table?
For that matter, if the embezzled funds were used to purchase a Slurpee, could the victims sue 7-11?
This is unlike Madoff's ponzi scheme. In that case, victims' lawyers pursued funds from other participants who had profited from the underlying scheme (wittingly or no). In this case, Maguire et. al. were not participants in the underlying act, i.e. the embezzlement. It's a lost cause.
Actually, not exactly. I won't bore you with the legal finer points, but in law there is something known as an "ill-gotten gain". This would be that. Gambling like this in California is illegal. In fact, it's a felony.
"How do you know Maguire did not subsequently "lose" that money to another person at the table?"
For the purposes of this discussion, whatever Maguire did with the funds once he received them, is irrelevant. He still benefited from the ill-gotten gains. "This is unlike Madoff's ponzi scheme."
To an extent. If the Feds could have proved that Madoff used those monies in another illegal enterprise, and the other party to the transaction knew it was an illegal enterprise (and in some instances, even if the other party didn't know), the money could be recovered under the same principle.
The plain legal truth is that Maguire is in a corner and he'll probably be on the hook for this cash. The reason the others aren't named in the suit is probably because they weren't stupid enough to accept a check like Maguire was.
If other checks do surface, you can bet you'll see additional defendants added to the complaint.