Illegaly obtained cash (embezzled) used in an illegal poker game.
If the plaintiff can prove that the embezzled funds were used in this illegal poker game, he’ll win.
Win a worthless judgement against a penniless, unemployable gambler.
Woo Hoo!
So if he proves that he used illegal funds in the game, he’ll get the funds back? I assume he’ll have to pay those funds back to the business.
But to do that wouldn't he have to confess in sworn testimony that he embezzled those funds, thus opening himself up to some serious prison time?
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.