Richard Riley wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:24:13 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

:On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:04:04 -0500, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
:
:------------snip------------
: Escrows are VERY, VERY, VERY black and white!
:
:------------snip------------
:
:I'm not so sure of that--especially 30 plus years ago.
:
:Same thing happened on the BD-12 less than ten years ago... purchasers' money
ut into escrow, but they never got a kit or their money back.

The same thing happens in real estate escrow. The difference is, the
escrow officer that stole the money goes to jail.

Escrow is black and white, it's money held by a third party. If it
not held by a third party, it's not escrow. If it IS held by a third
party, and that party steals it, it's fraud at least, and probably a
host of other charges.

But no one has ever let slip the name of the third party that held the
"escrowed" money for any of the BD ventures. Which leads me to
suspect that it was just put in Bede's general fund, and spent along
with the rest of the money that came in over the transom.

IF THAT is the case, Jim Bede committed fraud. He told depositers
that their money would be held in escrow. That was a lie that
convinced the depositers to give him their money.

So - either Jim Bede placed the deposits with a third party, or he
didn't. That's pretty black and white.

Is an escrow fund considered a company asset? If it is, then I can see
how a bankruptcy judge would distribute it as part of the creditor
settlement. If it isn't, then it does seem like it should still be
there, bankrutpcy or not.


Matt