3 ms·

If I'm not mistaken, it's about more than just publicity; it's also about avoiding fraud. As someone put it before "come spend money on a chance to win a very l

If I'm not mistaken, it's about more than just publicity; it's also about avoiding fraud. As someone put it before "come spend money on a chance to win a very large pot of money; don't worry, we have given some out before, but you just have to believe us".

artursapek 9y ago
You'd think the government could keep records of this and catch fraudulent lotteries, without forcing the winners to be public.
root_axis 9y ago
Indeed, and we know people with privileged access have successfully abused the system in the past. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/programmer-pleads-guilty-theft-lottery-rigging-scandal-n771251 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/programmer-pleads-guilt...
- astura 9y ago
  Don't forget about the infamous McDonald's Monopoly fraud! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud >In 2000, the U.S. promotion was halted after fraud was uncovered. A subcontracting company called Simon Marketing (a then-subsidiary of Cyrk), which had been hired by McDonald's to organize and promote the game, failed to recognize a flaw in its procedures. Chief of security Jerome P. Jacobson[3] was able to remove the most expensive game pieces, which he then passed to associates who would redeem them and share the proceeds. The associates won almost all of the top prizes between 1995 and 2000, including McDonald's giveaways that did not have the Monopoly theme. The associates netted over $24 million.
Someone1234 9y ago
Yet other countries (and even some states) get by without releasing the name. All you need is oversight, which frankly should be a prerequisite of a lottery either way. The real question is why investigative journalists are America's means of oversight rather than have a real system in-place? The whole thing places lottery winners into a dangerous situation, and everyone knows it. That's why the stereotypical "change your name and move" advice is so often recited.
simcop2387 9y ago
That's entirely why a number of states require it to be kept non-anonymous for winnings above certain amounts. Because the lottery is run by a private organization they don't want that org to be able to act like it's paying out without providing proof to the public. Otherwise you can end up with situations like the mcdonalds monopoly scam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud
baddox 9y ago
But in this case she would have been allowed to accept the ticket under an anonymous trust. The only problem is that she signed the ticket, and there is an incredibly stupid legal technicality which prevents you from changing the signature. It is ludicrous that it would take a judge more than a few hours to review the law and make a decision to allow her to change the ticket to an anonymous trust.
- ASalazarMX 9y ago
  I hope she wins because that requisite is dumb. You can endorse a $50 check but you can't endorse a multimillion lottery ticket?
PaulRobinson 9y ago
In the UK, lotteries are well regulated and audited by commissions who confirm payouts, etc. It's OK to stay anonymous, particularly in the largest lotteries (National Lottery and Euromillions, both operated in the UK by Camelot Plc), and you can not be publicly named without opting into it. It's my understanding that every person who gets a prize over £500k on the national/euro lotteries gets a visit from a Camelot employee to ensure they're prepared to handle the money and are speaking to suitable people who are not going to destroy their good fortune. I don't see why other lotteries in other countries can't do the same without the risk of fraud increasing.
slantyyz 9y ago
>> it's also about avoiding fraud. It can also prevent a spouse or common law partner from winning the lottery in secret and taking off with all the money. It's happened more than once in Ontario, Canada, with one story making the rounds right now.[1] [1] https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/06/woman-sues-former-live-in-boyfriend-after-he-bolted-with-winning-61-million-lotto-649-ticket.html https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/06/woman-sue...
ynniv 9y ago
Someone defrauding the system would know it well enough to claim it under an anonymous trust. The winner unintentionally forfeited this right by signing her name on the ticket.

artursapek 9y ago

You'd think the government could keep records of this and catch fraudulent lotteries, without forcing the winners to be public.

root_axis 9y ago

Indeed, and we know people with privileged access have successfully abused the system in the past. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/programmer-pleads-guilty-theft-lottery-rigging-scandal-n771251 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/programmer-pleads-guilt...

astura 9y ago
Don't forget about the infamous McDonald's Monopoly fraud! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud >In 2000, the U.S. promotion was halted after fraud was uncovered. A subcontracting company called Simon Marketing (a then-subsidiary of Cyrk), which had been hired by McDonald's to organize and promote the game, failed to recognize a flaw in its procedures. Chief of security Jerome P. Jacobson[3] was able to remove the most expensive game pieces, which he then passed to associates who would redeem them and share the proceeds. The associates won almost all of the top prizes between 1995 and 2000, including McDonald's giveaways that did not have the Monopoly theme. The associates netted over $24 million.

Someone1234 9y ago

Yet other countries (and even some states) get by without releasing the name. All you need is oversight, which frankly should be a prerequisite of a lottery either way. The real question is why investigative journalists are America's means of oversight rather than have a real system in-place? The whole thing places lottery winners into a dangerous situation, and everyone knows it. That's why the stereotypical "change your name and move" advice is so often recited.

simcop2387 9y ago

That's entirely why a number of states require it to be kept non-anonymous for winnings above certain amounts. Because the lottery is run by a private organization they don't want that org to be able to act like it's paying out without providing proof to the public. Otherwise you can end up with situations like the mcdonalds monopoly scam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud

baddox 9y ago

But in this case she would have been allowed to accept the ticket under an anonymous trust. The only problem is that she signed the ticket, and there is an incredibly stupid legal technicality which prevents you from changing the signature. It is ludicrous that it would take a judge more than a few hours to review the law and make a decision to allow her to change the ticket to an anonymous trust.

ASalazarMX 9y ago
I hope she wins because that requisite is dumb. You can endorse a $50 check but you can't endorse a multimillion lottery ticket?

PaulRobinson 9y ago

In the UK, lotteries are well regulated and audited by commissions who confirm payouts, etc. It's OK to stay anonymous, particularly in the largest lotteries (National Lottery and Euromillions, both operated in the UK by Camelot Plc), and you can not be publicly named without opting into it. It's my understanding that every person who gets a prize over £500k on the national/euro lotteries gets a visit from a Camelot employee to ensure they're prepared to handle the money and are speaking to suitable people who are not going to destroy their good fortune. I don't see why other lotteries in other countries can't do the same without the risk of fraud increasing.

slantyyz 9y ago

>> it's also about avoiding fraud. It can also prevent a spouse or common law partner from winning the lottery in secret and taking off with all the money. It's happened more than once in Ontario, Canada, with one story making the rounds right now.[1] [1] https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/06/woman-sues-former-live-in-boyfriend-after-he-bolted-with-winning-61-million-lotto-649-ticket.html https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/06/woman-sue...

ynniv 9y ago

Someone defrauding the system would know it well enough to claim it under an anonymous trust. The winner unintentionally forfeited this right by signing her name on the ticket.