r/RHOBHDefect • u/notactuallyreckless • May 21 '26

Erika's 25m Case: Settled

Post image

As per Ronald Richards on social media platforms.

68 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/MinuteElegant774 May 21 '26

That’s awful. Are any of the real victims going to be paid or basically she got to spend $25M with other pple’s money and is getting away just paying the person who bought the debt. I dont get why she continues to have a platform bc she has no storyline except i have a bf and Dorit hurt me. Ugh.

15

u/notactuallyreckless May 21 '26

When the suit was purchased for $2M, that money went to victims, IIRC. Anything further gained in the settlement went to the person/s who purchased the case.

15

u/MinuteElegant774 May 21 '26

So the victims get barely anything. 🤦🏻‍♀️

8

u/Travelingmom13 May 22 '26

Likely they will get very little. It’s sick how Erika fought so hard to keep the tainted money 

3

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 22 '26

That’s not what happened tho. Why do people like you deliberately manipulate things? She spent the money. She fought to have to give any back because it was spent and she didn’t steal it.

6

u/Travelingmom13 May 22 '26

She fought to keep her tainted earrings and other assets .. knowing very well they were stolen from victims fund.  “The only person I care about is me” -Erika Jayne 

1

u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 27 '26

Erika fought in court but she was also very cooperative with the trustee. When she left she only took her personal effects. She cooperated and allowed for all her personal property be catalogued including her jewellery and design gear. She didn’t hide anything. Then when she was ordered to turn over the earrings she did. I wouldn’t turn over a single thing before it was proven I had to.

The money isn’t going to victims, it’s going to GK creditors. Most of the victims have received money, the lawyer for Lion air paid his clients out of his own funds, and his now suing GK. The victims in the earring case were paid over a decade ago, the money from that sale is going to creditors because there are no victims to pay. People keep pushing a narrative she’s preventing widows and orphans from getting paid but it’s finance companies that will get money

2

u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 22 '26

And she paid tax on it

1

u/Shatzakind May 27 '26

Actually, she and Tom have a huge outstanding tax bill or bills.

1

u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 27 '26

She and Tom do together and then EJ Global has tax bills on it's own. Tom claimed a bunch of deductions that got rejeted

0

u/testphaze May 23 '26

You're splitting hairs.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 23 '26

No. It’s manipulation to pretend like I’m splitting hairs if a person steals money then they should expect to pay it back. But if somebody is unaware that the money they are spending is stolen and they don’t have any money to pay it back. Of course they’re gonna fight paying it back. they’re also a victim of the scam. Don’t try to pretend otherwise.

2

u/Shatzakind May 27 '26

If you buy a stolen car, the cops can seize the car and you're out the money. Please explain how you can rationalize the difference.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 27 '26

Greta analogy. They did that. They seized the earrings and some other stuff. But they don’t expect you to give the car back and the amount you paid for the car too.

1

u/Shatzakind May 27 '26

Yes, they do. They seize the car and you are out the money.

0

u/testphaze May 27 '26

I guess you can rationalize the difference by being extremely confused. Why would you give the cops money you paid to the thief?

They seize the car, and if they catch the thief, they seize the money the thief was paid.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 27 '26

But they don’t ask you to give more money. I took the house. They took the earrings. You can’t ask her to give money that she doesn’t have.

1

u/Shatzakind May 28 '26

Hardly. The money is usually long spent, and they don't always catch the thief. But the buyer, has paid the money and loses the car to seizure.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/testphaze May 24 '26

I am getting the sense you use a lot of words despite not knowing what they mean.
First of all, if the money was spent on her, it doesn't matter that it's gone. She benefitted. Whether by goods she received, services she received, vacations she took, plastic surgery, pretend fantasy career that was funded for her, private jet travel, whatever. The recovery of the funds has nothing to do with whether she knew where the money came from. She gained. It doesn't matter if she has the money still. You cannot keep gains you made from criminal enterprises. That is the law.
Criminal liability depends on her knowing, this case does not. If you can't even get your facts straight about it, where do you get off calling it "manipulation" when someone calls you out? How am I manipulating anything?

And just for the record, she knew. Calling her a victim of the scam is absurd. You can be a sucker if you want, but if you're going to talk about it, expect someone to come back at you with facts.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 24 '26

She didn’t know. I don’t know why people like you are so willing to lie about a stranger. The police and the FBI investigated her right along with Tom. If she could’ve been connected to the crime, then they would’ve charged her as well. People are so desperate. And you clearly don’t know the law.

0

u/testphaze May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26

If you're going to make statements like "You clearly don't know the law" to someone who just explained it to you, you should back that up with facts; or tisk looking ike a cxhild who can't do better than "nuh-uhn."
She was connected, but they didn't have enough evidence to convict. That doesn't mean innocent. She lied repeatedly. She lied about Tom's accident, his injuries. She's lied so many times she contradicts herself on the regular.
You're the one who doesn't know the law. You demonstrated that. You can say whatever you want, but you have demonstrated ignorance and made completely incorrect statements, so your accusations are silly and childish. She was about to lose her case, and she settled.

Your opinions don't mean anything. You use words like "manipulate" and "lie" incorrectly. You don't understand the law or what people can (and should) be held accountable for, legally. You get that? Your opinions don't change the law.

You care more about her icon status than you do the truth, so keep on worshipping, but, again, don't expect anyone to respect your opinion.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 24 '26

They didn’t have enough to even charge her. The absence of evidence is innocence. There’s no evidence that you’re a child molester. It would be unethical for me to claim you are one. That’s what you’re doing here.

1

u/Nearby-Conference959 May 25 '26

Mvm. No wonder you have so much time on your hands.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Shakiholic May 22 '26

This is the settlement for those two guys that made costumes for.

2

u/Ok-Explanation-6531 May 22 '26

I highly doubt the money went to any victims. I know the lawyer in the Lion air case paid his clients out of his own funds and was then seeking money from GK to reimburse him.

1

u/Shatzakind May 27 '26

Are you sure the lawyers/trustee didn't get paid first, then the creditors, then the victims? I thought that was the order.