Oh, get serious. 16 or 20…..he wouldn’t be in the bigs anyway. This suit is just because the Nats this year suck. If their record were different they wouldn’t care.
The point is that if he was truly 16 and who he said he was, they would have had 4 years to work with him and maybe he could have been in the majors by 20 years old.
At the end of the day, the player wasn’t whom he was supposed to be and employees of the Nationals were in on the plot for financial gain. I think that is fraud and embezzlement whether its a baseball team or a machine shop where the bookkeeper steals from the company.
Given the poverty level and non existant record keeping in many foreign countries that MLB actively scouts and recruits, I bet that this has happened before. Somewhow with this one, they got caught.
Jose Rijo at the time was an ASSISTANT to the Nationals’ general manager. In other words, an employee with no authority. How does that make the team complicit?
Embezzlement is still covered – that’s what employee dishonesty coverage is for. Whether you’re taking from the till or cashing company checks for fraudulent expenses, crime coverage is (largely) intended for that situation.
I’m guessing Westchester is relying on the voluntary parting exclusion to (likely, rightly) decline coverage.
Usually “voluntary parting” (whether induced by trickery or not) is excluded or severely limited by crime policies especially when relying on the base unendorsed form. This wasn’t theft, this was voluntary parting under false circumstances.
Maybe Westchester has a special bell or whistle for this type of situation, but I doubt it’d be covered under most crime policies.
Oh, get serious. 16 or 20…..he wouldn’t be in the bigs anyway. This suit is just because the Nats this year suck. If their record were different they wouldn’t care.
The point is that if he was truly 16 and who he said he was, they would have had 4 years to work with him and maybe he could have been in the majors by 20 years old.
The players all make too much money anyway. They shouldn’t have spent so much on a prospect.
At the end of the day, the player wasn’t whom he was supposed to be and employees of the Nationals were in on the plot for financial gain. I think that is fraud and embezzlement whether its a baseball team or a machine shop where the bookkeeper steals from the company.
Given the poverty level and non existant record keeping in many foreign countries that MLB actively scouts and recruits, I bet that this has happened before. Somewhow with this one, they got caught.
Jose Rijo at the time was an ASSISTANT to the Nationals’ general manager. In other words, an employee with no authority. How does that make the team complicit?
Embezzlement is still covered – that’s what employee dishonesty coverage is for. Whether you’re taking from the till or cashing company checks for fraudulent expenses, crime coverage is (largely) intended for that situation.
I’m guessing Westchester is relying on the voluntary parting exclusion to (likely, rightly) decline coverage.
Usually “voluntary parting” (whether induced by trickery or not) is excluded or severely limited by crime policies especially when relying on the base unendorsed form. This wasn’t theft, this was voluntary parting under false circumstances.
Maybe Westchester has a special bell or whistle for this type of situation, but I doubt it’d be covered under most crime policies.