Supreme Court Justice Shades Kim Kardashian & Her Paris Robbery
While listening to the case Lawrence Eugene Shaw v. United States, where a California man said he didn’t commit bank fraud after draining another man’s bank account based on the fact that the bank was insured, Justice Breyer brought up Kim and her ordeal.
“Even Kardashian’s thief, if there is one, believes that all that jewelry is insured. Indeed, over-insured. So it’s not theft?” Justice Breyer said while speaking with the petitioner’s attorney Koren Bell (via CNN). “If he defrauds him out of the money, he defrauds her out of the jewelry, says, ‘Here I am, your local jewelry cleaner.’ Gets the jewelry. Wouldn’t you think that was fraud? Even if she’s insured. Even if he thinks she’s triple insured. Even if he thinks that, in fact, this isn’t even her jewelry, that it was just loaned her on the occasion by a good friend, the necklace. If the local person comes to the door and says, ‘Dear Miss Kardashian, I am your local jewelry cleaner. Please give me your jewelry. She does. And that’s not fraud. He wanted to get the jewelry … He also believed that the friend had just loaned it for the evening, that she’s triple insured, that she won’t even lose any money because the publicity will be worth it.”