A judge yesterday ordered the ringleaders of the so-called Hatton Garden Gang to pay back GBP27.5 million or have another seven years in jail, on top of their sentence.
Two thirds of the value of the stolen assets remained unrecovered.
What intrigues me is how this will work out in terms of 'Prisoners Dilemma' as formulated by the Nash Equilibrium (game theory).
This holds that broadly, where you have two or more people who must make a decision, and none of the parties know what the decision of the others will be and have no control over the other parties' decision, then Prisoners Dilemma predicts that an individual will make a decision that optimises his own position.
As applied to the above it strikes me one can have no end of amusement speculating what the likely outcome will be. Bearing in mind they are all 'old age pensioners' (OAP's).
The first issue is:
1. Were all of the above aware of the total value of the assets?
ISTM that as this is unlikely as they would need to be valued first, and then the others would have to trust what the person doing the valuing says.
2. Did all of the four named parties receive an equal share?
Ha! This is where the fun starts. True, pirates in the olden days were said to be very equitable, sharing their ill-gotten loot equally amongst themselves. However, would a bunch of old lags be equally egalitarian?
Suppose one or two received substantially more than the other one or two (or three)? What if this is the first they have heard of it?
Three have been jailed already for seven years, Reader got 6. 25 years.
3. Then there is the men's age.
Reader, who is 78 is much older than Jones, 63 and Perkins, 69. He won't be out until age 85 ceteris parabus. Another seven years would make him 92 when released. Collins is 77.
The amount of time left to enjoy their criminal proceeds is limited.
4. The parameters. Thus what we have is age and life span versus how much each man received from the proceeds.
If a younger man got a significantly larger share, then their optimal decision, based on self-interest, would be I'd say, to pay it back and get out age 70 or 75 (Jones, Perkins).
The problem would then be the rancour of the older guys. What if they haven't got the share the judges has apportioned them? Worse, suppose this is the first they knew of the true value?
I'd predict they would confess to who did exactly what and show proof of how much (or little) they in fact got.
What will happen
I wouldn't be surprised if none of them are able to repay as the funds are probably now offshore in a relative's name.
So, let the fun begin.
That judge has a brilliant grasp of game theory!
Quote:
|
The four ringleaders behind the Hatton Garden raid must pay a total of £27.5m or serve another seven years in jail. John "Kenny" Collins, 77, Daniel Jones, 63, Terry Perkins, 69, and Brian Reader, 78, were ordered to pay the money back during a confiscation ruling at Woolwich Crown Court. The gang stole goods after drilling a hole in the wall of a vault at Hatton Garden Safe Deposit in Easter 2015. The raid has been branded the "largest burglary in English legal history". |
Quote:
|
Judge Christopher Kinch QC said the men jointly benefitted from an estimated £13.69m worth of stolen cash, gold and gems. The breakdown of the amounts ordered by the judge on Tuesday, based on the individuals' "available assets", are: John Collins, of Islington, north London - £7,686,039 Daniel Jones, of Enfield, north London - £6,649,827 Terry Perkins, of Enfield - £6,526,571 Brian Reader, of Dartford, Kent - £6,644,951, including the sale of his £639,800 home and development land worth £533,000 |
This holds that broadly, where you have two or more people who must make a decision, and none of the parties know what the decision of the others will be and have no control over the other parties' decision, then Prisoners Dilemma predicts that an individual will make a decision that optimises his own position.
As applied to the above it strikes me one can have no end of amusement speculating what the likely outcome will be. Bearing in mind they are all 'old age pensioners' (OAP's).
The first issue is:
1. Were all of the above aware of the total value of the assets?
ISTM that as this is unlikely as they would need to be valued first, and then the others would have to trust what the person doing the valuing says.
2. Did all of the four named parties receive an equal share?
Ha! This is where the fun starts. True, pirates in the olden days were said to be very equitable, sharing their ill-gotten loot equally amongst themselves. However, would a bunch of old lags be equally egalitarian?
Suppose one or two received substantially more than the other one or two (or three)? What if this is the first they have heard of it?
Three have been jailed already for seven years, Reader got 6. 25 years.
3. Then there is the men's age.
Reader, who is 78 is much older than Jones, 63 and Perkins, 69. He won't be out until age 85 ceteris parabus. Another seven years would make him 92 when released. Collins is 77.
The amount of time left to enjoy their criminal proceeds is limited.
4. The parameters. Thus what we have is age and life span versus how much each man received from the proceeds.
If a younger man got a significantly larger share, then their optimal decision, based on self-interest, would be I'd say, to pay it back and get out age 70 or 75 (Jones, Perkins).
The problem would then be the rancour of the older guys. What if they haven't got the share the judges has apportioned them? Worse, suppose this is the first they knew of the true value?
I'd predict they would confess to who did exactly what and show proof of how much (or little) they in fact got.
What will happen
I wouldn't be surprised if none of them are able to repay as the funds are probably now offshore in a relative's name.
So, let the fun begin.
That judge has a brilliant grasp of game theory!
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2nsZcFu
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire