程阳：美国爱荷华州彩票官员操纵盗揽巨奖

 程阳：美国爱荷华州彩票官员盗领巨奖被逮捕

 

Eddie Tipton, as featured on MUSL's Web site.

 

=============

 http://www.lotterypost.com/news/288274

BOMBSHELL: MUSL employee might have rigged Hot Lotto computerized drawing

 

Apr 13, 2015, 8:14 am

 

Lottery Post has been warning of the dangers of computerized drawings for over a decade, and now prosecutors of the mystery Hot Lotto winner from Iowa are looking at the possibility that those warnings have come true.

 

Prosecutors believe there is evidence indicating a former information-security director for a lottery vendor in Iowa tampered with lottery equipment before buying a Hot Lotto ticket that would go on to win $14.3 million, according to court documents filed Thursday.

 

The trial for Eddie Raymond Tipton, 51, of Norwalk is set to begin Monday. Tipton was arrested and charged with two counts of fraud on Jan 15.

 

(See MUSL employee arrested in Hot Lotto jackpot mystery, Lottery Post, Jan. 15, 2015.)

 

Tipton has been accused of purchasing a Hot Lotto ticket at a QuikTrip near Interstate Highway 80 on Dec. 23, 2010. At the time, Tipton was the director of information security at the Multi-State Lottery Association. His job barred him from playing the lottery or claiming lottery prizes, as stated in Iowa law.

 

Authorities said Tipton enlisted the help of others to try to claim the $14.3 million prize. They say this included Robert Clark Rhodes II, 46, of Sugarland, Texas, who was arrested by Texas police on two counts of fraud March 20.

 

At a January press conference announcing Tipton's arrest, authorities said the charges were not based on the premise that Tipton manipulated the lottery outcome. Court documents filed Thursday indicated prosecutors suspect Tipton did tamper with lottery equipment.

 

"There is sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude from the evidence that Defendant tampered with lottery equipment," prosecutors wrote.

 

The prosecution outlined their supposed evidence in a reply to the defendant's motion that requested "all evidence of the tampering theory be excluded." The defense claimed the prosecution's tampering theory "is not factually viable."

 

The defense argued Tipton could not have edited or accessed the Random Number Generator in December 2010. The motion stated Tipton was in Texas from the afternoon of Dec. 23, 2010 until after New Year's 2011.

 

The defendant's motion also explained how the RNG computers were in a "locked glass-walled room accessible only by two people at a time and then only on camera" and not connected to the Internet or any network. The defense wrote that the RNG programs do self-checks and outside firms "access them

and certify their contents and programs."

 

"Moreover, the State is aware that there is actually no evidence that Defendant tampered with the RNG computers or program," the defense wrote in its motion.

 

Prosecutors countered this motion by claiming they have a "prima facie," or at first glance, case that Tipton tampered with lottery equipment.

 

In their reply to the defense's motion, prosecutors argued that Tipton's co-workers said he "was 'obsessed' with root kits, a type of computer program that can be installed quickly, set to do just about anything, and then self-destruct without a trace." The prosecution claimed a witness will testify that Tipton

told him before December 2010 that he had a self-destructing root kit.

 

Prosecutors also argued in their reply that Tipton was in the draw room on Nov. 20, 2010, "ostensibly to change the time on the computers." The prosecution alleged the cameras in the room on that date recorded about one second per minute instead of how they normally operate, recording every second a

person is in the room.

 

"Four of the five individuals who have access to control the camera's settings will testify they did not change the cameras' recording instructions; the fifth person is Defendant," the prosecution wrote.

 

It is a reasonable deduction to infer that Defendant tampered with the camera equipment to have an opportunity to insert a thumbdrive into the RNG tower without detection."

 

Bizarre case leads investigators across the continent

 

The ticket Tipton has been accused of buying went unclaimed for almost a year. Hours before the ticket was set to expire in 2011, Hexham Investments Trust, a mysterious company incorporated in Belize, tried to claim the prize through Crawford Shaw, a New York attorney.

 

Lottery officials refused to release the prize because those behind the trust declined to give their identities, as required under Iowa law. Shaw withdrew the claim to the prize in January 2012.

 

Iowa Lottery officials asked the Iowa Attorney General's Office and Iowa DCI to investigate. The investigation led authorities to a man in Quebec City, Canada, who was listed on a Grantor Trust Agreement as Hexham Investments Trust's trustor and president.

 

That man, who has not been charged, told authorities two Houston men — Rhodes and an attorney — asked for his help in claiming the lottery ticket in October 2011. The man in Canada said he had past professional relationships with the two men.

 

The Houston attorney told the Canada man that he "represented a client who had a legitimate claim to the lottery but wanted to remain anonymous," according to a criminal complaint.

 

Shaw told authorities the Houston attorney, with whom he had a professional relationship for more than 30 years, originally contacted him about the ticket and sent it to him. Shaw then completed the paperwork needed to claim the lottery prize, as instructed by the Rhodes and the Houston attorney.

 

DCI officials traveled to Houston to talk to the two men in June, but they "did not make themselves available," the complaint said.

 

At an Oct. 9 news conference, DCI officials asked for the public's help in identifying the man seen in surveillance video purchasing the winning ticket. Authorities said they received a tip on Oct. 13 from an out-of-state employee of the Multi-State Lottery Association that claimed Tipton was the man in the video.

 

Tipton said in an interview with a DCI special agent Nov. 7 that he did not buy the ticket. He said he was seeing family in Houston, where he grew up, authorities said.

 

Tipton's cellphone records indicated he was in Des Moines when the ticket was purchased, according to the arrest report. Investigators also discovered Tipton had frequent phone conversations with Rhodes, with whom he attended the University of Houston and worked at a Houston-based company.

 

Authorities said Tipton rented a silver 2007 Ford Edge, which matched the vehicle of the buyer of the winning lottery ticket, on Dec. 22, 2010.

 

In December interviews with DCI special agents, other people claimed Tipton's voice and mannerisms matched those of the man shown in the video buying the winning ticket, authorities said.

 

Authorities arrested Tipton on Jan. 15. He was charged with two counts of fraud, which is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $750 to $7,500.

 

Texas police arrested Rhodes on March 20. He was also charged with two counts of fraud.

 

=============

 http://www.lotterypost.com/petition-true-drawings.aspx

Petition for True Lottery Drawings

 

There is an alarming trend among government-sponsored lotteries to change lottery draw procedures from using a mechanical drawing device to using computer-generated numbers.

 

Mechanical drawing machines, such as the ping-pong ball machines we're all familiar with from TV broadcasts, provide a physical and auditable means of ensuring a fair and truly random lottery drawing.

 

On the other hand, with computerized drawing results, the state lottery employs one or more computers to generate a "random" sequence of numbers.  Someone presses a button, and on the operator's computer screen the lottery results instantly appear.  Wait a minute, I have a few questions!

 

What just happened that created those numbers?

How can we be sure those numbers were truly random?

 

Don't we use computers specifically because they are non-random?

 

So why are the states moving to computerized results?

 

The states claim that they save money by using computers, thereby returning more revenue to the state budgets.  However, as we'll explain, this is not necessarily true.  Furthermore, utilizing computers can actually harm the process, the public's confidence in the results, and ultimately the lottery revenues.

 

First, computers are not truly random.  In fact, in our society they are relied upon so heavily because of their unswerving consistency.  Therefore, generating a random number is something that has to be simulated in a computer.  And depending on how well that simulation is programmed, the computer can

begin to produce patterns of numbers -- rather than random numbers -- and possibly favor some numbers over others.

Computer hacking is a term that has entered the daily lexicon because of its prevalence within every aspect of computers.  Hackers can produce code that goes undetected for long periods of time, and causes unseen problems.  Why do the state lotteries think that they are immune from hacking, when some

of the most secure computers in the world have been hacked into?  Worse, a state employee "on the take" could insert malicious computer code into the drawing process that could specify the exact numbers that are drawn.  A crafty programmer could keep this secret for a long time.

 

The savings created by computerized drawings is a specious argument.  For example, the Missouri Lottery (not to pick on the Missouri Lottery) claims that it will save $80,000 per year by conducting drawings on a computer.  But when weighed against annual sales of almost $1 billion, why are they risking the

alienation of their player base for such a small amount?

 

Further, after the lotteries "save" all that money (all $80,000 of it), they go and spend additional money to create fancy computer animation graphics that looks like a cartoon version of a ping-pong ball machine lottery drawing.  So what do we draw from this?  Perhaps the lottery knows that players want

lottery draw machines, and their fancy graphics are supposed to appease the players and make them feel better about the results.  What other reason would there be to spend all that money they just saved by not actually having a real drawing?  In fact, why not just have a real drawing?

 

As the state lotteries stop using mechanical drawing machines and instead present cartoon representations of the drawings, the public loses the ability to see the actual drawing on live broadcast television.  While the state lotteries may see a live broadcast of a drawing as unnecessary overhead, many people

view it as an essential way to maintain their confidence in fair drawings.

 

We are not aware of any objective studies conducted by the states to determine the fallout of moving to drawings-by-computer.  Perhaps the states fear the consequences of opening their practices to public scrutiny?

 

The utter lack of federal standards for conducting lottery drawings has opened up this can of worms.  By allowing the states to determine what constitutes a random number, disparities in drawing procedures among the states is opening the door for fraudsters to enter.

 

The federal government needs to step in because there is so much federal money at stake.  All lottery prizes are taxable income by the federal government, and with billions of dollars in taxable prizes every year, a crisis in player confidence can directly impact the government's revenues.

 

With 14 states already on the computerized drawing bandwagon, it is time to put a halt to this practice before it's too late.

 

Most importantly, Lottery Post has always tried to be a voice of reason in the lottery industry.  We do not buy into conspiracy theories, and we would never sponsor a petition that smacked of conspiracy.  We are doing this because we feel the state lotteries are making a big mistake by going to computerized

drawings.  They are not bad people with ill intentions: they are listening to the wrong advice, or perhaps not listening to their most fervent players.  Whatever you want to call it, they are making a gross miscalculation.

 

We urge you to sign the petition now, and send a clear message to Washington: that they need to put a stop to computerized lottery drawings, and impose federal guidelines on how lottery drawings are to be conducted.

 

— Editor, Lottery Post

 

============

 http://www.lotterypost.com/news/285100

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_507de1780102vluv.html

 

MUSL employee arrested in Hot Lotto jackpot mystery

Jan 15, 2015, 10:44 pm

 

DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation has made an arrest in the four-year-old case involving a winning Hot Lotto ticket worth more than $16 million which the winner mysteriously decided not to claim.

 

Eddie Raymond Tipton, 51, of Norwalk, was arrested on Thursday. He has been charged with two counts of fraud, which are class D felonies.

 

Tipton is Director of Information Security for the Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL), which is a vendor of the Iowa Lottery. His job prohibits him from playing the lottery. Assistant Director of the DCI Dave Jobes says Tipton attempted to claim the prize with the assistance of others.

 

"The allegations for these charges stem from his statutory prohibition on playing or winning the lottery. That prohibition was due to the nature of his employment with the Multi-State Lottery Association where he currently works as the Director of Information Securities," says Jobes.

 

The complaint against Tipton says he lied to investigators about buying the ticket and told them he was in Texas at the time. Cell phone records proved that was a false statement. The complaint also details the complicated maneuvering Tipton did in an attempt to claim the prize. He allegedly used friends in

Texas, one of which was a lawyer, to contact a Canadian man about claiming the prize because the winner wanted to remain anonymous. The Canadian man, Philip Johnston, contacted the lottery about claiming the prize but the lottery says his account of how the ticket was bought was not consistent with

the facts of the case.

 

Another attorney, Crawford Shaw, contacted the Iowa Lottery the day the ticket was to expire and said he represented Hexam Investments Ltd., the holder of the ticket. Johnston was listed as the Trustor/President of the company.

 

The lottery continued to question the validity of the claim because it could not determine who purchased the ticket and refused to pay the jackpot.

 

"We have strong security procedures in place to protect and ensure the integrity of our games and we absolutely believe this case indicates those processes worked to protect lottery players , lottery games and lottery prizes," says Iowa Lottery CEO Terry Rich.

 

The Hot Lotto ticket was bought at a Des Moines Quick Trip in 2010.  It went unclaimed until just hours before the ticket expired. An attorney who claimed to represent the winner came forward with the ticket. He refused to identify the winner or answer questions about the transaction then withdrew the claim.

 

"We all know there will always be people who will try and beat the system.  We have and will continue to update our security procedures to identify vulnerabilities to protect against them," says Rich.

 

The DCI has been investigating ever since, trying to determine what happened. They say despite Tipton's arrest, they are continuing to investigate the case.

 

Read the complaint in the Related Links section below.