Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer name-dropped Kim Kardashian during a case on Tuesday, as part of an argument concerning the legal definitions of fraud and theft.
The actual case in question is that of the appeal of Lawrence Shaw, who was convicted of bank fraud after transferring $300,000 to his account from his victim’s. Shaw’s attorneys argued that Shaw’s conviction should be tossed, since the bank fraud statute requires their client to have possessed intent to cause the bank to lose money.
“Kardashian’s thief, if there is one, believes that all that jewelry is insured. Indeed over-insured. So it’s not theft?” Justice Breyer asked of defense attorney Koren Bell, implying that the scenario was indeed a theft.
He went on to ask whether a thief posing as a jewelry cleaner to steal Kardashian’s jewelry shouldn’t also be considered fraud — regardless of whether the thief knows the jewelry is insured or whether the hypothetical Kardashian suffered a monetary loss from the theft.
The scenario appeared to liken the fake jewelery cleaner to Shaw, who was able to steal the $300,000 by deceiving his victim's bank; Shaw had created a Paypal account in his victim’s name, and linked it to the victim’s account.
“I’m asking you, 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 continued.
“I would have always thought from first year of law school, criminal law, that that was fraud, but perhaps I was wrong. So I would like you to explain it.”
Reality TV star Kim Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint in her Paris hotel room on Sunday, according to French authorities and Kardashian’s representative. The suspects allegedly made off with $10 million worth of her jewelry.