Chinese (Simplified) 
Chinese (Traditional) 
English 
French 
Alemão 
Italian 
Japanese 
Norwegian 
Spanish 
4 min read
0 comments
The verdict confirmed that pool agreements are legally valid and ordered the winner to pay five coworkers with whom he had played for years, after refusing to share the prize and trying to hide the winning ticket.
A construction worker in the United States won $38,5M monthly in the lottery and tried to keep it all. The story ended in court, where a judge forced the winner to split the prize money among five coworkers who had been participating in the same pool for six years. The case exposed how verbal agreements can have legal force when there is proof of the agreement and the group's continued participation.
The Portuguese-American Americo Lopes was convicted in 2012 of making payments to former lottery partners. According to the case, he concealed the winning bet, fabricated an illness to get out of his job, and was only unmasked after the news of the award was made public. The court considered that the agreement to divide was clear and long-standing, recognizing the rights of the other members.
Who was in the pool and what was the deal?
The pool gathered six coworkers from the same construction company.
-
Brazilian Chamber approves bill that limits land expropriation and changes agrarian reform rules three decades after the original law.
-
With the new law signed by Lula, banks are required to disclose all costs, allow automatic salary portability, and create credit options with lower interest rates.
-
'CPF for Real Estate' starts in 2026 and could change how your property tax is calculated, but the tax authorities deny a tax increase.
-
So, does paying tolls infringe on the right to come and go? Here's what the law clearly states.
The rule was simple: everyone contributed, and if the ticket won, the prize would be split equally.
The history of participation, reported by those involved, showed regularity in betting and mutual knowledge of the rules.
The trust between coworkers supported the agreement.
Even without a written contract, the group maintained the habit of recording purchases and sharing numbers, which helped in the reconstruction of the facts in the process.
In disputes of this type, the Court analyzes testimonies and evidence of routine and intention of the parties.
How the fraud came to light
In 2009, Lopes won the award and pretended nothing had happened, even informing the company that he was sick and needed to take time off.
The farce fell apart when a relative of one of the members read the report about the millionaire win and linked the winner to his former colleague from the lottery.
From then on, the coworkers filed a lawsuit.
At trial, the defendant claimed to have left the pool before the bet, but did not present consistent evidence.
The version did not convince the jury, which accepted the thesis that the ticket had been purchased under the usual practice of joint gambling.
Why did the Court decide on the division?
The judge recognized the existence of a verbal agreement and understood that everyone's behavior for years demonstrated clear intention to share.
In civil law, pacts without written form may be valid when there is proof of their existence and execution, especially in ongoing relationships such as recurring pools.
The decision also considered the duty of good faith between partners of an agreement.
Hide the winning ticket and unilaterally break the sharing was seen as a violation of that duty.
Result: In March 2012, the court in Elizabeth, New Jersey, ordered the payment of $2 million to each of the five plaintiffs.
How much each person received and the financial impact
The prize announced was US$38,5 million before taxes.
The process pointed out that, after taxes, the net value fell significantly, as is standard in North American lotteries.
Within this scenario, the judge set individual compensation at US$2 million for each member not included.
To the coworkers, the sentence meant recognition of rights and change of life.
For the defendant, it represented substantial loss of expected gain, And public exposure e legal costs that could have been avoided with transparency and immediate division.
Practical lessons for those who participate in pools
The main lesson is formalize the agreement, even if in a simple way.
Leave in writing who participates, how much they contributed and how it will be divided reduces conflicts and facilitates evidence in the event of a dispute.
In work environments, keep purchase and transfer records helps demonstrate continuity and consensus.
Another lesson is the ticket management.
Set a guardian, create copies or photos of the bets and share them with everyone.
In case of award, transparent communication is the best protection for those involved.
Good faith preserves relationships and avoids long and costly litigation.
What this case teaches us about verbal agreements
The episode shows that the courts can recognize and enforce unwritten agreements, as long as they exist evidence of habit, contributions and common expectation.
Messages, testimonials and participation histories function as evidence.
To coworkers who organize sweepstakes, predictability is essential.
Clear rules, minimal registration and communication are sufficient to provide security to the group and prevent a million-dollar prize from becoming a legal problem.
-
-
-
-
-
-
795 people reacted to this.