Soloway

Dane Cook’s brother stole millions from him. Years later, Cook offered to forgive roughly $12 million in restitution for one thing: sit down with him for a filmed interview. His brother declined. Darryl McCauley wasn’t a stranger who gained access to a celebrity’s accounts. He was Cook’s half-brother and longtime business manager. While Cook built his career, the person handling his money was stealing from him. In 2010, McCauley pleaded guilty and received a five-to-six-year prison sentence. He and his wife were ordered to repay Cook $12 million. But a repayment order could not answer the question Cook still wanted to ask: why? While making Funny Money, the documentary about the betrayal, Cook offered to waive the restitution in exchange for his brother’s participation. McCauley did not appear. In the interview below, Cook explains that the damage went beyond his bank account. Their sister lost her brother’s presence. McCauley’s own son had to live through the consequences of his father’s crime. Cook still hasn’t ruled out speaking to him. “I’m a come-to-the-table kind of guy.” Forgiving a debt and rebuilding trust are not the same transaction. Cook was willing to discuss the first without knowing whether the second was possible. Would you give up a $12 million claim to finally hear someone explain why they betrayed you?

Drew Barrymore became a Hollywood star at seven. At 14, she legally separated from her parents. Years later, she was still paying to support the mother she had needed to leave. In the interview below, she explains why she no longer sees that childhood as a simple story of a villain and a victim. At 13, her mother put her in a psychiatric facility. Drew stayed for a year and a half. She says she was out of control, and eventually came to believe the treatment helped her. But returning to the same family arrangement wasn’t the answer. At 14, she became legally emancipated. Her mother supported the decision. Drew rebuilt her career and became a mother herself. She could have treated financial independence as permission to disappear. Instead, in her 2015 memoir, she explained why she continued supporting her mother: “I must know that she is taken care of or I simply cannot function.” By 2021, she told Howard Stern she had forgiven her mother’s decision to institutionalize her. That did not mean removing every boundary. Helping someone financially and giving them control over your life are two different decisions. Would you support a parent you needed to leave, or would paying their bills keep you tied to the relationship you escaped?

Gary Coleman’s parents helped turn him into a television star. Years later, a judge found that they and his business manager had wrongly taken $1.28 million of his earnings. When an interviewer compared him to child stars who had broken the law, Coleman interrupted. “The two of them have had trouble with the law ... I’m just trying to enforce it.” Coleman played Arnold on Diff’rent Strokes for eight seasons. Audiences knew his face and his catchphrase. Behind the scenes, adults controlled the money he earned. In 1989, at 21, he sued his parents and former business manager. His mother subsequently sought a conservatorship over his affairs. The judge rejected it. In February 1993, the court found that excessive commissions, salaries, fees and pension distributions had been taken from his earnings. The parties later reached a private settlement. In the interview below, Coleman refuses to let his fight for that money become another story about a troubled child star. “I want what’s mine. What’s rightfully mine.” The uncomfortable part is that protecting his money meant taking legal action against the people who raised him. If your parents helped build your career, where does gratitude end and their entitlement to your earnings begin?

James Zhong stole 50,000 Bitcoin from Silk Road. Nine years later, he called the police because someone had stolen from him. In 2012, Zhong discovered a flaw in Silk Road’s payment system. He created multiple accounts, deposited Bitcoin, then triggered more than 140 withdrawals in rapid succession. The system released far more Bitcoin than he had deposited. At the time, the stolen coins were worth approximately $600,000. Zhong moved them through different wallets and kept the secret for years. As Bitcoin exploded in value, his hidden fortune grew to more than $3 billion. Then, in 2019, someone broke into his Georgia home. Zhong called 911 and reported that roughly $400,000 had disappeared. “I’m having a panic attack,” he told the dispatcher. The call brought local police into his cryptocurrency life. Separately, federal investigators tracing the Silk Road theft followed a small transaction to an exchange that knew Zhong’s real identity. Agents visited his house pretending they were there to help recover his stolen money. Body-camera footage shows Zhong voluntarily opening his laptop and displaying millions of dollars in Bitcoin. A later search uncovered $661,900 in cash, gold, silver and physical Bitcoin tokens. The largest discovery was inside a bathroom closet. Under a pile of blankets, agents found a popcorn tin. Hidden at the bottom was a tiny computer containing access to thousands of stolen Bitcoin. Authorities recovered approximately 50,491 Bitcoin, then worth $3.36 billion. Zhong pleaded guilty and received one year and one day in prison. He successfully robbed the world’s largest online drug market. Then he called the police.

Macaulay Culkin had a fortune reportedly worth $15–20 million. His family was facing eviction. The money existed. Getting access to it meant removing his own parents from control. The boy from Home Alone had become one of the world’s most recognizable children. Behind the scenes, his parents were fighting over custody of him and his siblings. In a 2004 interview with Larry King, Culkin said legal bills had consumed his parents’ money. His mother could no longer afford the rent. He did not even know how much he had in the bank. “I didn't have a bed. I didn't even have a room.” He said he and his brother had been sleeping on a couch despite the money he was earning. Culkin explained that roughly 80% of his money was locked in a trust until he turned 18. His parents had legal guardianship over the remaining portion. As a teenager, he removed both their names and put an accountant he trusted in charge. The story became a Hollywood legend about a child who “divorced” his parents after they stole his fortune. Culkin rejected that version. His parents had not stolen all his money. He had changed who controlled it. That distinction matters. You can be wealthy on paper and still depend on someone else’s permission to use what you earned. If a child earns enough to support the entire family, should the parents still control the money?

Frank Rosenthal ran four Las Vegas casinos linked to the mob. On October 4, 1982, someone planted a bomb beneath his Cadillac. He survived, but could never identify who had wanted him dead. Rosenthal had just left Tony Roma’s restaurant when the explosion tore through his car. In this interview, he says he never heard the initial blast. He remembers fire shooting up from the floor toward the windshield. He reached for the door with his left hand. The heat forced him to pull it back. Then he reached across with his right arm, pushed his shoulder against the door and tumbled outside. Investigators believed a steel plate beneath the driver’s seat helped deflect the explosion. It was part of the Cadillac’s design, not armor Rosenthal had installed. The man trusted to run a casino empire had survived because of something he had not planned. Years later, an interviewer asked whether he had considered revenge. “First of all, revenge on who?” Rosenthal said identifying whoever planted or ordered the bomb would be speculation. The case remained unsolved. Robert De Niro would portray a character based on him in Casino. But the real story lacked the certainty a film can give its audience: Rosenthal escaped the burning car without learning who had put him inside it. Running the business did not mean knowing who could decide your future. Would you walk away from that empire, or keep working when you could not tell which relationship had become a threat?

Patrizia Reggiani arranged the murder of her ex-husband, Maurizio Gucci. Years later, an Italian court ruled that his heirs still owed her the annual payment he had promised before she had him killed. On March 27, 1995, a gunman shot Gucci outside his Milan office. The heir to one of the world’s most recognizable fortunes was 46. His marriage had ended, and he had a new partner. His former wife had not moved on. In 1998, Reggiani was convicted of organizing the murder and sentenced to 29 years in prison, later reduced to 26 on appeal. The plot involved her psychic adviser, a hotel doorman, a gunman and a getaway driver. Then came the financial twist. Before his death, Gucci had signed an agreement promising her an annual payment of 1.1 million Swiss francs. Years after her conviction, a Milan appeals court ruled that the agreement remained enforceable. The heirs were their two daughters. Their mother had arranged their father’s murder. Now she was pursuing payments from the fortune they inherited from him. This was not a court declaring her innocent or rewarding the killing. It was a ruling that her conviction did not extinguish that separate contractual obligation. The criminal case sent her to prison. The civil agreement still entitled her to money. Should arranging someone’s murder automatically cancel every financial promise they ever made to you?

Ross Ulbricht paid $100,000 in Bitcoin for secret information about the investigation into Silk Road. The man selling it was a DEA agent assigned to investigate him. Another agent on the same task force was stealing Bitcoin for himself. Carl Force had earned Ulbricht’s trust through an authorized undercover identity called “Nob.” Then he created another identity his colleagues knew nothing about: “French Maid.” Under that name, Force offered inside information about the government’s case. His story involved access to a corrupt government employee. The employee was Force himself. Ulbricht paid. Force kept the Bitcoin, concealed the payments and converted cryptocurrency into cash. In a separate scheme, he used his DEA authority to freeze a customer’s cryptocurrency account, then diverted roughly $300,000. Meanwhile, Secret Service agent Shaun Bridges obtained access to Silk Road accounts and stole approximately 20,000 Bitcoin. He later pleaded guilty and received 71 months in prison. Then, while awaiting sentencing, Bridges stole approximately 1,600 more Bitcoin. This time, from a government-controlled wallet. That theft led to another 24-month sentence. Force received 78 months. The agents had access because they were trusted to investigate the crime. They turned that access into an opportunity to commit their own. Silk Road’s users feared the people behind anonymous accounts. Two of the thieves were carrying federal badges. If the people guarding the evidence can steal it, who is supposed to guard them?

Dan Bilzerian says he won roughly $70 million playing poker against just three wealthy men. But another number complicates his story: a family trust he says once stood at $96 million. The man famous for displaying his fortune has spent years defending where it came from. In this 2021 interview with Graham Bensinger, Bilzerian describes watching that trust shrink to roughly $1.5 million. He also discusses signing away a third of his interest to help free his father. His explanation for the lifestyle everyone recognizes is different: enormous winnings in private poker games. Those winnings are his claims, not an independently verified record. But look at what he is claiming. Not that he defeated thousands of professionals. That he won around $70 million from three wealthy opponents. If his account is accurate, the opportunity depended on more than understanding cards. He needed access to people who could afford to lose extraordinary amounts, and a reason for them to keep playing. That is the uncomfortable distinction between being good at a game and finding a profitable one. The toughest opponent can give you prestige. The wealthiest opponent can give you a fortune. If you could win millions from someone who kept losing, would you stop inviting them? Follow for more stories where money makes the answer uncomfortable.

On November 20, 1974, British MP John Stonehouse left his clothes on a Miami beach and disappeared. His wife believed he had drowned. A month later, police found him alive in Australia, using a dead man’s identity. His businesses were collapsing. Stonehouse had obtained false identities and moved money overseas, preparing a new life away from his creditors, constituents and family. But moving the money created a trail. Bank accounts under different names attracted suspicion. On Christmas Eve, his disappearance stopped being a mystery and became a criminal investigation. Then came the television interview. Stonehouse was still an MP. Asked about continuing to receive his parliamentary salary while thousands of miles from his constituency, he described his escape as a “fact-finding tour.” Not just geographically, he explained, but into his own personality. The man who had staged his death was now explaining why taxpayers should keep paying him. In 1976, he was sentenced to seven years for offences including fraud and theft. A new identity could hide his name. It could not erase the transactions. Money leaves a second biography of your life. Unlike the story you tell people, you do not get to rewrite every copy. Would you trust someone more after an honest confession, or less after hearing how convincingly they explain the deception?