rogue

Anna Delvey is now profiting from her crimes. But in Australia, it is illegal.

For the last few weeks, the world has been captivated by Anna Delvey. Or really, Anna Sorokin.

Inventing Anna has been a viewing success for Netflix, the miniseries following the story of the con artist.

For four years, Anna Delvey, as she was known by Manhattan's elite, enjoyed a life full of private jets, designer clothing and grand events. As a millionaire German heiress, she was readily invited into the 'who's who' of New York City.

Yet she wasn't actually a millionaire German heiress. Instead she was conning friends, the rich elite and big banks to fund her lavish and aspirational lifestyle. 

So don't be fooled by the celebrity/enigma treatment given to the 'character' of Anna in the miniseries, because there were victims of her crimes. And now she is profiting from them. 

Watch: Inventing Anna official teaser. Post continues below.

Anna was paid a hefty sum of money from Netflix for Shonda Rhimes to produce her story. Reported by multiple news outlets, the amount insiders claim Anna was paid is approximately US$320,000. 

According to Insider, of the $320,000 Anna received from Netflix she paid $199,000 in restitution, $24,000 in state fines, and $75,000 in attorney fees.  

After this, Anna was allowed to keep whatever was left over. And although the amount left over isn't astronomical, it still brings into question a moral dilemma. 

Ultimately, the realisation that Anna is in some way, shape, or form profiting from her crimes feels a little icky. In Australia, our laws are far stricter. 

As noted by The Conversation, the proceeds of crime law allows orders to be made to seize the proceeds of the commercial exploitation of a person's notoriety from criminal offending. The legislation does differ slightly from state to state, but simply put, this ensures criminals cannot pocket the proceeds of their crime, under the blanket term of 'literary sales'.

As for the case of convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby, she cannot cash in on the nine years she spent imprisoned in Bali but her family can, a Melbourne lawyer told AAP.

"Schapelle Corby can’t make money as a result of her notoriety … arising from her offending but other people can," proceeds of crime expert Christian Juebner said.

In 2006, Corby co-wrote My Story, an account of her life in Kerobokan Prison published by Pan Macmillian. Her family pocketed $270,000 but the Commonwealth recovered about $128,000 in proceeds in 2009.

"This order related to benefits derived by Ms Corby from the publication of her biography My Story by Pan Macmillan, and from an article published in the New Idea Magazine," the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions said in a statement.

The same goes for Cassie Sainsbury, also known by the moniker 'Cocaine Cassie'. She was sentenced to six years behind bars in 2017 after she was caught with 5.8kg of cocaine hidden in her luggage as she tried to leave Bogota airport in Columbia on April 12 2017. After two years, 11 months and 21 days in a Colombian prison, Cassie was released. 

Cassie of course underwent two infamous 60 Minutes interviews where she admitted to lying about the story behind why she did what she did. A Channel Nine spokesperson did note the broadcaster had not paid any money to Cassie, "neither directly or indirectly".

Ultimately, Anna's alleged lack of remorse coupled with the fact she is now profiting from her actions has left a sour taste in the mouths of many. As Rachel DeLoache Williams wrote: "Anna 'Delvey' Sorokin almost ruined my life. Now she's being rewarded for her crimes."

Has Anna 'done her time' and 'paid her dues'? Yes. 

But should Anna have been allowed to profit since being released from prison? In America, she can.

Image: Getty/Netflix.

Feature Image: Getty/Mamamia.

Want to get the most out of your day? Take our survey now to go in the running to win a $50 gift voucher!

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

cat 3 years ago
Oh well. Her "crimes" were essentially victimless, the one person she took significant money from and caused financial distress has profited greatly off the situation. She was convicted for trying to get loans that she didn't actually get, the hotels etc she failed to pay were covered by insurance. It does seem a bit insane to try and prevent people talking about their experience because they committed a non-violent crime. Many people have done a lot worse than she did and walked away with a $60mill golden handshake payout rather than jail time. 
snorks 3 years ago 2 upvotes
@cat you don't need to put crimes in quotes, they are actually crimes. 
Victimless? I suppose, unless you count the victims. 
So by your view stealing a car would be okay because insurance covers it?
'Many people have done a lot worse than she did and walked away with a $60mill golden handshake payout rather than jail time.' If you have knowledge of a crime you should really report it. 

mamamia-user-482898552 3 years ago 3 upvotes
In Australia, our laws are far stricter. 
 Good.