Party A: A chip dealer finds a chip in a junk box at another dealer's table which has been damaged.
An obvious cancellation hole is in the center and it is missing a center inlay.

Party B: Purchases the chip knowing it has been discounted because it has been cancelled by the casino to make it worthless and unredeemable. But she has a friend who can make seemingly undectectable repairs and no one will see this chip as it's going into her personal collection.

Party C: The friend fills in the hole (for a fee) and replaces the center inlays with two inlays from another chip because she was unable match the one missing.

Party B; After a period of time the chip collector dies and the surviving non-collector mate decides to sell the collection, which includes the forgery chip, to an auction house on consignment.

Party D: The Auction house lists the chip in their sale catalog

Party E: Sees the chip and recognizes it from a photo in a well-respected "Official" reference book (Party F ) that it resembles a chip that is valued in the neighborhood of four figures. Party E purchases the chip and lists it on a major auction web-site (Party G) as a rare chip using the reference catalog number and value in the listing process.

Party H: wins the chip in the in the auction, then finds it is not the true chip listed in the well known catalog ... but a fake ... a reconstructed forgery.
She sues all of the parties naming them “Singularly and Severally” as defendants.

All have obviously been involved in a fraud. You be the jury. Which parties are guilty of committing fraud?

A B C D E F G H

Footnote; It is learned through hypothetical court testimony that party "C" has been involved in many, many, repairs of previously cancelled and damaged chips and has been fixing them for a fee for several undisclosed "friends" for some time now.