FTP and GBT reach agreement - Page 6 - Poker News Headlines

vamooose · 12-24-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D2D

Are you sure about the 40M kickback... seems that is what is generaly being reported but also seems unnecessarely convoluted. Why would GBT come up with 80M up front only to recive back 40M the next day? And from the standpoint of the DOJ why would they not simply sell for 40M and keep the other 40M when as part of any negotiate deal FTP has to forefit all asses and therfore there is no question about who can come into posesion of said funds.

WSJ Online Nov 18

The deal allows for some money in bank accounts associated with Full Tilt that were seized (ed: frozen) by the U.S. government to be given to (ed: retained by) the investment group, according to the agreement letter. Accounting for that, the amount spent by Groupe Bernard Tapie for the assets would actually be around $40 million, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

DoJ gets to report higher settlement sum
DoJ have a poor success rate in seizing overseas bank accounts
DoJ probably traded this $40m in return for the right to collect the phantom deposits

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Not just that, but the DOJ was going to have to contest a claim put in by a player on that ~$40M, and that ~$40M seized on BF for money laundering could have been ruled impermissible to use for remission from fraud, but the $80M directly from GBT for FTP assets can be stipulated to be used for remission.

Win, win, win, win.

D2D · 12-24-2011, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamooose

WSJ Online Nov 18

DoJ gets to report higher settlement sum
DoJ have a poor success rate in seizing overseas bank accounts
DoJ probably traded this $40m in return for the right to collect the phantom deposits

Higher sum makes sense for playing stupid politics so that must be the reason.

Success to seizing oversees accounts seems irrelevant when FTP has to willing forfeit all assest before any sale can occur.

Please see the other section of my post as to why the right to phantom deposits could well be worthless.

**SGT RJ** · 12-25-2011, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by permafrost

I think UIGEA penalizes a poker business if unlawful bets are involved; it does not make poker illegal. Where did DOJ say what you claim?

The fact that poker companies had to mislabel their transactions in order to get some US banks to process them suggests that a) the application of the UIGEA was specifically applied to online poker sites, despite the fact that the Wire Act was never intended to apply to online poker and b) that the US government (and the DOJ as an extension of that government) views online poker as an illegal activity.

I already said that the legality of online poker was a discussion that would be better in another thread (it's a legal gray area), but I don't think it's all that controversial to state that it is the opinion of the US government that online poker is illegal. Just because that is their view doesn't necessarily make it so.

permafrost · 12-25-2011, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

The fact that poker companies had to mislabel their transactions in order to get some US banks to process them suggests that a) the application of the UIGEA was specifically applied to online poker sites, despite the fact that the Wire Act was never intended to apply to online poker and b) that the US government (and the DOJ as an extension of that government) views online poker as an illegal activity.

I already said that the legality of online poker was a discussion that would be better in another thread (it's a legal gray area), but I don't think it's all that controversial to state that it is the opinion of the US government that online poker is illegal. Just because that is their view doesn't necessarily make it so.

Sorry, i thought you were saying the DOJ stance is that UIGEA made offering poker illegal.