Then that person's current account situation is better than his net worth by the amount of the phantom depost. None of those factors are reasons to wipe out a legitimate debt. They are just factors that might make it more difficult for the DoJ to actually collect.

And these are all reasons why the DoJ might choose not to bother trying to to collect the phantom deposits. However, much of that work will have to be done anyway, to figure out which players are owed money, or to get money to those players. I would hope that wouldn't make them decide to cancel refunds. If it doesn't why should it cancel recovery?.

Given that the amount of phantom deposts is within an order of magnitude of the unpaid US player balances, I think there is a good chance that the DoJ will go after these deposits, as long as there are legal grounds to do so. I think they stand to collect, net of recovery costs, an eight-figure sum.

if an individual owes a company money, then the company goes out of business, does the individual still owe the company money? i think that someone here could probably answer that given they know this current situation.

i am pretty sure that if a company that went out of business owes an individual money, and the company goes into liquidation, that most of the time the individual would receive what they are owed, usually only a portion.


who would know best? a consumer law attorney?

If the company totally disolves then likely not. But if some one buys its assets and continues operation, then outstanding recieveables may be considered as valid assets! Seems the DOJ situation is very unusual as they are obtaining asssets but are not (i don't think) planning on operating an online poker site

So it is assumed that the DOJ will have a complete list of all persons who had phantom deposits?

If that is the case, then the DOJ just sends out statements to everyone oweing money. Pay or don't pay, it's up to you but, once poker is legalized in the states, anyone oweing money must pay up or they are not allowed to register on the new site.

Flame away.

good point, that's what confuses me when trying to understand the possibilities.

Yes, of course.
That's right.
You don't get to decide when that point is reached. Whether the phantom depositors still owe the money to FTP is a matter of law. I haven't made any phantom deposts, so I haven't tried to find out whether those phantom deposits to FTP still constitute a debt.

The prudent course of action for all innocent phantom depositors would have been to assume that they continued to owe the money, until such time as they get reliable advice that the debt no longer stands.

That's ridiculous. People who made phantom deposits voluntarily agreed to give FTP some money in exchange for a service. They continue to have a contractual obligation to pay unless something occurs to release them from the contract. If they played on FTP after making the phantom deposit, then FTP partly complied with the contract. If they lost the full amount of the phantom deposit, then FTP fully complied with the contract. Those players cannot decide unilaterally that the contract no longer applies.
No, you're not. You are asking that what is done is what you just agreed SHOULD have been done. Collecting phantom depostis no more condones FTP's illegal activities than your own deposits on the site did.
Recovering phantom deposits doesn't subsidize improper dividends, because those dividends were paid already, and the recovered money will not comensate those who made the improper dividend payments.

If by "this money" you mean the improperly paid dividends, then it cannot legally be clawed back from shareholders unless those shareholders were complicit. However, it can be recovered from the Directors (presuming the Directors have sufficient assets) and that is what the DoJ are trying to do.
Recovery of the phantom deposits does not subsidize FTP or its owners or Directors. The only people it subsidizes are the taxpayers.
I'd rather the DoJ went after all the thieves, than just the high-profile ones. The lack of crimnal charges related to the improper dividend payments and the false promises of fund safety does not mean that the DoJ are not going after the perpetrators of these offences. There are new civil charges related to these offences.
I have no idea whre you are getting this moral from. The people who actually comitted offences stand to lose bigtime.

[QUOTE=D2D;30493184]Just so there's less confusion, I think that people that attempted to make a deposit in good faith but if was never collected should not have to pay it back now,[QUOTE]Just so there is less confusion, you are saying that players who never made phantom deposits should risk not getting paid in full because people who innocently made phantom deposits should have their legal debt obligations cancelled because the debt was to an alleged criminal.
So if you intended to pay your debt and never did, you should get a psss, but if you didn't intend to pay it you should have to pay it. I don't see why the intention to pay releases you from the obigation to pay.

I agree that the percentage of phantom depositors who did so deliberately is small, but I expect that the percentage of the dollar amount is much larger.

They can't go after the small fish first, because they have already gone after the big fish and they haven't gone after the small fish yet.

I have no idea whether the phantom deposits are legally recoverable at this point, but if they are, and if the forfeitures go ahead as expected, I would fully expect the DoJ to pursue them.

Most of the funds seized to date, plus the $80M expected to be recovered from the sale of assets whose forfeiture was sought in the original civil complaint, were seized in relation to offences which may not be deemed related to the players' losses. Since the DoJ has mentioned phantom deposits and improper dividend payments as being related to the new charges in conjunction with discussion of remission, I think it is not unreasonable to think that US player refunds may be funded from recovery of phantom deposits and forfeiture of Directors' assets. This is only one possibility, of course, and I can't rule out the possibility that the $80M and perhaps some seized bank accounts will be used for that purpose instead or as well.

When I recall the press release that the DoJ issued after the ammended complaint- the release that mentioned remission - I get the impression that the DoJ is saying that the reason that FTP is unable to pay players (i.e. the reason for the players' losses) is the new offences added in the ammended complaint. This impression is reinforced by the DoJ position at the time of the original seizures which was that the seizures did not prevent FTP from paying players. Their summary of new offences refers to improper dividend payments and allowing players to play on phantom deposits. It seems to me logical then that remission would be paid from forfeitures related to these new offences.

I am held back from confidently asserting that recovered phantom deposits will be used to compensate US players by two factors:

• I don't know whether these phantom deposits are legally recoverable
• I haven't seen a forfeiture allegation that clearly covers these deposits.

Since I don't know that the phantom deposits are not legally recoverable, and since I don't know that they are not an asset that might be transferable to the DoJ under a settlement agreement with FTP, I have to consider it possible that the US will go after the deposits and might use them to pay players. If the deposits are a legally enforcable, assignable debt, I don't think the government would be legally required to use them for remission, but if they obtained them through forfeiture, I expect they could choose to use them for this purpose.

Consider the people who made multiple large phantom deposits, deliberately hoping they would not clear, and then chip-dumped or withdrew. Do you not think these people were comitting fraud? Or do you just think that such fraudsters should not be prosecuted?

Also note that I said that they deserve to be prosecuted, not that they would be prosecuted.

I really don't understand how thinking that criminals deserve punishment indicates my head is planted where you think it is.

I acknowledge that there may be insufficent evidence in many actual cases of intended fraud, but I think D2D set a pretty good standard for prosecution:
The cost of prosecution would be borne the same as for the prosecution of any other crime.

Yeah, they were not formal loans. However they had all the financial impacts of interest-free loans, and since they were never written off, but rather treated as current assets, they were effectively accounted for by FTP as loans.

Doesnt matter how FTP accounted for them, FTP accounting was clearly as big of a fraud as FTP BOD. Whether the accounting was performed with the accountants having no knowledge of the how collectible the deposits were or if they were told by FTP BOD to account for them as assets and accountants complied despite having knowledge they were uncollectible, idk. They were clearly never were 'assets' to begin with. In the true sense of accounting these phantom deposits were FTP liabilities ducy? Which is why the BOD need to be paying back and not phantom depositors. From reading this though, it seems the BOD hasnt even been charged with this crime and that them paying may take even longer then phantom deposit collection?

edit: Im really not trying to argue, I am just frustrated with all of this. Been a pro player for 4 yrs now and this is money I need. Last weeks news was news I thought this situation would be coming to an end in the near future (next 4 months) and it just seems like we are as far away as ever to being paid.

Whether the phantom deposits really were assets depends on how collectable they were. IDK what the standard is for assessing collectability, but don't be results-oriented. Anything credited to a player account is an additional liability. Usually when a player made a deposit the assets and libibilites both increased by the same amount.

I doubt that the failure to charge directors with a crime will have a signifcant impact on when and how much the directors have to cough up. They still face forfeiture allegations on the civil charges. I would guess that forfeitures from directors will precede phantom deposit collection, since I see the latter as most likely occurring hand-in-hand with remission payments, which have to occur after the forfeitures.

I dont see how the directors' stupid or criminal mis-assessment of the risk of payments not being processed absolves phantom depositors from their debt.

Not seeing you as arguing for arguments sake, but rather trying to clarify.

I wish you the best of luck at the tables and getting your roll back from FTP, but if you are a US player, don't count on it happening in the first half of 2012.

First off, note that unlike my other arguments with you, this was/is not a legal opinion but a moral one about how we should regard this, not how the law will actualy treat it, so keep that in mind.

People are not laways prudentnt and no one at FTP shoudl be raising any argumnets about someone else acting in and imprudnets and irresponsible manner. And I think that in instances when debt typically gets colected in a day, FTP refusing to do so in over a year essential means the indebted party has met his obligations to uphold his promise of payment, and your not accepting it for whatever reason means you essentially waved that right.


Again, not making any legal arguemnts here but expecting an avg one time depositors to know his legal obligations when he notices he has a bit more $ in his account than expected is a bit ridiculous. And again, while legaly you may owe the money, should you really be expected to go back to a store that gave you back extra change... if you're already home and may have made more purchases so you don't even know from which place the extra cash originates? AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE given FTP actually hid the true nature of the transactions (money laundering) how would you know which "flower shop" cahrged you the $100, was it for real flowers for your aniversary or that deposit you made to relax? And yet you're the one at fault if after a year there is no longer cash in that account to cover one of those?

I think FTP decided the "contract" whatever that means here no longer applies when they decided to give you an interest free loan for an indefinate amount of time. Untill this mess blew up that is certainly not the contract anyone ever invisoned making. So how should I know that is what they changed it to rather than simply giving me a gift... that would certainly seem to be a more logical conclusion since in over a year they made NO ATTEMPT TO COLLECT or even write as much as an e-mail sayig I still owe them money and need to keep that sum on hand.

Well, if a ponzi like sheme can be proven even innocent investors can be required to refund improper gains, though sadly the gov has not followed through on that cliam. But, since we would agree that directors stole money from the legitimate deposits, and gave it out as gifts to the shareholders, why would we now go after the gift they apparently gave to you (see above) instead of the gifts bestowed upon their wealthy friends? Sure, leagaly that may be the easier thing to do, but making that moral cliam I find quite repugnant.

You are no more complicit and at least as unwitting about FTP's finances as any innocent shareholder. In fact FTP actually went to great length to convince everyone, including regulators, shareholders(?), and presumably you the customer, that it was quite capable of collecting and paying any debts in a timely fasion. So once that turned out to be blatently false, why should you be required to make whole the other players (when you had already been led to belive you'd done so), while shareholders that (also in good faith were lead to belive the money in theri accounts was proper) benefited at least to an equal ammount (LOL more) from the fraud of the BoD have no responsibility toward making the agrived parties (legitimate depositors) whole again?

Legaly I would agree they are way more protected by the corporate structer and laws that govern it, but morally not attempting any sort of clawback while going after individual depositors that legitimatly attempted to meet their obligations is sadly laughable. If the board stole money and gave it as gifts as you claim, why should we accept that those gifts should be bestowed upon the shareholders, and not upon the person who was allowed to play on credit without any mention of any debt ever being made.

Obviously, just giving them that privilage is a gift from the directors, and not persuant to whatever the contract should have been when attempting the deposit, therefore after a year with no mention of any outstanding obligations/debts on your part, why would you not naturally assume the whole thing was a gift (that all proper transactions have been carried out), esp when FTP was publicly insitng it was having no problems making the necessary transactions for properly operating the site. So to me it's just a matter of who would you rather see keep the 'gifts' made by the directors.

if any of them go to jail for anything other than money laundering than I'll agree... but as I don't see that happening, and most posters here are willing to forgo any jail time for anyone just so long as funds are even partially restored, I seriosuly fail to see what they stand to lose aside from part of what they stole

Again, FTP really realsed you by not collecting in over a year (even going as far as lying about those debts to others) and so I'd say morally that makes a big difference esp considering the specifics of this case.

Yet again, they've gone after the big fish for totaly different reasons and only discovered these crimes in the process and have yet to act upon it!

The intention of most depositors (let's ignore the fraudsters for the moment) was to deposit and play w/ the expectation that the funds would be transfered. I don't understand why some of you feel that those intentions should somehow be forgotten/forgiven simply because FT couldn't collect at the time. If the DOJ finds a way to collect I really don't see the objection. And I can't imagine that anybody would suggest balances should not be adjusted lower for uncleared deposits before payment.

As for the fraudsters, there is no defending them no matter how much you hate FTP and how willing you are to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to weasel out of having them held responsible.

If you insist that the phantom deposits don't count somehow then an argument can be made that winnings made off of them don't count either which is a place that I doubt most of you want to go.

You are quite the fellow! I'll have you know that there are people who seek out my advice. And I don't even charge my friends! As I am the generous sort I will give you a piece of advice anyway for free: Serious gets respect. Polite gets respect. Scorn and ridicule, not so much.

IDK but, as you say it's a cost of doing business that they did swallow while they could and they cut those sorts off right away while allowing the currently problematic phantom deposits to go on and on. I also don't think those deposits don't come anywhere near $120MM. The situation worked both ways: FTP couldn't sue players (didn't that I'd ever heard of) and as a practical matter players couldn't sue FTP. Maybe the DOJ will go after them too, who knows.

You want FTP to swallow the loss. I'd like to date Anne Hathaway. I can't date Anne Hathaway bec I don't have what it takes. FTP can't swallow the loss bec they don't have what it takes.

OK. Makes it a bit hard to discuss though if we just end up making individual judgements about when morality trumps legality.

I agree that nobody reresenting FTP has retained any moral right to talk about players being imprudent. It also may well be that FTP failing to attempt to collect (if that is indeed what happened) has resulted in the phantom deposits becoming legally uncollectable. If so, the moral oblgation has expired as well.

I don't think the matter of incorrect change is really in the same class as uncleared deposits of several hundred dollars. Cashiers giving out incorrect change has an immaterial impact on the finances of a retail operation. The over $100M in phantom deposits is material to the repayment of US players.

It is not a matter of fault, but one of obligation. FTP's obfuscation, done to facilitate payments, does not remove the obligation.

That's an interesting point. I guess I think you shouldn't guess which of the two competing interpretations applies, bur be prepared for it to be the less favorable of the two, and try to get professional advice if the amount is significant.

If that is done it will be because there is legal ground to go after phantom depositors, but not shareholders. Perhaps you would like to present a moral argument to shareholders that they ought to give up their improper dividend payments to a fund for compensating players.

The players who unwittingly made phantom deposits still had an obligation, a moral as well as legal one, to honour their payment obligations. The legal obligations stands until a legal condition terminates it. I'm having trouble understanding why the moral obligation expires any sooner, even if FTP made it more difficult than usual to keep track of the status of a payment. In contrast, the shareholders had no legal obligation to pay back the dividend payments. I'd probably agree that they do have a moral obligation to do so.

I don't see why it is morally proper to assume that the passage of time cancels a debt. Your moral obligation expires at the same time as you legal obligation. Find out if they have actually expired rather than making an assumption.

The directors will have to give up not only the amount they paid to themselves but also the amount they paid to the other sharehilders. It will almost certainly impoverish them.

Either the players were legally released from their obligation or they weren't. If they were, the DoJ cannot go after them for the money.

No. They had not gone after Lederer, Ferguson or Furst at all until the amended complaint. The amended omplaint added new defendants, new charges and new forfeiture allegations. This constitures acting upon the newly discovered offences.