Quote:
It would be really shocking if this were an issue. Not just because it would seem fundamentally unfair but also because it would result in them actually paying out more money:
Deposits - rake = balances
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
Yeah, thats what I noted too. I guess from a pure dollars and sense standpoint you'd have to factor in how much less likely it is for zero balance players to file a claim, but its just so much easier to pay out current balances.
That said, wouldnt surprise me to see the DOJ try and find a way not to pay out winnings.
I completely agree the idea is ridiculous for so many reasons, but Forbes is saying they are considering it.
However, isn't it more complicated than you suggest, Ike? The many people with large balances who deposited small amounts would be screwed (the good players who ran up their accounts) and people who have very small amounts of their deposit left could recover. I can't see how anyone could recover more than what is in their account, because the fraud did not cost them more than that.
People with zero balances were not harmed by this fraud, so I don't see how they could recover.
So the way I'm seeing it, skilled players couldn't recover, and fish couldn't recover unless they had amount of their deposits in their accounts, which seems unlikely.
DOJ would unjustly clean up under this method. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ak7062
Does anyone know where the DOJ (whichever department handles remission in this case) posts information regarding confidentiality? It seems to me that victims should have rights to privacy and confidentiality in regards to compensation, should they seek remission.
I would like to know if my private information, the details of this case as it pertains to me, and anything else pertinent will be passed around among various federal agencies and/or stored indefinitely (and if so, for what purpose). That would go a long way towards letting me know if I should bother with this.
Amend your taxes, pay them.