2+2 Mod Cornell Fiji Stole $30,000 From Admo - Page 51 - Poker News

iplay27off · 08-06-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randyd501

I am ready to ship $100 too just tell us how?

IF you ship anything, ship it to admo and quit being a retard.

bustowithnobra · 08-06-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Dammit, why can't a big argument ever come up about Java programming, so I can drop some expert-bombs on people?

That would be so fun.

Well, its kinda like if someone started talking about really advanced code and they used C++ to explain it.

Oski · 08-06-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

I may not be a fancy Internet lawyer and/or a terrible actual lawyer and/or not much of an actual moderator either, but I do know this thread hijack sucks and needs to die, kthx.

You know what? I really agree. But, for christ's sake, some other guy mentioned that this was only a civil case. Pete jumped on him saying that was wrong, that he's not a lawyer, etc., etc. I merely stated that I read what "Diamond" said and that I agreed with him.

Next thing I know, Mr. Pete is calling my opinion "shoddy legal work." If it makes Pete feel better, I am happy to label this the crime of the century and claim that CF faces years in prison.

Its not true, but whatever.

*** Apparently, from what Pete's buddy posted, this is par-for-the-course with Pete. He's going to argue till he dies. I was hoping that might happen. But, "let the thread live" is my motto.

blankoblanco · 08-06-2008, 07:17 PM

CF should probably get the electric chair imo

keane2097 · 08-06-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWS87

i don't think there is a word in the English language to define how awesome admo is

Hellmuthian.

garylp3 · 08-06-2008, 07:20 PM

Amy 1970,

found this in the dramabomb thread in BBV

Quote:

Originally Posted by aufzuckerter

Cornell Fiji also owes me 1850$ as I sold him a 2000$ ticket for the wsop which I won in a RAKETHERAKE freeroll
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...564&highlight=
The event was held on June 27th and so far I haven't received any money from him yet.

Todd Terry · 08-06-2008, 07:23 PM

Pete:

You're wrong. Common law theft, Model Penal Code theft, and every generally accepted definition of theft in this country requires taking the property without the owner's consent. Here, Admo transferred the money to Cornell Fiji, so obviously it was done with consent. Once the money goes to CF, it no longer belongs to Admo. So, the only crime that CF could have committed is larceny by false pretenses a.k.a. fraud. Obviously the required intent to defraud can be proved circumstantially, and via consciousness of guilt evidence (such as avoiding Admo, lying to Admo, etc.). I think a decent circumstantial case could be made out here. CF's use of the $30K in the Tilt account is solid evidence that he didn't intend to pay Admo at the time he first received the money, because if he did he could have simply shipped it back at that point.

In general the mens rea and the actus reus have to coincide in time, the actus reus being the transfer of the money by Admo (or the agreement to transfer the money). So the ultimate issue is Cornell's mental state at the time of the transfer, but his mental state after the time of the transfer is relevant to establish that.

And since Cornell was in Las Vegas at the time of the transfer, the only jurisdictions which would have criminal jurisdiction of this issue are wherever Admo lives and Las Vegas. While I have no specific knowledge of the LVPD's policy toward cases like this, I'd be very surprised if they expended any effort at all on them, since stuff like this probably happens 20,000 times a day, plus the defendant is out of state which creates a tremendous hassle.

Edit: And I only went to a Top 4 law school (at least at the time, may have slid to 5th now).

Edit2: The feds also have jurisdiction if it's a fraud, via the wire fraud statute. Unless Admo has incriminating pictures of Robert Mueller, I don't think they'll get involved.

**Jim Kuhn** · 08-06-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerBob

I posted this in another forum on the same subject. The guy looked like a degenerate fiend.

During the WSOP, I saw CF wandering around the poker room with a fistful of flags for several days. He was playing 300/600 lhe (poorly, from what I am told. He also posted a very poorly played lhe hand in high stakes at that time). Later I saw him playing some big NL game like 50/100 or 25/50/100 PLO or whatever goofy game was behind the 100/200 main game I was in. Whatever it was, it was a game that played huge and had some crazy businessman fish in it. After seeing CF in the pokerroom playing a variety of big games over several days, I commented to some friends that he seemed intent to burn the flags that he had neatly stacked in front of him. Guess I was right.

What are the chances CF had 'his rows switched around' and instead of losing $120,000 sports betting he actually lost it in the poker room?

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u

En Passant · 08-06-2008, 07:29 PM

Does anyone have the poker screenname(s) the person who hacked CF's aim account requested people to transfer to?

pete fabrizio · 08-06-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

Pete:

You're wrong. Common law theft, Model Penal Code theft, and every generally accepted definition of theft in this country requires taking the property without the owner's consent. Here, Admo transferred the money to Cornell Fiji, so obviously it was done with consent. Once the money goes to CF, it no longer belongs to Admo. So, the only crime that CF could have committed is larceny by false pretenses a.k.a. fraud. Obviously the required intent to defraud can be proved circumstantially, and via consciousness of guilt evidence (such as avoiding Admo, lying to Admo, etc.). I think a decent circumstantial case could be made out here. CF's use of the $30K in the Tilt account is solid evidence that he didn't intend to pay Admo at the time he first received the money, because if he did he could have simply shipped it back at that point.

In general the mens rea and the actus reus have to coincide in time, the actus reus being the transfer of the money by Admo (or the agreement to transfer the money). So the ultimate issue is Cornell's mental state at the time of the transfer, but his mental state after the time of the transfer is relevant to establish that.

And since Cornell was in Las Vegas at the time of the transfer, the only jurisdictions which would have criminal jurisdiction of this issue are wherever Admo lives and Las Vegas. While I have no specific knowledge of the LVPD's policy toward cases like this, I'd be very surprised if they expended any effort at all on them, since stuff like this probably happens 20,000 times a day, plus the defendant is out of state which creates a tremendous hassle.

This is basically the same analysis that was provided earlier. My reasoning opposing it is that the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime both occurred when Fiji gambled admo's money, not when he accepted the money in the first instance. The question of whether there were false pretenses in accepting the money is relevant to the question of whether Fiji had posession of admo's money or merely custody of it. Although that is irrelevant to the question of whether Fiji committed embezzlement, which would turn on whether Fiji implicitly represented to admo that he would not gamble his Full Tilt funds if he were somehow unable to procure the cash.

Hopey · 08-06-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuq

Unlikely since dealing with a $30K debt >>>>>>>>>> living in Canada.

bustowithnobra · 08-06-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

Pete:

You're wrong. Common law theft, Model Penal Code theft, and every generally accepted definition of theft in this country requires taking the property without the owner's consent. Here, Admo transferred the money to Cornell Fiji, so obviously it was done with consent. Once the money goes to CF, it no longer belongs to Admo. So, the only crime that CF could have committed is larceny by false pretenses a.k.a. fraud. Obviously the required intent to defraud can be proved circumstantially, and via consciousness of guilt evidence (such as avoiding Admo, lying to Admo, etc.). I think a decent circumstantial case could be made out here. CF's use of the $30K in the Tilt account is solid evidence that he didn't intend to pay Admo at the time he first received the money, because if he did he could have simply shipped it back at that point.

In general the mens rea and the actus reus have to coincide in time, the actus reus being the transfer of the money by Admo (or the agreement to transfer the money). So the ultimate issue is Cornell's mental state at the time of the transfer, but his mental state after the time of the transfer is relevant to establish that.

And since Cornell was in Las Vegas at the time of the transfer, the only jurisdictions which would have criminal jurisdiction of this issue are wherever Admo lives and Las Vegas. While I have no specific knowledge of the LVPD's policy toward cases like this, I'd be very surprised if they expended any effort at all on them, since stuff like this probably happens 20,000 times a day, plus the defendant is out of state which creates a tremendous hassle.

Besides him being a out of state resident and it being LV, then you agree with Pete it seems on there being criminal implications, though disagreeing on why.

bronx bomber · 08-06-2008, 07:32 PM

I heard Pete slept at a Holiday Inn last night.....

pete fabrizio · 08-06-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nootka

I can't now, I'm not at work. But it's in a brief I filed last year so I should be able to pull it up later.

If I recall correctly, the issue is whether the money was commingled into a general account, or was segregated and intended to be kept separate and unused. Here, the money was transferred into CF's general account. It might be a different outcome if Admo gave CF a duffel with cash and said, "hold onto this but don't use it." In that case, you would have separate "property" that could have been converted.

As in all things law, I'm sure there are gray areas here, so I'll stop arguing except to post a cite if I find it....

Ok, this is slightly different from what we've already discussed. Without doing any research, I don't know anything about the difference between commingled money vs. a satchel of money, but I definitely admit that you could be right and the difference could be crucial in a case of pure theft. However, I would be surprised if that principle applies to cases of embezzlement as well.

Nootka · 08-06-2008, 07:34 PM

Pete, you'll be happy to know I made some poor associate find this for me. It discusses conversion, but the same logic applies in the criminal context, as others have pointed out.

Conversion is any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over the personal property of another. ( Gruber v. Pacific States Sav. & Loan Co. (1939) 13 Cal. 2d 144, 148 [88 P.2d 137].) However, money cannot be the subject of a conversion action unless a specific sum capable of identification is involved. ( Haigler v. Donnelly (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 674, 681 [117 P.2d 331].) [Here] there are no allegations that as money in varying amounts was wired into the accounts, it was held in escrow or in some otherwise segregated fund for the benefit of SDA.

Software Design & Application v. Hoefer & Arnett, 49 Cal. App. 4th 472 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1996)