The Big Question For Full Tilt's U.S. Players: Will They Get Their Poker Winnings Back? - Page 2 - Poker News

Playing poker online is not illegal at the federal level in the United States. The DOJ has never argued this, and likely never will. How many times does this need to be said?

From the Forbes article

Quote:

The Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that online poker violates U.S. law. This position is what led to Bharara’s crackdown on the online poker industry in 2011, the shut down of the U.S. facing web sites of PokerStars and Full Tilt, the indictment of 11 individuals, and a $3 billion civil forfeiture lawsuit. Since online poker is a no-no, according to the federal government, lawyers working for the government are not so sure that the Department of Justice should be paying out money that was won in online poker games.

"If" they deem it is illegal, they "can" withhold. I'm not arguing yes or no on either point. If they want to be Draconian, I believe the law will support them. The job of the lobbyists is to convince them to interpret it in the manner we all want - account balances. My guess is that they're laying the groundwork for something in the middle but I'd be very shocked if they don't just return balances.

08-01-2012 , 02:55 PM

#27

WalterS

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 1,842

At least now we know why all of the press releases were worded so carefully.

It was because the people that made the deal don't actually have any control over what amount of money is paid out to the players. That will be handled by a completely different set of people and could be a whole new battle.

****

08-01-2012 , 03:05 PM

#28

Reverse_Centaur

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 335

As has been pointed out, the sdny let everybody cash out their balances without any restriction, and would have allowed people to cash out from full tilt, except that the money wasn't there. I would hope that they would recommend that remission be set up to allow for the straightforward return of full account balances, and I would hope that the afmls would take their recommendation. I've seen the idea of only returning deposits mentioned a couple different places, but I've never seen it in any doj press release or other official document.

08-01-2012 , 03:08 PM

#29

BigPoppa

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 22,216

Does the DOJ understand that the cost of paying out account balances (regardless of whether they're "winnings", deposits, bonuses, etc) would be a small fraction of the cost of paying out total deposits.

Billions have been deposited to FTP over the years.

08-01-2012 , 03:09 PM

#30

Go Get It

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 12,506

I've said this already but the US DOJ made a deal where ROW players, who are not the US DOJ's concern obv, are a lock to get 100% of their money, some consideration for their FTP's/Ironman medals, and are a lock to get it all within 90 days of closing... But the US players have no such guarantee on any of that, and as of right now are left looking for answers.

Obv. it would make sense for the DOJ to do what is right and pay everyone back 100%, but who the **** knows right now.

08-01-2012 , 03:12 PM

#31

flash237

centurion

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 198

Ok lets say the DOJ decides to pay out the amount deposited not the amount in the account. What happens to Player X who has made deposits of 25k, withdrawals of 100k, and had a balance of 50k?

08-01-2012 , 03:14 PM

#32

sluggger5x

John Connor of poker

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,592

If the intention of the DOJ is to discipline players for gambling (which I think is just Forbes spin), then why would they do so by rewarding all players who have gambled over the years and lost by deducting all of their losses and refunding the original deposit?

They are going to make a 'statement' on the ills of online gambling by giving losing players their losses back and taking away from winning players?

I have little concern that they would ever do this.

08-01-2012 , 03:15 PM

#33

ASAP17

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,882

PokerStars hands DOJ a check, government pockets it?

08-01-2012 , 03:16 PM

#34

WalterS

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 1,842

Quote:

The ultimate decision on this issue will be made by the Department of Justice’s asset forfeiture and money laundering division...

Those ****ers don't sound like the friendliest bunch of *******s, do they?

08-01-2012 , 03:17 PM

#35

insidemanpoker

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,590

Can some of the people 'in the know' PLEASE comment on this? This seems insanely significant and terrifying all at once.

08-01-2012 , 03:18 PM

#36

mrwalken

adept

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 843

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPoppa

Arguably, they could choose to refund the lesser of your balance and your total deposits. If you lost, tough luck. If you won, you get back your deposit but you don't get to keep your profits.

08-01-2012 , 03:19 PM

#37

IMDABES

veteran

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,335

Can a mod out there close this ****er down please until something concrete is released, I thought it was all over and really dont think I can handle another thread like this.

08-01-2012 , 03:22 PM

#38

dirtlad

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 457

Well, at least if US players are paid their deposits back, you would think that it shouldn't be classed as income, and therefore not subject to taxation.

08-01-2012 , 03:25 PM

#39

RikaKazak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 9,662

Everyone just needs to call the DOJ and let your opinion be known. The DOJ cares just as much about their political image as they do about "seeking justice."

If they know they'll be HUGE political backlash if they don't refund balances and go the way of deposits back...it'll go a long way towards helping our cause.

08-01-2012 , 03:27 PM

#40

WildBobAA

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 6,668

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtlad

Well, at least if US players are paid their deposits back, you would think that it shouldn't be classed as income, and therefore not subject to taxation.

Great, so I wouldn't have to pay tax on my $50. That makes me feel a whole lot better.

08-01-2012 , 03:29 PM

#41

Chuckled

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 327

Quote:

Originally Posted by RikaKazak

There will be beyond a huge backlash. Riot is more like it. A few media outlets get ahold of the story on how everyone else was paid and US players weren't while the DOJ pocketed the money?

Call the DOJ, let your opinion know, but this ending in anything other than us getting the money is ridiculous...

08-01-2012 , 03:30 PM

#42

JadeLane

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 518

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...92&postcount=4

Skallagrim's post from the legislation thread

08-01-2012 , 03:33 PM

#43

Go Get It

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 12,506

lol, so the precedent is for people to get a fraction of their balances back... great.

At least we know all the money will be there from PS.

08-01-2012 , 03:34 PM

#44

Chuckled

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 327

Quote:

Originally Posted by Go Get It

lol, so the precedent is for people to get a fraction of their balances back... great.

At least we know all the money will be there from PS.

Sight... people really interpret stuff every possible wrong way....

08-01-2012 , 03:35 PM

#45

Reverse_Centaur

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 335

Quote:

The ultimate decision on this issue will be made by the Department of Justice’s asset forfeiture and money laundering division...

Quote:

Originally Posted by WalterS

Those ****ers don't sound like the friendliest bunch of *******s, do they?

They don't look that friendly either.

But I don't think they would go out of their way to screw us, either. Based on their statements and their past actions, I think Preet's office will recommend that we get our money back. And if that happens, I think the afmls will try to follow that recommendation. Why would they go against the recommendation of the attorneys who have actually been working on this case? Obviously, it's still uncertain what will happen and when, but I think our chances are pretty good (knock on wood).

08-01-2012 , 03:35 PM

#46

robodarko

journeyman

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 278

Quote:

Originally Posted by RikaKazak

Here's a step in the right direction: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...ocess-1044393/

08-01-2012 , 03:55 PM

#47

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckled

US players would still be paid, just by deposits not winnings. So you might get less, but the donk that blew $10K on Full Tilt over the last five years would be getting a check.

I dont think it will happen for a number of reasons, but they could not pay out on winnings without pocketing the money.

08-01-2012 , 03:59 PM

#48

WrongPrice

enthusiast

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckled

LOL @ "backlash" or "riot." It won't even make the 5th page of any legitimate news source...and who's going to "riot?" The players? Yeah, we're a real rough and tough bunch...just ask Russ Hamilton, who can peacefully grind away in Florida or Howard Lederer, who can eat lobster and sushi in peace in Vegas. The poker community has no ammunition, no guts, no organization, and couldn't even stage a protest, much less a riot.

08-01-2012 , 04:06 PM

#49

Joe Tall

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 16,925

The Forbes article is ****.

"The Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that online poker violates U.S. law." is flat out wrong. Nevada will have online poker by the end of this year BECAUSE the DOJ cleared the way for it with their declaration of the Wire Act last fall. I'm amazed they let someone idiot write this and it's published on Forbes.

Due diligence first, then write your article.

08-01-2012 , 04:08 PM

#50

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

It's strange and disconcerting because the author, Nathan Vardi, has, in my recollection, been one of the better mainstream media writers on poker issues.

Page 2 of 222

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22 52 102 202

Last

Closed Thread Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 222

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22 52 102 202

Last