Until the deal was signed there was no guarantee that it would go through. They had no reason to go spend time and money preparing for something that 'may' happen only for it to collapse at the last minute.

Then they have to selection the right vendor, then train the staff on the right procudures, then announce on the web page the process. Then process the forms as they come in.
I would say early non they may start sending cheques

There were six questions. This is an answer to only one or two of them, and possibly the least significant.

Neither was a balance on FTP what it was purported to be. Also, the transfers on FTP may not have been "otherwise lawful", despite your repeated assertions. And even if they were lawful, they may not be enforceable, which begs the question of why a law enforcement branch of the govenment should enforce transfer of an unenforceable debt obligation.

It wasn't what it was purported to be. The wheat buyer purported it to be what he thought it was, but he was mistaken, due to the deception by the Ponzi artist. The seller did not know, and was not told, that it was a worthless share in a Ponzi scheme.

One other difference between your example and the FTP case is that in your example, the buyer and seller effect the exchange among themselves. In an FTP poker game, FTP is directly involved in any exchange arising out of the game, by running the game, generating the RNG results, receiving and retransmitting the players' actions, making determinations of collusion, detecting bots, etc.

Why would you think I thought that? I have repeatedly said that they took the balances that were on account when the fraud began, plus net deposits thereafter. Some of those balances presumably included winnings. When you say "just as much as" I understand you to be refering to the amount of belief, not the dollar amount of winnings and deposits. If by "just as much" you mean "in a dollar amount greater than or equal to", than no, I do not believe the winnings they took fraudulently were of as much dollar value as the deposits they took fraudulently. I believe that because I believe the amount of deposits in the last three years of operation was greater than the player account balances in 2008.

When you say "Do you really think they did not also take winnings...", it seems to me that you are trying to misrepresent my position. Please show more intellectual honesty here than you would in court defending a client. Or if your question is just the result of not really having paid attention to what I have said, please be more careful reading, so you can avoid wasting time by challenging what is not actually being said.

FTP only took any given dollar in their posession once. If it was winnings on account when they took it, then they took winnings. If it was a new deposit, then they took deposits. Once they took it fraudulently, any subsequent transfer of debt was illusory - part of the deception. It doesn't matter if transfers used to be non-illusory before the fraud. Once FTP fraudulently took possession of players' funds and did not back accounts with the stated amount of money, the transfers indicted by game results did not actually transfer the value indicated. Hence the indication was false. Hence it was a deception. The lack of money backing the transfers was due to the misappropriation of funds that was part of the fraud. Hence the deception regarding the transfers was part of the fraud.

What they looted in total was the value of player accounts plus any rake they charged but did not legally earn (any rake charged after the fraud began). How much they took from each person is the amount they received directly from that person when they first fraudulently took that money.

They are not accused of looting accounts. They are accused of inducing people to give them money.

Don't forget that there are specified notice and claim periods that will affect the schedule as well.

If they pay out balances (and there are several good indications, but no commitment, that they will) they may be able to pay out faster than if they pay out based on balances as of when the fraud began plus net deposits thereafter. In the former case, they know the total amount of balances and they have enough money to cover all those balances. Therefore there would seem to be no good reason to delay paying out once they have verfied an individual claim. In the latter case, claims will probably exceed the money available, so they would have to wait until the claims period had expired before totalling all received claims to see what percentage of the total claim is covered by the available funds, and hence what percentage of each individual claim would be paid.

The 6 answers are all obvious.

See, we can keep this short (er).

You shifted the point, probably on purpose. The balance on FTP, and the electronic representations of portions of that balance that were moved around by the act of playing poker, where exactly what they purported to be: FTP's promise to pay the amount specified by those electronic representations of debt.

That FTP could not honor its debt obligations does not mean that a debt obligation becomes something other than a debt obligation.

Maybe not, but that is not what we have been discussing and you usually throw this point in when it would otherwise be correct to simply admit that the ability of a backer to honor his debt obligations does not change the nature of the debt obligation itself nor the lawfulness of transfers of that debt obligation.

If the DOJ remission folks do not want to honor the transfer of debt obligations through the playing of poker they do not have to. But to say they are enforcing them is incorrect. They are not in the middle of poker players suing poker players. They are in the position of merely accepting what happened or rejecting what happened and trying to undo it.

Neither the wheat buyer nor the seller knew of the Ponzi scheme or the absconding of the person responsible for the debt. They exchanged exactly what they thought they exchanged: the obligation of the account-holder to pay the debt represented by the account.

And yet FTP has never reliably been accused of cheating or fraud with respect to this part of their business. And FTP never made you call that raise.

Other than rake I never gave FTP any money. I transferred it to them expecting them to honor their debt to repay it, and their debt to repay whatever was won and added to the account, and their debt to pay whatever was left over in the account if I lost.

Plus you seem ignore a large part of the indictments despite having quoted extensively from them previously. They quite often accuse FTP of taking money they were not entitled to take given their representations to players.

Skallagrim

I've repeatedly stated that I never had money on any US-facing site since UIGEA was passed. For the logically challenged: that means I can't have lost anything on FTP since 2006, and I won't be getting anything from Stars or the DoJ related to FTP.

Also, I am not a US resident, and I have a winning record on every site I have played on. The last part is not as much of a brag as it sounds, because online I only play microstakes. Nearly all of my roll covers live play.

Um, yeah, you've got it, imp.

How long would you estimate it will take to get paid ?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=770

Nov sometime at the earlist

It would look beyond foolish if PS, who just recently got their company out from under indictment, has to open a whole new company, has their CEO step down, has to forfeit ~$750M, and deal with how many licensing issues from around the world could pay out ROW players before the US DOJ could pay out their own players.

So I would hope no later than Nov. 6th.

How are the two issues even remotely linked? I'm virtually certain that the DOJ/AMwhoda**** doesn't care one bit about this "deadline". They are going to take whatever time it takes to do it "right" by government standards.

If you think it might be some sort of public relations issue, keep in mind that to the USA in general, the ROW barely exists anyway.

I would bet a lot of money we don't see any money by November 6, 2012.

Anyone know if the cheques will be sent out this week?

Hope, yes. Expect, no. I'll be pretty ecstatic if anyone has a check before the end of the year.

IMO its not possible for DOJ to get the players all paided by Nov 6th. They have too much to do in advance. I say early Nov before it starts.

Keep in mind, PS is not paying out the ROW players. They are only restoring their accounts on line. I suspect most will leave their money on line

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/search.php