web.archive.org shows the message on the homepage up to 6th July, but it looks like it was removed between crawls on 6th and 9th July:

www.fulltiltpoker.com/ @ 6th July 2011, 22:41
www.fulltiltpoker.com/ @ 9th July 2011, 23:16

... but it was then on the new "US site" (behind that big red button on the homepage) at /us/ until at least 22nd July 2011 and probably a while after that:

www.fulltiltpoker.com/us/ @ 22nd July 2011

No crawls after July 2011 due to robots.txt/redirections, so unfortunately it's hard to tell how long it stayed up or where things got moved around, I guess it's the /us/ page you got the screenshot of? Seems strange (or that familiar kind of stupid) that they'd remove it from the homepage and leave it up on the /us/ homepage...

Nobody is saying that statement hasn't been up for months.
All I am saying is the safe and secure statements were from before the 20th.
The DOJ confirms that and so does the fact ROW got such statement before.
You can find that back on the .uk.co domain or for example in this thread.

If you try to catch HL on this "lie", while most people understand he simply didn't know about that statement -still- being up, you actually make him look better. I am convinced he is not bluffing here, because if he knew about the statement he also knew his opponent was holding the nuts.

Two weeks, 5 articles and the only lie she has busted Howard on is the "safe and secure player funds" thing. I am over- effing- whelmed. The sheer vastness of this revelation is too much for me to process. But the importance of this will become clear later.

Jesus. Just wait it out. If after maybe part 8 where she does a combine everything together and its anti climatic. Flame away. Untill than, shhhh.

This is NOT true. All restitution does is serve to help mitigate the position of the crooks, usually for sentencing considerations. No amount of money can ever make the "crime" go away. A crime, once committed remains a crime for all time and a victim of the crime remains forevermore a victim!

Rob a bank. Get caught, arrested and charged. Pay the bank back for the money you stole. Charges dismissed? No way. Still go to jail (maybe a lighter sentence?). Robbery still occurred. Bank still the victim.

That is the law. Here and there as well.

I think, for a number of reasons, the lack of direct evidence as you suggest being one of them, the DOJ has elected to not file criminal charges against the BOD at the present time. However, my experience with the DOJ, makes me wonder if the DOJ does not still has some hope of flipping one of the 2 FTP Executives that remain criminally charged. But, because RB is one of the big fish I'm not sure he will be able to help himself too much. But the other was "just" an employee and I could see the DOJ dealing his case away in favor of information connecting others to the crime. That is to the extent any such information actually exists.

Not entirely true, for common law fraud to have occurred, each element of fraud must be met:

a representation of an existing fact;
its materiality;
its falsity;
the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

The actual charge against Bitar is for Federal Wire Fraud though, which only requires three elements:
Intent;
A "scheme or artifice to defraud" or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
A mail or wire communication

While damages aren't required under that statute, following the precedent in Morrison v NAB on securities fraud: "When a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none."

In other words, unless Congress specifies in any law that the statute applies to conduct that took place overseas or to non-U.S. defendants, then the law simply doesn't cover that conduct or those defendants.

This ruling would clearly limit the DOJ to FTP's actions pre-April 20, 2011 for making a Wire Fraud case, the day they agreed to no longer service US customers.

Prior to BF it's obvious that their (the BOD) actions were reckless and stupid, and a civil case might be made that they were operating in breach of contract with US customers (promising to segregate funds while failing to do so), but that's a giant leap from intent to defraud (for any member with a reasonable 'I didn't know' defense).

Howard's lawyers are obviously aware of this as evidenced by his interviews, he professes (pun) to know nothing about the financial status of the company right up until April 21, then falls on his sword for the mistakes made after the US would no longer have jurisdiction.

His problem is that while offering his defense to the Wire Fraud civil suit, he admitted to things that could leave him exposed to criminal charges under the Travel Act.

Prior to these interviews he had a marginal defense of being able to say that he was simply a member of a California LLC that licensed software to a foreign company that offered poker in the US and ROW.

He is now on record as being the President of the company at the time the decision was made to continue offering poker in the US after the UIGEA was implemented.

The Travel Act clearly indicates it's extraterritorial application, and unlike Wire Fraud there is no required element of intent, if offering i-poker in the US was illegal under the laws of one or more States, by his admission he now has no legitimate defense.

As I said when he first gave the interview, prior to the amended complaint adding the Travel Act charge, checkmate, he was an arrogant fool to have done these interviews.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the law when it comes to damages in a case of criminal fraud. You want the measure of whether or not there are damages to be calculated at some point in the future of when the actual fraud occurred. This is not a correct interpretation of the law. The moment a crook creates a fraud (using the elements from your post works for me) and I am damaged by the fraud a crime has occurred. It does not matter if at some point in the future the crook makes me whole for my loss, the crook is still on the hook for the fraud.

By the way, damages in a fraud case are not necessarily limited to actual cash or real property. In many states fraud may also include damages such as "the benefit of the deal". Meaning somebody could swindle me not out of money, but out of potential money I might have earned if I had not been defrauded!

Respectfully, I don't think Morrison is on point here. In that decision the Court held that U.S. law against securities fraud does not apply to investment deals that occur outside the country, even if they have a domestic impact or effect. I have not read the case in a long time but I seem to remember Morrison is specifically limited in it's scope to the Securities Exchange Act. It was a civil case and not a criminal case. It was also a very odd and novel case. In Morrison, a set of foreign plaintiffs was suing a foreign issuer in an American court for violations of American securities laws based on securities transactions in foreign countries.

With respect to PokerStars and FTP the US Attorney filed a complaint that alleged the IGBA had been violated because the defendants’ conduct allegedly violated New York Penal Law §§ 225.00, 225.05. Several of the defendants tried to argue jurisdiction, but they were not successful.

In determining whether jurisdiction exists over a defendant, the U.S. Federal courts apply the law of the forum state, subject to the limits of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nearly every state in the nation have passed laws allowing for local jurisdiction in "cybercrimes".

This article from the Michigan Bar sets it out fairly well:
Full version here: http://www.michbar.org/journal/artic...=94&volumeID=8

STATE STATUTES GRANTING EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Many state legislatures have enacted jurisdictional statutes codifying bases of jurisdiction.... or extending their jurisdictional reach even further. Most of these statutes track the Model Penal Code’s language, or adopt similar language, to the effect that for the state to exercise jurisdiction over an offense occurring partly outside the state, either an element of the offense, or a result of the offense that is also an element, must occur within the forum state.

The states that have adopted this kind of language include Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah. States that have broadened the Model Penal Code approach by also allowing jurisdiction where a result of the offense, whether an element or not, occurs in the forum state, are: Arizona, Kansas, New York, and Missouri.

Wisconsin’s statute permits jurisdiction even where no result occurs in the state, but where the out-of-state person "does an act with intent that it cause in this state a consequence set forth in a section defining a crime." Alabama, California, and South Dakota have statutes providing for jurisdiction where an offense is commenced outside the state and "consummated" within the state.

Michigan, Ohio, and Mississippi are examples of states that have jurisdiction-related statutes specifically targeting computer or Internet-related crime.

CONCLUSION

When criminals use the World Wide Web to host their fraudulent schemes or ply their illegal trade, they harm many jurisdictions by stealing their citizens’ money or delivering contraband into their communities. Such cybercriminals clearly cause intentional "detrimental effects" in the forum state, and may be held accountable by that state. There may be a sheriff in the wild west of cyberspace after all.


If what you are trying to convey here is limited to the post April 20 actions of the company and individuals within the company, then your argument may have merit.

I do agree with your assessment of Howard's position both pre and post interviews. I just don't know if he has generated enough steam to warrant prosecution....yet. I still think it likely someone is going to roll over on him and maybe other BOD members.

How about the fact that FTP used player funds to finance the growth of their business from inception thus at no time in the history of the company were players funds safe and secure.

Regardless of when the statement was removed from the website Howard Lederer knew first hand the statement was NEVER true.

Well, that would be interesting since most of my career was focused on fraud investigation, with one of my responsibilities making the determination on whether we had been defrauded or simply stiffed by a bad credit risk.

By your definition, anyone who buys something on credit has committed a crime the moment they fail to make a payment, I'm sure my former employers would have loved for the law to work that way, but alas those pesky courts don't agree.

If there were evidence that FTP had actually set up their company with the intent to defraud it's customers, then whether or not they succeeded in doing so wouldn't be relevant, but most 'fraudulent schemes' start out as legitimate businesses, forcing law enforcement to prove that at some point fraud actually occurred in order to prosecute.

So at what point was a US customer (sorry, but the scope of the Morrison decision isn't limited to SEC fraud, it's being used in everything from RICO to copyright and trade secret defenses, it's a broad precedent) damaged?

The first time a US customer was denied the ability to request a withdrawal was on April 15, when the US government seized or froze most of their bank accounts and left them unable to borrow money due to filing a $1B civil forfeiture action.

What caused the US player damages, the government's actions (including BF over $150M FTP player funds seized) or the unauthorized loans of $150M (conversion? breach of contract? ) FTP took from it's player funds to cover those seizures? If either one doesn't happen, the players are never damaged.

In the Todd Terry et al (lower burden of proof) civil conversion suit, Judge Sand found that it was not clear at this point in the litigation “whether the direct cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries was the decision by the U.S. Attorney’s office to temporarily shut down the Full Tilt Poker website and seize the company’s assets or was instead, as Plaintiffs’ conversion allegations suggest, the subsequent decision by one or more of the Defendants to halt player withdrawals from the Full Tilt Poker website."

A key finding in Judge Sand’s Order was that there were no facts to support jurisdiction against the individual defendants in NY. The court stated that not only do the allegations fail to demonstrate that any of the individual defendants committed a tortious act in NY, but that the individual defendants committed a tortious act of any sort at all.

So a Federal judge didn't even believe there was a good enough case against Howard for a civil conversion trial, but I'm somehow the one with the 'basic misunderstanding of law regarding criminal fraud'?

Someone made the analogy that what FTP did was like stealing your car and now claiming it wasn't theft because your insurance (government remission) bought you a replacement.

It's actually more like when I moved overseas after BF and left my car with my friend, voluntarily, and if he had decided to use my car to do things I never authorized and the government ended up seizing my car, and I file a remission claim to get my car back.

Is my friend a complete dick for using my property without permission? Yes. Did he steal my car or somehow still owe me a car after I get mine back from the government? Obviously not. Could I sue him for converting my property and depriving me of it's use? Sure, but by the time the government takes their pound of flesh there won't be any left.

I have no idea why you quoted a bunch of State laws, since FTP wasn't operating in any State after BF, I didn't say Wire Fraud wouldn't apply to FTP because they are a foreign business, I said it wouldn't apply for their actions after they stopped doing business in the US post BF.

You mentioned the motion to dismiss the IGBA for lack of extraterritoriality was denied by Judge Kaplan, which is true, but it wasn't denied because the judge felt the IGBA applied extraterritorially, it was denied because the judge properly ruled that the prosecution would be allowed to present evidence that the poker companies intentionally targeted US customers (prior to April 15), including NY, giving SDNY jurisdiction.

The proper argument against IGBA jurisdiction over a foreign website prior to April 15 (when they were doing business with NYers) isn't insufficient contact with NY, but the fact that by definition an internet site based outside of NY is not an intrastate NY business, and the IGBA was passed by Congress specifically to target illegal gambling operations when an interstate nexus can't be established.

The problem with making that argument is that the reason the IGBA was passed is that a prosecution of the law that would cover illegal interstate gambling (Travel Act) was overturned for insufficient interstate nexus, so a valid IGBA argument only succeeds in backing them into a Travel Act charge.

Either way it's game, set, match, unless he negotiates a settlement, Howard is going to owe $42.5M, but it won't be for committing fraud (Wire or otherwise) unless he agrees to settle that way to avoid having a gambling related judgement on his record.

Come on DF let's get 6/7 out. F5 is getting worn out.

Ding Ding Ding.....We have a Winner!

And who was a decision maker when the company decided on this course? I don't know.

Most of MY career was actually prosecuting people for fraud and other crimes!

I don't have my own definition of fraud. Fraud is well defined in both Federal and State codes. In your example above if the credit applicant made a false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed, that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury he or she would be guilty of fraud. It is not fraud to default on an otherwise lawfully obtained credit agreement.

I challenge you to find me a single case anywhere in the US where a person charged with criminal fraud was ever acquitted by the court because they, or somebody else, made restitution, which has been your long standing claim that I find misguided.

You are of course correct and I apologize for my inadequate explanation above. The last time I looked at Morrison the broader impact of the case was uncertain. I don't do much civil law, but at the time Morrison was a case that applied only to S.E.A. 10B and I only know that much because I was peripherally involved in a California case involving CalPERS. However, it's now apparent the decision has had a limiting impact on the extraterritorial application of a number of federal statutes providing civil remedies to private plaintiffs—not just the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act. But, the post Morrison cases successfully citing Morrison are Civil Cases. Including civil actions filed as RICO violations and violations of the Robinson-Patman Act. In defense of my own ignorance here I thought we were talking about criminal cases? There is a very unique difference in applying Morrison as a precedent in a civil case versus a criminal case. In any event, the government has not charged any of the defendants here with Federal Statutes impacted by Morrison.

But, I am sure you must know that immediately after Morrison was decided the Dodd-Frank Act revived extraterritorial application of the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws by authorizing actions brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission involving “conduct occurring outside the U.S. [that] has a foreseeable substantial effect within the U.S.”

Also, as I am sure you must know, Courts have also been willing to find that the application of certain criminal statutes to foreign schemes does not offend the holding in Morrison. See United States v. Coffman, 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 14600 (E. D. Ky Feb. 14, 2011) (the use of U.S. mail to effect a foreign scheme to defraud does not offend Morrison) and United States v. Mandell, 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 27064 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (“The fact that defendants engaged in some conduct abroad does not mean that that conduct and conduct here in the United States is not covered by the [criminal] mail and wire fraud statutes.”).

These last 2 cases ARE the "good law" supporting extraterritorial application of criminal Federal Statutes, like wire fraud. Morrison is not applicable.

Don't you think, with all of the high-powered attorneys the defendants have hired here that at least one of them would have argued and won on jurisdictional grounds had there been case law to support this? Most defendants have pleaded guilty to a variety of charges both civil and criminal. Others remain under indictment, both civil and criminal. Not one has successfully argued jurisdiction. NOT ONE!

?????? Yes, it is very clear from the above you are extremely confused as to the difference between civil fraud and criminal fraud. BTW I have never suggested there was any evidence sufficient to charge, much less, convict Howard of any criminal charges. I have never suggested there is sufficient evidence to hold him liable in a civil case either. My opinion based on the information I have available would be that he is culpable and at least civilly liable for his actions and inactions. But, I did not bring any of the charges in this case. I don't have available to me all of the evidence in this case, both exculpatory and inculpatory so as to make an intelligent decision regarding the prospects of successfully prosecuting a case against Howard et al. However, the US Attorney for SDNY believes he has enough evidence against Howard et al to prove a civil case for fraud. I know this because he filed it in court. If you think your knowledge of the law and jurisdiction exceeds that of the US Attorney perhaps you are in the wrong profession!

The Terry case was filed as a class action case and without any evidence at all except for published information from the news, poker forums and information alleged in the DOJs complaints against the poker companies. It was filed prematurely, perhaps in anger, maybe as a nuisance. As a matter of law it had no chance of success and I'm sure if you asked him Todd would agree.

Here you answer your own question. The US Attorney was able to provide for jurisdiction by using state laws that governed the conduct of the defendants as it related to their NY customers. The key fact here, that you seemingly want to ignore, is that the US Attorney, contrary to your assertions, WAS able to prove up jurisdiction in the early filings. In the amended complaints the US Attorney has, as you correctly point out, included allegations of violations of Wire fraud and the Travel Act. Both areas where he is strong on jurisdictional grounds.

First, this may be the worst analogy ever. But, as a matter of LAW if you left your car in the care, custody and control of your friend and he uses the car and the government seizes it for some reason all you have a civil case against the friend. The government would not allow you to petition for remission because remissions are limited to VICTIMS of crime. Here there was no crime. You might be able to convince the government to return your car.

I agree, Howard seems left with little or no recourse but to seek a settlement. I also agree it is doubtful he will ever admit to any illegal act and will settle without an admission of wrongdoing. I suspect that the negotiated settlement will be for less than $42.4M. But, there is enough money at stake and, as we all saw, Howard has a very big ego so the combination of the 2 may actually mean a trial at some point. Long shot? Probably!

Anyone have any idea why the 6th part isn't up?

And when the BoD learned the CEO and CFO were misrepresenting the financial affairs of the LLC and did nothing, the BoD became complicit with them. The defense proffered of stability for the sake of sale is nothing more than something to say.

On another note, I couldn't help but notice this article in yesterday's paper and think about the relative justice of what seems likely to happen:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012...ty-defrauding/

This man is accused of defrauding 17 people of $1.4 million over 14 years by making promises of being able to invest and quickly pay off mortgages; he fled and was extradited and faces up to 250 years in prison (we know he won't get that much). It seems to show the need to structure your crimes properly. Notice the headline: it asserts he bilked investors of "thousands".

I found the other parts relatively interesting - but they're not interesting enough to wait a week between parts.

I find both DiamondFlushPoker and whatever it was before to be interesting but the fact that it can be months between posts makes it pretty easy to forget about. For awhile they were on my list of sites to check weekly but now - not so much.

^^ this was exactly my point when I said that DF had killed any buzz she generated by announcing this series coupled with the claim that she had the goods on Howard and implied he would regret ducking her interview. We live in an information right now world and if she wasn't ready to report everything she should have waited until she was to announce this series of articles. As it is now, she has lost probably half her audience at least due to lack of new info and waiting so long between articles.

It also makes her original claims look pretty weak. If you're going to say that the final parts are really juicy and the first parts are just setting up context - one would assume you have a pretty good idea of what's in each part.

im sure printing what we all suspect would be easy. but sticking to facts is alot harder. i still will be in her reading her blogs. i mean some people actually believe howard backed out because of strain on family.

Part 6 is online:

http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/10...files-part-vi/

^^^
ty

Things are finally getting more interesting, at least .

I think her analysis of the Ivey lawsuit is offbase. Generally speaking, breach of contract claims are limited to the terms of a contract. Emotional distress, humiliation, etc. are tort damages. Where contractual damages are quantifiable, tort damages are determined by a jury and are open ended. Thus, when Plaintiff lawyers file a contractual claim, they always try to include some tort claims, even if they are far-fetched, in order to not be limited in damages in front of a jury.

More interesting how? HL already threw Ivey under the bus. So she is late there. Where is the "good stuff" on Howard? I am so unimpressed its not even funny. This whole series is garbage and is literally just one person's view based on " several sources" which will never be named apparently. NOT TO MENTION SHE IS ANONYMOUS HERSELF.

Phil Ivey already threw himslelf under the bus with that crazy law suit.

That's fine if you want to go after Ivey. You won't get an argument from me there. But to come out publicly and act as if Howard purposely ducked your interview because he knew you were really going to " get him" and then report absolutely nothing of substance is a joke. Matter of fact, this last installment seems to only bolster HL's assertion that ivey's lawsuit was frivolous and self serving. Howard already said that! In fact he used it as one of his main arguments to show why a deal wasn't made sooner. DF made public statements implying that she was going to serve Howard up on a platter and then she proceeded to corroborate Lederer's story about Ivey. Wtf?!?!