This might be the most ridiculous thing written in this thread, which is quite an accomplishment.

That is correct, I don't think Ireland cares about that. It's eminently clear what RB did, as laid out in the indictment. It was a big shell game to allow money to move in and out of the U.S., contrary to American regulations, period. You can call it "bank fraud" as a shorthand, but it wasn't fraud in the sense that one person was cheated out of something by means of the defendant's criminal actions or misrepresentations. Similarly, technically it was money laundering, but that's a shorthand label that gets used as a mass term to describe a whole lot of conduct some serious, some not so much.

Yes, if that were true it would be some sort of offense. But if I commit possession of marijuana in the U.S., and flee to Amsterdam, where I steal a car, I can't be deported to the U.S. because I committed one offense there and another offense in the Netherlands. (Possession of marijuana isn't a serious enough offense there to trigger deportation, though it is an offense.)

I'd be slow to pass an opinion on what the AGCC knew or didn't know. We don't really know if it's a well-run regulatory body, or something pretty sloppy. Given Alderney's population of 2400, I'm pretty sure we're not talking about an organization that compares to the Swiss banking regulators here.

Agreed.

I'm not with you here. We don't know the full details of the accounts where they gave a credit and didn't get paid. If the player has $10,000 in his account but owes $5,000 which FT can't collect, you have a bookkeeping problem once everything gets frozen, but in terms of operations, you don't have a real problem. We don't know how much money was credited to players without cash making it to FT's accounts, and we don't know what happened to that money credited. Some players would have lost all or some, which would be a problem. Some would have won money, which wouldn't be a problem. Some players would have cashed it out, which IMO will be a real problem for them, if that happened. In any case, businesses are allowed some flexibility in how they treat money owed to them, how long it can be treated as an asset before it's written off.

Of course, from a practical perspective, when the money was supposed to come to them by virtue of the player committing a crime (according to the DOJ, anyway, who basically call all American depositors "unindicted co-conspirators" in the indictment), maybe they aren't entitled to as much leeway....

Yes, and I disagree with some of your premises. In particular, I think the use of the word "draining" misconstrues what they were doing. "Draining" suggests rats leaving a sinking ship. I believe they were trying to keep their business operating and functional -- mostly because, after BF, they DID keep their business operating and functional, just not in the U.S. I don't know what was paid out in dividends as opposed to salaries, dividends from FTP as opposed to Tiltware, or fees to related companies for services rendered. If that information is out there, and it confirms what you say, and I haven't seen it, then I'm probably wrong and you're probably right. But I'm thinking that those balance sheets haven't hit the internet yet....

"Player funds are safe" to me sounds like "Tide gets clothes whiter". I don't know that any legal consequences will flow from that.

Well, he wasn't the only conspirator. The main conspirators are all named in the indictment, and their respective roles are all spelled out. As mentioned above, the DoJ also appears to consider that all Americans who made a deposit or withdrawal from FT in the last four years is an unindicted co-conspirator. I think that's a bit of a stretch.

I have great confidence in the DOJ's case against RB. If he ever sets foot on American soil, he's going to jail, he's not getting bail, and (unless UIGEA is overturned) he's going to be convicted of lots of the charges against him. Then he'll be looking at some more jail time and a whopping fine.

I think I've read enough to be properly informed -- the indictment, the press releases, the class action statement of claim. Most everything else is just noise. And I really don't believe they stole any money.

They were trying to get around the American banking regulations. Multiple companies reached the same legal conclusion that they did -- what they were doing wasn't an offense in their host countries, and to the extent that the U.S. laws tried to regulate peoples' conduct in foreign countries, those laws were of no force and effect due to a lack of jurisdiction. From a practical point of view, that was extremely dangerous position to adopt, even if it was legally correct. But what we're talking about falls far short of theft or fraud.

What I don't get is why they didn't have a war chest set aside. They had to know that the DoJ had people reading these boards, that they knew exactly what was happening in terms of the little shell games they had going on to move money in and out. They had to know that doing business through the Utah bank was destined to end in the loss of whatever money was held there. They had to know that the DoJ would be able to temporarily freeze whatever overseas money they could locate, even if, at the end of the day, they might not be successful in getting it confiscated.

But that's another set of issues.

It's right in the indictment, Todd. Actually the DoJ goes further, and alleges that all American depositors are unindicted co-conspirators. But that, I think, is taking things too far.

I'm guessing you had some sort of affiliate or rakeback agreement?

Excellent guess. No, I didn't.

With respect to what you claim is "right in the indictment", could you quote the relevant section?

Here goes your savior Harry Reid and Jon Kyl:

http://www.casinoscamreport.com/2011...er-inevitable/

When Harry Reid met with members of the Las Vegas Journal he was quoted as saying, “He expects Congress to take up the debate on legalizing online poker, soon, but would not comment on any time frame.”

A Super committee was put in place by President Obama last month and put them in charge with finding $1.5 trillion dollars to lower the deficit over the next 10 years and online gambling is one option they are already discussing raising billions of dollars for the US Government in taxation and regulations.

Everyone is complaining about FTP but nobody sees exactly how corrupt our government is. When you mix corporations and government that = fascism. When is everyone going to become upset with the Caesars/Wynn/Milken monopoly?

I'm planning a new lobbyist group to take on the government and Caesars kleptocracy. Non profit no salary group.

I'd be surprised if any of the big casino brands weren't investing loads of money developing their version of online poker.

Congrats ont he baby and thanks frot he clarification. Interesting how money ranks lower than a TV though...

First, let me say that you speak more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor and we find your statement shocking (maybe you should consider changing to the other side). First you 'suggest' that it was ok to circumvent the law as long as they didn't get caught, but now that RB is caught RB is screwed. Well, we can see that you have little respect for the law that you defend.

Lets take your assertions one at a time:

A) The 'Bank Fraud' didn't hurt anyone. When a corporation acts contrary to the laws of a country like the US, then you not only put the customers funds at risk, but you put the employees of the company at risk. What you describe as bookkeeping problems are fare more complicated and involve proper accounting of these transactions - especially with regard to actual cash on hand. Having a balance sheet that balances, but doesn't have any where near sufficient cash on hand in a gaming business is a serious situation. To say that by circumventing the law the owners of FTP didn't do anything wrong or hurt anyone but themselves (from someone in your position) is quite shocking. Tell the depositors of FTP that the actions of the owners didn't hurt them, or the 700 employees whose families are at risk of losing their jobs/incomes in Ireland. Your statements are unacceptable and shamelessly insensitive for a prosecutor defending the laws of the US or any US State. Shame on you for suggesting that no one was hurt by their owners greedy actions. You dont seem to realize they had a choice, other sites chose not to take American players and did just fine (Party Gaming for one). You know nothing about international politics if you think that if PK fails and 700 Irish jobs are lost due to the actions of RB, that Ireland will not turn him over in heartbeat. We shall see on that point.

B) They were not draining the company. You should familiarize yourself with the rules of the AGCC on solvency and GAAP rules for accounting of a gaming enterprise before you make statements like this. From a balance sheet perspective if they were taking significant cash out of the business while at the same time cash was declining while questionable credits were rising in the business (associated with either debts or theft not accounted for) then in fact they were draining the business. It's quite clear from their own statement that they didn't have enough cash to cover player deposits before BF. If they took any money out of the business during this time they were in violation of AGCC rules, but more obviously, by definition, they would have had more cash available for players if they hadn't take those distributions. While I would agree that the AGCC is probably an inept organization, that in no way excuses FTP from any issues if they lied to the AGCC. The AGCC required monthly reporting from FTP on its compliance with accounting standards. It does remain to be seen if they lied or not, this is not known publicly now.

C) That there are no other co-conspirators other than those already indicted. Its unknown that their are not other conspirators involved. However, to believe that RB (and one other employee only) acted alone is obnoxious. But you are entitled to your opinion, time will tell if it holds up. What do you know about the ownership structure or management structure of the FTP companies?

D) That it was 'legally correct to commit the alleged bank fraud.' The idea that it's 'legally correct' to lie to banks because it was legal to gamble in other countries is ridiculous and demonstrates ignorance to international banking laws. Once again, the company had a choice to act or not to act. Terrorists organizations lie to banks all the time, is that also ok because in some countries those people are not terrorists? When an Iranian company falsifies bank statements or shipping records in order to move illegal shipments of weapons from Iran to Lebanon, is that ok because its not illegal in Iran or Lebanon?

E) Why there was no 'war chest.' It obvious to everyone but you that they took virtually every dime the company 'earned' monthly (we use the term 'earned' loosely) which is why there was no war chest. Its most likely in their personal bank accounts.

Alderney is not part of the UK. It is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, a British crown protectorate. The Bailiwick is part of the portion of the Duchy of Normandy still held by the British monarch. The Bailiwick is not part of the European Union.

Alderney has its own laws and its own courts. All civil law cases are matters for the Court of Alderney. There is one local level of appeal, and the final appeal is to the Judicial Committee of the Queen's Privy Council.

These facts would seem to present some difficulties for UK or other European players wishing to pursue legal recourse against the FTP sub-entities registered in Alderney.

I think you are probably incorrect. "Player liabilities" almost certainly means the total of the balances in every player account. It will not be net of uncleared deposts. I am not sure whether it would be net of uncleared withdrawls, but it probably is not.

Why does the AGCC's failure to detect FTP's lie make the AGCC liable for lost player money?

Are you certain? What date and evidence do you have? Some of us have been trying to verify that. It certainly looks likely.

He said that a number of years ago, not in 2010 or 2011.

yes. few months was not enough...
lol...

I have a query regarding the Epic Poker League and a PR suggestion for FTP owners.......

After all the commotion concerning their "Ethics" commitee and David "Chino" Rheem after he won the first Epic Poker League event how come they are allowing Full Tilt Poker shareholders to play in their events?

Cant think of any subject more important or bigger at present that is bringing poker into disrepute so find it odd that it has been conveniently ignored.

Isn't it also an amazing coincidence that Howard's sister is involved in the league and that she used to be associated with a site that was involved in the next biggest scandal concerning online poker? Don't believe she has actually done anything wrong herself but its an interesting coincidence nonetheless.

Just looks more than a little hypocritical to me that their inauguraul event winner is given a public warning for owing backers money and been instructed to do the right thing whilst FTP owners are not questioned at all about their responsibilities with regard to missing FTP player money.

Perhaps they should confiscate all FTP owner winnings and place them in an Escrow fund or bank account dedicated to reimbursing FTP players at some future date or only allow them to play on condition all winnings go to an FTP player reimbursement fund?

Which gives me an idea for all FTP shareholders which they can choose to take or ignore...

How about having a collection amongst yourselves and placing some money in an account to reimburse players that nobody within FTP can touch?

If you stick a few million each into an account then cant you see how wonderful this will look at the AGCC's forthcoming meeting when your lawyer can kick off proceedings by saying that progress has been made and a fund started up by the owners into which $50-$100 million (say) has been deposited?

They may not have a legal obligation (yet) to do so but they certainly in the least have a moral one.

Your first reply to my comment about fairness seems to be based on a very clear assertion that non-US players actually knew what risk they were taking, and it was the same as that taken by a US player. I agree that if that premise holds, so does your conclusion. Now you say it doesn't matter what they knew. You are moving the goalposts.

I am saying that it is marginally more fair to lose your assets if you knowingly take a risk than if you don't know the risk exists. That is because you made a conscious decision to accept the risk. If the person who didn't know the risk had known, they may not have accepted the risk.

Also, it is less likely or more difficult for the average non-US player to become aware of the risk.

+1

You might be able to get a judgment of all sorts in another country, but you would still have to affirm the judgement in Alderny. This is one of the things that makes it so attractive to people who set up companies here - great asset protection benefits. Oh and good luck getting a judgement affirmed in countries like these. Moreover, from my research, they dont even have a formal BK law structure which means no BK trustee to chase down any lost assets of the gaming companies.

How about the fact that Andy Bloch (a FT owner) was on the Epic Poker League committee that meted out the punishment for Chino.....

Tends to suggest to me that you can question the ethics of the league itself and be entitled to do so too.

Anyone fancy contacting them and asking them? (I cant be bothered myself)

The Epic Poker League is committed to the highest ethical standards and professionalism in the game of poker. Any suspected violation of the Epic Poker League Players’ Code of Conduct or policies or of any law will be thoroughly investigated by the Standards & Conduct Committee.

If you know of, or suspect, a violation of Epic Poker League Players’ Code of Conduct or policies or of any law by any league player, tournament official, employee and anyone else associated with the Epic Poker League, you may contact the Standards & Conduct Committee via email at ethics@epicpoker.com.

You may remain anonymous if you wish, but in order for the Standard & Conduct Committee to fully investigate a suspected violation, please provide as much information as possible. The Standards & Conduct Committee will keep all reports of suspected violations confidential. The reports will be thoroughly investigated and, if appropriate, the Epic Poker League may impose discipline.

When the charges first came out, I was dubious about the "bank fraud" charges. If nobody has lost anything of value as a result of the defendants' deception of the banks, and if the result is consistent with the wishes of the transferred money's owners, what is the fraud?

It was pointed out to me that the banks actually lost two things of value. One was the peace of mind that comes from not having handled transactions which may have been illegal, and which the banks were responsible for detecting. Whether this has any tangible value such that its loss constitutes fraud, I don't know.

The other things they lost was the higher fees they would have charged if the transfers had been properly coded. That is a very real loss, and it is this aspect that the defendants may have a hard time beating.

Aren't there also allegations of loans to prop up banks too during the global financial crisis in exchange for allowing payment processing and also hiding payments to make them look like golfing equipemnt purchases and a load of other stuff like that too?

Not sure about all this but know I read a load of stuff previously at the time but there must be a whole host of things we havent got a clue about that will need to be explained at some future date.

+1 Good points

It's from multiple sections, and I've spent too much time on this already. It's an argument that's going to be made, and your lawyers will, I'm sure, have a plan to respond to it.

Todd, seriously... do you deny that you participated in Full Tilt's money laundering and bank fraud scheme every time you made a withdrawal? Can you really say you didn't know you were circumventing the rules after all the changes that happened after UIGEA came into effect?

Do you not see that as maybe being a problem with your case?

I don't remember anything about loans to banks, There was an investment in a bank.

The miscoding payments by claiming they were for golf equipment or flowers, etc,. was the method allegedly used to allegedly defraud the banks.

LedaSon,

I don't another mega-post here. I think you missquoted me on a few things, and obviously we disagree on a lot.

But to clarify a couple of points, I'm not an American, I'm Canadian. To be a prosecutor, you have to be able to think like a defense lawyer. Before spending sveral million dollars of taxpayer money advancing a complicated case, any prosecutor needs to look at it very closely.

As to the jurisdictional point, make no mistake about this: if some country passes a law that says, "nobody, in any country in the world, is allowed to...", that's a law that isn't going to be taken very seriously outside of that one country.

That's an oversimplification of what UIGEA attempts to do, but I don't fault the lawyers for UB, PS, and FTP for concluding that congress overreached on that one. One might well argue that the only reason the U.S. has been able to get any kind of extra-territorial enforcement is basically by blackmailing those foreign institutions with threats to their continued U.S. operations.

I'd be interested in knowing whether all of the banks named in the Appendix (basically it's a Mareeva Injunction) have honoured the order, or whether some have continued to allow RB an other at-large defendants access to those accounts. I suspect the latter is the case, but we'll probably never know.

Well as I say I am a little hazy in this area as I didnt exactly read the whole of the indictments and such.....thanks for the clarification but all this US legal stuff seems very complicated and confusing to a non American like me.

I am just a simpleton who likes his information in small bite sized digestable pieces.