When a ponzi scheme self-destructs, they usually get charges filed against the operator(s), file bankrupcy, and a bankrupcy receiver trys to get back money that has gone out of the operation for the past 6 years - as they feel all money recieving victims were benefitted as well.

I was kinda shocked when I first heard this.

Even poorly run companies that have filed bankrupcy have similar possibilities, but for a much shorter period of time. Imagine you were selling gold bullion to a company that goes under before your last payment. Not only are you out that payment, but previous payments may be on the line for the last year as well.

I guess I am glad, that I was only using one poker site for entertainment and never got any checks from them, just a couple t-shirts from my points..

They can t go after poking winnings from fulltilt site.

And they will never collect all the missing money. the only questions left is, how much is money on FT worth. 30 cents on the dollar, 50 cents?

I'd estimate 10-15 cents, then again nobody on the outside can really give an accurate answer without looking at all the information.

I have a little, er, familiarity with this subject. In traditional Ponzi cases there is always a debate about whether customers who "won" should have to return their "net winnings." There are many nuances in the case law that sometimes relate to the customer's knowledge or willful blindness, what return the customer reasonably could have expected in a legitimate investment, etc. There was some mainstream media discussion of this in August around the Madoff-Wilpons situation and a Second Circuit court ruling.

IMO the characterization of what was allegedly going on at Full Tilt as a "Ponzi scheme" is not a very good one, and the hypothetical applicability of the traditional-Ponzi case law to the FTP situation is not at all clear. (I agree with durrr that "Ponzi scheme" was used by DOJ for publicity/quotability purposes -- see also Rick Perry discussing Social Security). FTP was not supposed to be making you money (unlike Madoff); it was supposed to be holding your money for YOU to make more or lose. As such, all of the discussion in Ponzi case law about expected returns is arguably not relevant. This is more like a bank or b-d insolvency than a Ponzi scheme per se.

Of course there are standard rules regarding transactions with insolvent companies (what are called bankruptcy "preferences," etc.) that may be implicated here on the civil side. There is also the second elephant in the room of the legality of customers playing real money on FTP in the first place, which the DOJ so far has seemed to table in favor of helping the little guy. Not suggesting that isn't a good idea, but you can probably think of similar examples from real life or "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" or whatever where a "customer" of an illegal/arguably illegal enterprise gets hosed by the promoter; does the disgruntled drug buyer or the unsatisfied bookie user or the stiffed would-be prostitute john always get help from the cops? Depends.