Meh, I'm just going to unsubscribe instead as long as we can keep this as a dipce containment thread.

MOD NOTE: This is not breaking news - article is from March 12.

breaking: NJ Casino Control Commission will not consider AGA application re PokerStars on Wednesday

http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...-on-wednesday/

this gives PS the opportunity to save face and withdraw the application.
should they pursue the application, the NJ CCC could subpoena those who plead guilty to crimes while working at PS. Once those individuals testify, PS will likely not succeed on their application.

Once Nelson Burtnick testifies to what he knows about Pokerstars and conspiracy to commit unlawful Internet gambling, bank fraud, money laundering, and gambling offenses in connection with a scheme to deceive banks into processing hundreds of millions of dollars of Internet gambling transactions,
the chances the application will be approved are close to zero.

the US attorney for the sdny may recommend a lighter sentence should Burtnick cooperate with the NJ CCC in its consideration.

Success in money laundering and bank fraud may be sufficient to get you promoted to captain in the Gambino crime family, but is not exactly the sort of thing that qualifies you for a license to operate a casino. keeping organized crime out of the casinos should be the goal. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/nyregion/15bust.html

whatever, dicks

Who are you lobbying in behalf of? Do you honestly believe that your favorite "holier than thou" casino conglomerate owners wouldn't have taken the same avenue, as those you accuse of wrongdoing, in an even more extreme sense, had they had been afforded a similar opportunity? The banksters that nearly collapsed the entire U.S. economy 2006-2008 must be saints in your eyes. Just disclose to these forums that you're on the AGA payroll or reveal the true reason why you're so opposed to one particular online poker operator. Purity within the business world is a rare trait. You may believe that those you embrace are pure but chances are great that you're viewing them through rose-colored glasses. I honestly don't believe PS is pure but I do believe that they're the cleanest choice out there. Their software is by far the best that's out there. Their competitors don't even come close. Do you know why? A) Because their competitors don't even try. Even if they are a criminal enterprise, as you claim that they are, I don't really give a RA if they rob me blind. Do you know why? A) Because they did so with class! P.S. - Your trash is my treasure!

I agree Caesars is greedy and I generally avoid the CET properties. However, being greedy doesn't mean their argument is incorrect.

I agree that PokerStars "operated as a criminal enterprise for many years" and "cannot demonstrate the good character, integrity and honesty required by New Jersey law."

I also find funny and do not dispute Whelan's comments:

"I'm fed up with these guys and their 'holier than thou' crap."

- Sen. Jim Whelan, D-Atlantic

I would support any efforts by Whelan to clean up Caesars. But that does not mean I support having another bad apple in AC.

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/o...f95c305c0.html

Competition is good. It is too bad PS has not displayed the required honesty, integrity, and good character...

the fact the NJ CCC laid off most of its staff makes it less likely I would agree it is a good idea to give PS a license, see http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/n...cc4c03286.html

And how do you conclude those things you agree with?

They were never convicted of a crime. They never broke NJ law, and I've checked, there was no law explicitly prohibiting online gambling until the law which legalized it made unlicensed online gambling illegal.... In fact the NJ government said that online gaming was "unlawful" which means that it was not regulated, but not illegal.

So if they never broke any NJ laws, and they were never convicted of any Federal Crimes, AND they paid US players back - then what reason do you have to say that they operated as criminals or that they lack integrity?

Even if an individual at the company did commit a crime, the company as a whole acted with integrity, it's like seeing someone jaywalk and saying "throw that criminal in jail!"

if the company higher ups did not know about Burtnick's crimes they do not deserve a license based on their gross negligence in managing the company. If they did know what Burtnick was doing, they do not have the necessary honesty, integrity, and good character to get a casino license.

there is some difference between jaywalking and 'a scheme to deceive banks into processing hundreds of millions of dollars of Internet gambling transactions...' (the company may be able to get away from a single instance of deception by a rogue director, but it can't get off the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars...)

The bottom line is that the plea of guilty by a director of PS to bank fraud and money laundering should be the seal doom for an application to operate a casino.

===================

'...Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that Nelson Burtnick, who previously served as director of payments for Pokerstars and Full Tilt Poker, pled guilty in Manhattan federal court to conspiracy to commit unlawful Internet gambling, bank fraud, money laundering, and gambling offenses in connection with a scheme to deceive banks into processing hundreds of millions of dollars of Internet gambling transactions...'

see link above

Just to point out something obvious that isn't necessarily relevant in the CCC's decision making:


Even IF PokerStars is guilty of bank fraud and money laundering as alleged, such activity obviously only occured because the transfers they had to make in their regular course of business were being blocked as transfers in connection with illegal gambling, while their business may or may not have actually been illegal gambling.

Now that NJ explicitly legalized online gambling, the transfers will be allowed. There won't be any need for bank fraud or money laundering to make transfers in the regular course of the business.


Even if PokerStars were found guilty of bank fraud and money laundering in the past when transfers in their ordinary course of business were being blocked, I don't think I would care and would still want them to get a license in NJ.

Hey dipce! Your Emporer has new clothes!

FYP

PokerStars openly violated the stance of the U.S. Department of Justice on U.S. law, and in the process participated in deceptive practices which allowed payment processors to circumvent bank policies and procedures.

The DOJ forgave PokerStars their sins as part of a $731M settlement - in the face of a soon-to-be released reversal of the DOJ opinion on the applicability of the Wire Act, as well as the still shaky legal ground of the applicability of intra-territorial law to cross-jurisdictional internet transactions.

Should PokerStars therefore be ostracized by the NJ casino regulators, who promptly forgive the licensed U.S. casino corporations for any outed sin as soon as such corporation rectifies their policies and personnel, and perhaps pays a token fine?

This isn't about the integrity of the casino entities or following the law. It's about who gets the dollars.

I think the argument is relevant:

The association said unlike other businesses that complied with federal laws and stopped taking bets from players, PokerStars disregarded the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 and continued to take bets from U.S. players. That allowed PokerStars to grow its share of the global online poker market from 7.6 percent in 2002 to more than half by 2012, according to the association.

“Any action allowing PokerStars to be licensed would send a damaging message to the world of gaming, and to the world beyond gaming, that companies that engage in chronic lawbreaking are welcome in the licensed gaming business,” the trade association said in the brief. “That message would dramatically undermine public confidence in gaming regulation and could cripple the industry’s public image.”

http://m.pressofatlanticcity.com/new...9bb2963f4.html

The argument is bull****.

The UIGEA doesn't make anything illegal unless it is already illegal under another law. For the UIGEA to apply there must be a predicate violation. And PokerStars hasn't been shown to have violated any law that would then trigger the UIGEA. (Also, the AGA should be aware that PokerStars wasn't "taking bets" at all. They provided a platform for other people to bet against each other at the game of poker and they collected a fee in the form of rake for providing such service. I guess "taking bets" sounds worse.)


Also, you could probably say that many casinos engage in "chronic lawbreaking". One stupid example .... I don't know of a casino that accepts Form 5754 though by law they are required to. I think a few others have been mentioned in this thread.






Every argument the AGA makes here starts from .... PokerStars will be major competitor of all of our members if they get a license and in that event our members will likely make less money than they would if PokerStars didn't get a license. What can we do to make it less likely PokerStars will get a license? Idea # 1: We could try to become involved in PokerStars licensing hearing and say things like:

“Any action allowing PokerStars to be licensed would send a damaging message to the world of gaming, and to the world beyond gaming, that companies that engage in chronic lawbreaking are welcome in the licensed gaming business,” the trade association said in the brief. “That message would dramatically undermine public confidence in gaming regulation and could cripple the industry’s public image.”

Yeah, why buy a S---hole when you can have a premium property? Stars relocates the poker room to the main floor and the site is huge!

zero

Burtnick would not have plead guilty and be facing a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison if PS did nothing wrong. He would have gone to trial.

Although the AGA and PS dispute is about money, I am proposing a road less traveled, the moral high ground.

That no one is interested in the moral high ground in a city as corrupt as Atlantic City is not surprising. If PS is granted a license, NJ will have a strong claim as most corrupt state in the nation. see, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/0724/p90s01-usgn.html

this.

however one can hardly blame the aga for trying, as keeping the best product with the best customer service (and most loyal player base) out of the market should be the number one priority for a casino lobbying group.

although what concerns me is the aga's true reasoning for wanting stars banned. if they succeed in shutting stars out of the market, they would inherit an online poker monopoly, which would no doubt produce an unfair rake for players. so in the interests of competition, stars must be included as a licensed site since they are not (and probably never will be) a member of the aga.

despite pokerstars' past indiscretions, they did settle with the doj while admitting no wrongdoing and now have a clean slate in the eyes of the law. so as long as the nj ccc is not accepting payments under the table from the aga, the decision makers should clearly see the aga's ulterior motives for what they are and thus grant pokerstars a license to operate.

very good piece by Wendeen H. Eolis summarizing points for both sides:

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/...kerstars-12615

From your link:

"PokerStars and Full Tilt admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which ends all litigation between the government and the poker companies."

This equates to not guilty of any crime.

also from link:

In other words, DoJ continues to maintain that PokerStars violated the UIGEA and the Illegal Gambling Business Act, committed bank fraud and engaged in money laundering.

also see:

...Two former prosecutors chide this reporter for pressing them to explain more fully the Government’s position, but they oblige: “the Government has nether reversed nor revised its position with regard to its claims of illegal activity on the part of PokerStars in its settlement agreement of civil charges against the Company.” Sure enough, they show me the legal papers that back them up!

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/...-warfare-12607

But that's entirely irrelevant since they're innocent until proven guilty. They settled. They're not guilty. End of story. Welcome to America.

No, if PS is not granted a license, NJ will have a strong claim as the most corrupt state. Nice of you to reverse reality though.

DOJ thinks PokerStars broke the law. PokerStars thinks they didn't. The two sides arrive at a settlement which does not involve any admittance of wrongdoing. Since it has been settled, there will be no court case to determine whether PokerStars broke the law.

The DOJ maintaining they broke the law doesn't mean they did. The DOJ decided to settle instead of prosecuting them and they accepted a settlement in which there was no wrongdoing admitted.


I'm not sure what your point is along this line.

PS needs to demonstrate the good character, integrity and honesty required by New Jersey law. They may be required to cut relations with some actors within their organization who do not have good character in order to satisfy the NJ CCC.

Just as Pansy Ho raises eyebrows, PS may be required to lose some baggage, actors who lack honesty, in order to get a casino license.

The point is that the NJ CCC can consider the PS position and also consider the DOJ position. Burtnick would be an ideal witness in this regard. Just because PS thinks it did not break the law, the NJ CCC does not have to believe it, furthermore the NJ CCC may decide PS does not have the required honesty, without a criminal trial. No need to compare or confuse apples and oranges.

Ok.



And like I said earlier, I don't even care if it were proven that they committed bank fraud. I still want them to get a license. Especially given that the bank fraud, if committed, would only have been committed to make transfers in their normal course of business to send money to U.S. citizens and create business and income for U.S. banks because their transfers were being blocked.

Given that is their "bad act" I don't see any risk that they would embezzle, commit bank fraud, commit money laundering, etc. upon being granted a license by NJ.

well you may be in luck then, as given the very desperate economic scene in AC, PS appears to have the political pull to have its way...