Article in Forbes claims DoJ may repay FTP players based on deposits rather than balances

[Lego05]

Originally Posted by lawdude

I think it is outrageous that the DOJ is even considering this.

That said, if you want some guarded optimism, it would definitely be in the IRS' interests to allow players to be paid their winnings.

If the government keeps all the money, then the government gets all the money. If the government gives up the money to be able to keep/collect taxes on it, then the government gets a percentage of the money. (Unless interest and penalties from people who didn't pay would make up the difference.)




*I have no idea what is going to happen. Just saying I don't think they'd pay it all out solely so they could collect tax on it.

[maklifeasy]

Curtinsea should stick to the luvin poker forum. Hes a douchebag that defended everleaf just before they stole our money.

[keyman]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

While the IGBA doesn't extend to prosecution of mere gamblers, all money seized from an IGBA raid is subject to forfeiture, including player money, e.g.:

Chinatown Gambling Raid May Reveal Cultural Divide

You appear to be conflating State and Federal issues.

No, player funds are not subject to forfeiture. This was one of the key issues with the fact that FTP did not keep player money in segregated accounts, unlike PokerStars. The fact that player funds were not in segregated accounts would allow/allowed the government to claim that any money seized was that of the business, not players. This argument by the government breaks down in the FTP case where the total assets of FTP were not sufficient to cover player funds. This has been thoroughly discussed in other threads, I suggest you search and do some reading.

Note: Even in the situation you refer to above that happened in NY, I do not believe player funds are subject to forfeiture. However, the player has to be able to demonstrate that the funds are actually theirs. Assuming that players were playing in a poker cash game[NOTE 1] where they had purchased chips for use at the table, the chips would be confiscated as gambling paraphernalia and all funds held by the house would be seized. I would not be surprised to hear that the police seized cash from players. It is not unusual for them to seize first and force people to go through the process of reclaiming their property. However, the players would, in fact, have the right to sue the owners, and anyone to whom they lost, to obtain their money back. They probably can also make a claim on the money seized by the police. However, I am not sufficiently versed in the laws of NY to make the later a unequivocal statement. [This is based on NY law, so people reading this should not generalize to other States, nor to the Federal level].

Originally Posted by tamiller866

If the poker sites are illegal gambling businesses, then the winnings must also be proceeds of gambling, so allowing for player repayment was pure kindness on their part.

No, you are, again, combining issues which are separate.

The sites may have been illegal gambling businesses. If so, the rake they took was the proceeds of the illegal business. The players gambling winnings were not, under federal law, the proceeds of illegal gambling. Note: Even under NY law the player's actions are merely unlawful, not criminal, and do not subject the player's funds to seizure. [NOTE 2] Again, without the player's funds being segregated, there is a significant burden on the player to identify which funds are theirs. In most cases the players will not go through the process needed to obtain the funds to which they are actually entitled. Most will just assume that the funds were subject to forfeiture and that there is nothing they can do about it.

The FTP case is actually much more complex than that for multiple reasons including the fact that the gambling being illegal relies on State law. Thus, only in the states where it was actually illegal to operate such a business was the business illegal. Further there were issues of fraud, bank fraud, etc.

NOTE1: Obviously not the situation you cite, but is a situation with which we, on this forum, are generally familiar.

NOTE2: I might have missed something which would make the player's funds subject to seizure in NY as my review of their laws, and case law, was not comprehensive.

[rockrock]

Pretty obvious they are at least considering keeping all the money; why wait till next week for "more information" from the DOJ?

On our side? It's an election year.

Against us? These are the same people responsible for WACO and Ruby Ridge.

If a drug dealer rips off a customer and then gets busted, the police don't give the customer his money back. Don't make the mistake of thinking the DOJ thinks any different of us.

Also, BetOnSports bankruptcy was handled by receivers in the UK, not the DOJ. Comparison is meaningless. Kaplan paid a huge fine, none of it went to BOS customers who got pennies on the dollar. Uncle Sam got it, players got stiffed.

No one at the DOJ cares about us exclusive of how they can use us to further their professional aspirations.

GL to anyone owed; you are gonna need it.

ESPN needs to be the next DOJ target. These *******s made out like bandits while everyone else suffered.

[rockrock]

Oh yeah and the boss of these kind folks with all this money of ours just got caught walking guns into Mexico, selling them to violent drug gangs so they could further their 2nd amendment agenda ( fast n furious)

To think anything less than anything is possible is a special kind of naive.

[insidemanpoker]

Originally Posted by rockrock

Oh yeah and the boss of these kind folks with all this money of ours just got caught walking guns into Mexico, selling them to violent drug gangs so they could further their 2nd amendment agenda ( fast n furious)

To think anything less than anything is possible is a special kind of naive.

Sorry all, I posted this is the legislation forum specifically to avoid posters like these. If you can't add anything substantive, don't post.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by keyman

You appear to be conflating State and Federal issues.

No, player funds are not subject to forfeiture. This was one of the key issues with the fact that FTP did not keep player money in segregated accounts, unlike PokerStars. The fact that player funds were not in segregated accounts would allow/allowed the government to claim that any money seized was that of the business, not players. This argument by the government breaks down in the FTP case where the total assets of FTP were not sufficient to cover player funds. This has been thoroughly discussed in other threads, I suggest you search and do some reading.

The problem is that SDNY can't adopt the PokerStars (I believe valid) argument for it's legality in it's own recommendation for treating players as victims. They have to stick to their story which is that FTP was an illegal gambling business in at least ten States, and because it is an interstate business, all of it's transactions are unlawful in the United States.

Originally Posted by keyman

Note: Even in the situation you refer to above that happened in NY, I do not believe player funds are subject to forfeiture. However, the player has to be able to demonstrate that the funds are actually theirs. Assuming that players were playing in a poker cash game[NOTE 1] where they had purchased chips for use at the table, the chips would be confiscated as gambling paraphernalia and all funds held by the house would be seized. I would not be surprised to hear that the police seized cash from players. It is not unusual for them to seize first and force people to go through the process of reclaiming their property. However, the players would, in fact, have the right to sue the owners, and anyone to whom they lost, to obtain their money back. They probably can also make a claim on the money seized by the police. However, I am not sufficiently versed in the laws of NY to make the later a unequivocal statement. [This is based on NY law, so people reading this should not generalize to other States, nor to the Federal level].
No, you are, again, combining issues which are separate.

State law is only a predicate for Federal jurisdiction, once that is reached and the business is of sufficient size, volume and continuous the Federal government will seize all money in play as well as all money in possession of the business (funds used to purchase chips, e.g.), and while the IGBA excludes prosecution of players, there is no allowance for them to assert innocent ownership or victim's right to remission over forfeited funds.

SDNY can't argue that funds in player accounts should be treated like money on the players person when making it's recommendation for remission, because they have already argued the opposite position in court to deny the player (Adam Webb) his claim of innocent ownership.

Originally Posted by keyman

The sites may have been illegal gambling businesses. If so, the rake they took was the proceeds of the illegal business. The players gambling winnings were not, under federal law, the proceeds of illegal gambling. Note: Even under NY law the player's actions are merely unlawful, not criminal, and do not subject the player's funds to seizure. [NOTE 2] Again, without the player's funds being segregated, there is a significant burden on the player to identify which funds are theirs. In most cases the players will not go through the process needed to obtain the funds to which they are actually entitled. Most will just assume that the funds were subject to forfeiture and that there is nothing they can do about it.

The FTP case is actually much more complex than that for multiple reasons including the fact that the gambling being illegal relies on State law. Thus, only in the states where it was actually illegal to operate such a business was the business illegal. Further there were issues of fraud, bank fraud, etc.

NOTE1: Obviously not the situation you cite, but is a situation with which we, on this forum, are generally familiar.

NOTE2: I might have missed something which would make the player's funds subject to seizure in NY as my review of their laws, and case law, was not comprehensive.

State law is irrelevant, not only don't the players have any legal basis for recovering their money, had the government wanted to go after player money, they could have charged a Travel Act violation for every interstate transaction that was made and even charged some winning players as co-conspirators to set an example, which would have made their claim on PokerStars extraterritorial assets much more sound, but everything SDNY has done in this case indicates that they do want to hold the players harmless.

Unfortunately, SDNY has done all that it can do, and players fates are now tied to the discretion of the Attorney General which is delegated to the chief of AFMLS, obviously the recommendation of Preet Barrar will go a long way, but it would be erroneous to assure players (which SDNY avoided doing in their statement) that their balances are certain to be repaid in full.

[DjSkyy]

Was discussing this issue with a friend yesterday, and they suggested that you wouldn't want your name "on the DOJ's list" of players who were known to be playing quasi-legal internet pokers.

I told him that it was never illegal for the PLAYER to play, or accept wires from offshore sites, but he still thought it wouldnt be a good idea to put your name on the DOJ's list by asking for your money.

Has this issue been brought up yet?

[repulse]

Originally Posted by DjSkyy

Was discussing this issue with a friend yesterday, and they suggested that you wouldn't want your name "on the DOJ's list" of players who were known to be playing quasi-legal internet pokers.

I told him that it was never illegal for the PLAYER to play, or accept wires from offshore sites, but he still thought it wouldnt be a good idea to put your name on the DOJ's list by asking for your money.

Has this issue been brought up yet?

The DoJ almost certainly already has the relevant account balance information for US players from FTP, which will, you know, prove somewhat useful in verifying remissions claims. So to whatever extent one might fear the existence of such a list (I wouldn't), I'd think that the list is already there, and declining to request your money wouldn't change that.

[KingKongGrinder]

Originally Posted by DjSkyy

but he still thought it wouldnt be a good idea to put your name on the DOJ's list by asking for your money.

I'm pretty sure they already have your information.

[oneonth3run]

Originally Posted by KingKongGrinder

I'm pretty sure they already have your information.

The DOJ settlement order for Stars specifically states that all player information will be first handed over to the DoJ then a duplicate will be given to Stars. It even says player info will be used with regard to remission and will be kept beyond the 90 day period Stars will use it to reinstate player balances.

So they will have all player acct info and will be keeping it. Submitting a remission form won't tell them much they don't already know.

[LetsGambool]

Plus they've arrested processors and, in one case, even ran a processor themselves. They have your name and info, along with about 100,000 other people.

[Go Get It]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Plus they've arrested processors and, in one case, even ran a processor themselves. They have your name and info, along with about 100,000 other people.

I wonder what the actual number is of US players that had money on FTP in April of last year?

900k imo. Although a lot of that is <$100 balances.

[sba9630]

Originally Posted by repulse

The DoJ almost certainly already has the relevant account balance information for US players from FTP, which will, you know, prove somewhat useful in verifying remissions claims. So to whatever extent one might fear the existence of such a list (I wouldn't), I'd think that the list is already there, and declining to request your money wouldn't change that.

The PokerStars Companies shall provide the United States with full access to all records of the Full Tilt Group which will be transferred to the Pokerstars Companies as part of the Asset Transfer for three months following the Closing Date and the United States shall be permitted to make images or copies of any such records . The United States will be given continued access beyond this period to the Full Tilt Group's database for the purposes of extracting information necessary to effectuate a remission process pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 98l(d) and (e) and 28 C.F.R., Part 9 for the Full Tilt Group's former U.S. players, the administration of which shall be the sole responsibility of the United States.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Plus they've arrested processors and, in one case, even ran a processor themselves. They have your name and info, along with about 100,000 other people.

The DOJ will have access to all records of FTP from the beginning of time, including zero balance players. This will be more like 5 million people.