Ray Bitar turns himself in to Feds?

[tamiller866]

It's the Wire Act they didn't use (against poker), they've actually gotten convictions for (conspiracy) UIGEA charges.

[LT22]

oh right, thanks for reminding me. Brain fart

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

It's the Wire Act they didn't use (against poker), they've actually gotten convictions for (conspiracy) UIGEA charges.

And do not forget that they actually got convictions, by way of guilty pleas, to Wire Act violations based on poker. Guilty pleas are also the way they have gotten all their UIGEA convictions involving poker ... so far at least.

Skallagrim

[tamiller866]

True, gambling convictions have always been difficult to get for some reason though, even before the internet, but the old faithful conspiracy charge is tough to beat.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Okay, out there ..... Before we take this superceding indictment as gospel, I had some second thoughts ....

1. What is the US law that is violated, post-BF, by a non-US business soliciting deposits from non-US players for non-US poker games, even if Bitar lied thru his teeth while doing it ?

2. What is the UIGEA violation for anything that occurred post-BF, as there were no US deposits processed post BF ?

Any lawyers want to opine here ?

3. For that matter, since FTP was clearly no longer operating a gambling business in NY post-BF, what State law is the UIGEA hook for any post-BF conduct ?

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

Okay, out there ..... Before we take this superceding indictment as gospel, I had some second thoughts ....

1. What is the US law that is violated, post-BF, by a non-US business soliciting deposits from non-US players for non-US poker games, even if Bitar lied thru his teeth while doing it ?

2. What is the UIGEA violation for anything that occurred post-BF, as there were no US deposits processed post BF ?

Any lawyers want to opine here ?

3. For that matter, since FTP was clearly no longer operating a gambling business in NY post-BF, what State law is the UIGEA hook for any post-BF conduct ?

The additions in the superceeding indictment are for wire fraud and money laundering, not UIGEA violations.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

Okay, out there ..... Before we take this superceding indictment as gospel, I had some second thoughts ....

1. What is the US law that is violated, post-BF, by a non-US business soliciting deposits from non-US players for non-US poker games, even if Bitar lied thru his teeth while doing it ?

2. What is the UIGEA violation for anything that occurred post-BF, as there were no US deposits processed post BF ?

Any lawyers want to opine here ?

3. For that matter, since FTP was clearly no longer operating a gambling business in NY post-BF, what State law is the UIGEA hook for any post-BF conduct ?

Like PX said, the new charges aren't UIGEA, but you make a good point that the wire fraud they committed when they were essentially a ponzi scheme after BF was conducted from Ireland against ROW depositors, so SDNY in my opinion would have a hard time even establishing personal jurisdiction for civil fraud, let alone proving criminal (mens rea) fraud.

They told a lot of lies to get US deposits before BF, but many of those deposits were never collected and (without wanting to be this devil's advocate) they could make a reasonable argument that they had sufficient equity in their software/brand/market-share that taking on debt or new investment to cover their shortfall would not have been a problem before BF.

Ponzi scheme sure does make a good headline though, people have little sympathy for anyone that loses money gambling, and few have an issue with businesses offering a game on the internet which the government approves of in taxed casinos, but everyone likes to see fraud victims made whole.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Like PX said, the new charges aren't UIGEA, but you make a good point that the wire fraud they committed when they were essentially a ponzi scheme after BF was conducted from Ireland against ROW depositors, so SDNY in my opinion would have a hard time even establishing personal jurisdiction for civil fraud, let alone proving criminal (mens rea) fraud.

They told a lot of lies to get US deposits before BF, but many of those deposits were never collected and (without wanting to be this devil's advocate) they could make a reasonable argument that they had sufficient equity in their software/brand/market-share that taking on debt or new investment to cover their shortfall would not have been a problem before BF.

Ponzi scheme sure does make a good headline though, people have little sympathy for anyone that loses money gambling, and few have an issue with businesses offering a game on the internet which the government approves of in taxed casinos, but everyone likes to see fraud victims made whole.

I just called my cable company to cancel my subscription to The Twilight Zone.

Posts like this are better.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

I just called my cable company to cancel my subscription to The Twilight Zone.

Posts like this are better.

I expected such a response, but all you have to do is read Judge Sands dismissal of the Todd Terry et al civil suit to recognize how difficult it is to legally differentiate between incompetence and malfeasance, let alone criminal malfeasance.

He said they hadn't even established that a tortious act had occurred, let alone that one happened within his jurisdiction - which they for some reason took as a hint to re-file their suit in Nevada (???).

Like I said I don't like advocating for the devil, but Jeff Iffrah doesn't even deserve the pat on the back he gave himself for defending those civil allegations, so these criminal charges are little more than show.

[PokerXanadu]

It is my understanding that the additional charges in the superseding indictment are not because of actions that occurred by Ray and others after BF, but rather are related to new evidence discovered by the DOJ in FTP documents acquired after BF proving that Ray and others knew that they were spending funds belonging to U.S. players long before BF.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

It is my understanding that the additional charges in the superseding indictment are not because of actions that occurred by Ray and others after BF, but rather are related to new evidence discovered by the DOJ in FTP documents acquired after BF proving that Ray and others knew that they were spending funds belonging to U.S. players long before BF.

But that wouldn't be criminal (wire) fraud, lying to your regulator before BF is grounds for having your license pulled, lying to your customers about what you are doing with their funds is at best a breach of contract.

The primary fiduciary duty of an officer of a company is to his shareholders, not the customers, so he has a reasonable argument that he was acting in the best interest to those whom he is responsible by getting their equity out of harms (DOJ) way and putting all the risk onto the players.

As it turns out he would have had to have been incompetent to presume the US government was just going to steal the players money (since we now know they didn't do so with PS), but he only has to have reasonably believed that their accounts were at risk to justify the under capitalization.

The indictment paints a clear picture of how FTP made the customers the unwittingly gamblers not just on poker but the safety of their funds, and I completely agree with that assertion, but not only is that not a crime, under our corporate laws that is a duty.

[PokerXanadu]

I would have argued that the FBAR rules show that the US govt considers online poker accounts to be financial accounts containing funds specifically belonging to the players, not poker company equity. However, the US govt gave up that argument when they changed the FBAR rules recently. Just points out how much govt regulation of this industry is really needed.

[tamiller866]

That's a REALLY good point PX, I'd been thinking the 'show' the government was putting on with these new indictments was purely political ("look, we busted a worldwide ponzi scheme!!") but the attention it draws to the need to regulate rather than forcing the DOJ to attempt to enforce this mess can't just be coincidence.

[striiing]

If they believe it to be a ponzi scheme then Ray will be doing a few years in the can

[DjSkyy]

ok, so i guess that the big question now is:

when are we going to get a ray bitar mugshot to play with?