Ray Bitar turns himself in to Feds?

[DonkeyQuixote]

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.

That really makes the superceding indictment look like theater. Clearly the grandstanding announcements spoke of ROW activities, post BF.

So, why the set-up ?

So Stars and DOJ can be heroes in announcing that settlement, saving the day for both the US and ROW players ?

[LetsGambool]

Or they want him to roll on someone so wanted to incentivize him to come over, and now incentivize cooperation.

[lawdude]

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.

You have the right idea, but you aren't using the right terminology.

Personal jurisdiction is established. Once Bitar did the things that he DID do within the Southern District of New York, he can be theoretically sued for any reason or charged with any crime in the state or federal courts there. That's called "general personal jurisdiction". (There's a narrower concept where you can only be charged for certain specific acts, which is called "specific personal jurisdiction", but that only applies to people who had far more isolated business contacts with New York than Bitar did.)

But what IS at issue is the substantive elements of the offense, specifically, do these statutes apply to conduct overseas by non-American residents with no connection to the United States. If these statutes do not extend that far (and I suspect they don't), Bitar may have a legal argument on the post-BF charges.

[tamiller866]

Internet cases generally require the plaintiff to assert specific personal jurisdiction over an out-state party, but to avoid derailment, even conceding that the government establishes general personal jurisdiction, the specific tortious activity must give rise to the court's exercise of that jurisdiction.

What they were doing after BF, once their last ~50M was seized, access to credit was cut off by the DOJ, and opportunity to take on investors limited by the dark cloud of indictment had no effect on players in NY, one might even argue that their fraud benefited players in NY for them to continue operating while insolvent in order to attract investors/purchasers.

For an extreme hyperbolic analogy, they might as well be charging Isai Scheinberg for a murder committed on the IOM and saying they have jurisdiction because he ran an illegal gambling business in New York.

[munkey]

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.

This is the same impression I got reading the recent indictment. It seemed they were alluding to their post BF ROW activities but always mentioned US players and suggesting how it was evidence of the same pre-BF activity.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by munkey

This is the same impression I got reading the recent indictment. It seemed they were alluding to their post BF ROW activities but always mentioned US players and suggesting how it was evidence of the same pre-BF activity.

.... which makes it really BAD theater.

One of the longest running hit plays in the US, Cats, was divided into two Acts, but I'd swear to this day that the second Act was just a repeat of the first Act.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Internet cases generally require the plaintiff to assert specific personal jurisdiction over an out-state party, but to avoid derailment, even conceding that the government establishes general personal jurisdiction, the specific tortious activity must give rise to the court's exercise of that jurisdiction.

What they were doing after BF, once their last ~50M was seized, access to credit was cut off by the DOJ, and opportunity to take on investors limited by the dark cloud of indictment had no effect on players in NY, one might even argue that their fraud benefited players in NY for them to continue operating while insolvent in order to attract investors/purchasers.

For an extreme hyperbolic analogy, they might as well be charging Isai Scheinberg for a murder committed on the IOM and saying they have jurisdiction because he ran an illegal gambling business in New York.

Again, you have the right idea but the wrong terminology. If a US statute extended to apply to a murder on the IOM, that crime would be prosecutable against a FTP principal in New York, subject only to venue, transfer, and discretionary dismissal rules. The courts of New York have personal jurisdiction.

However, the government would have to show that the conduct fell within the purview of a US criminal statute.

That's the problem here, not personal jurisdiction.

[tamiller866]

It's a chicken or the egg argument, if NY passed a law making it the worldwide fraud police, then sure they could exercise personal jurisdiction over anyone that ever conducted business in NY, but since they haven't passed such a law, they can't.

[LT22]

Minimum contacts = they have jurisdiction, right? I'm not a lawyer but I don't understand what you're trying to say (per usual) with the chicken and egg thing

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by LT22

Minimum contacts = they have jurisdiction, right? I'm not a lawyer but I don't understand what you're trying to say (per usual) with the chicken and egg thing

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by LT22

Minimum contacts = they have jurisdiction, right? I'm not a lawyer but I don't understand what you're trying to say (per usual) with the chicken and egg thing

Minimal contacts by the business means they have jurisdiction over any laws that business violated in that jurisdiction, but as Judge Sands ruled when he dismissed the individuals in the player civil suit, a tortious act would have to have been committed by the individuals towards the courts jurisdiction (pierce the corporate veil) for him to exercise personal jurisdiction.

He allowed them time to amend their complaint against the shell companies (which are bankrupt), but if the obvious conversion wasn't even enough to survive a dismissal motion of a civil suit against Bitar, and the additional wrongdoing the government asserts is continuing to accept deposits after BF when they had ceased doing any business in the US, then a criminal fraud charge is a non-starter.

Corporate liability laws are written to encourage investors to take risks, if people had to worry about going to jail if a business decision backfires no one would ever try, obviously a true mens rea ponzi scheme would be an exception, but FTP was apparently just a horribly mismanaged company that lied a lot.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by LT22

Minimum contacts = they have jurisdiction, right? I'm not a lawyer but I don't understand what you're trying to say (per usual) with the chicken and egg thing

Bitar is actually in NY, the Court has personal jurisdiction over him. (FWIW, even if he was tricked into coming to JFK, personal jurisdiction arose as soon as his plane entered US airspace.)

What I was wondering about is jurisdiction over the post-BF activities and how they would be the basis for a crime in the US and/or NY. The post BF activities clearly did not involve taking deposits in violation of NY law (UIGEA), nor operating a gambling business in NY (NY State law), nor defrauding any banks, nor even any activities within the US.

[Jeedz]

What's he looking at, 3 months in jail and a $5000 fine? Finally, justice has been served!

[LastLife]

Originally Posted by Jeedz

What's he looking at, 3 months in jail and a $5000 fine? Finally, justice has been served!

I got the o/u at 30 months.

Taking imaginary bets.

[Jeedz]

Originally Posted by LastLife

I got the o/u at 30 months.

Taking imaginary bets.

Good luck with that. White Collar Crime FTW.