I think generally that is true but this is a different situation. This problem affects tons of players who simply cannot afford to pay for the money that is frozen. Investors invest knowingly that most likely they will see no return. Players sell packages because the most likely cannot afford the buy ins of the package. If the player goes on to do something stupid with the money and losses it then I believe they owe it to the investors. But this situation is different that the players has no control over. And even if it is correct that the player owes the money to the investors, it simply will not be paid because either the player does not have the money or does not believe it is right (Why does all the risk go towards the player and none towards the investor?)

That being said, this probably still will take months, possibly years, for the funds to be unfrozen so the investors should not expect to see any money for a long time.

Some players have the money but use other people's money to help spread the variance the same as swapping a percentage.

+1

ive typed up a bunch of responses to this thread but never posted them cuz i didnt like what i wrote. but this is exactly what i wanted to say

yup

What Fatso said.

And let's keep in mind the position of the two parties. A horse needed money to play tournaments he felt he was +ev because he was not in a position to risk that money. The buyer is in a position to gamble and make what he feels in a +ev investment, but he knew there was a very real chance he was going to get zero money back if the horse bricked.

OK, what happens when I, as a horse, move to Costa Rica, and I can make transfers again, but I can't transfer back to my investors? Is it then on the investors to move to another country, establish residency, so they can accept the transfers?

Nailed it

ya i generally agree with fatsofat for sure... there's just a scenario thats not really covered considering that online funds for non americans are not as worthless, so what if a euro or canadian shipped? does that not change anything?

so what happens if he decides to play the events. for instance the player was able to cash out 6k of a 10k package (he waited till he received all of the money to start cashing out). does every investor receive 60% of the action they originally bought or does the last 40% of the buyers get screwed and lose everything?

yea fatso got it, not even close. Just saw this thread and I can't believe nobody came to that conclusion within the 1st 5 posts.

2nd post:

Legally speaking the seller is absolutely liable - however it is sure to happen on a vast scale right now that people will claim the opposite and nobody will get banned or crucified by this community for it because we all understand the situation - but speaking strictly in terms of liability, which is the terms that you used, the seller is 100% liable.

Say I don't play online at all and do everything with cash but somebody wanted to be paid on Stars so they could buy in with W$ so I gave $10k in cash to my buddy and he shipped on Stars, and now that money is frozen in Stars. If you look at it in those terms I think its pretty clear, or at least much clearer, that the seller still owes that action or the $10k to the buyer - and not whenever Stars unfreezes that money.

However you choose to hold your money is your decision and carries with it a certain level of risk, a risk you as the holder assume no matter what happens. Just as we will all still hold Stars and FTP accountable for our money even if the DOJ seizes it, and they'll probably still pay us, those who we have sent money to via whatever means should be accountable for anything that happens to that money while it is in their possession.

really good idea on making this thread, i think this is very interesting situation

i hope all the bright minds here can get this figured out and come together to try and set some type of standard

i wish everyone stuck in his situation the best of luck, and hoping we dont see too many scumbags trying to angle

I would say everyone has 60% of their intended action and everyone has 40%in the middle of nowhere.

Are you an attorney? I am graduating from law school in two weeks. On what basis do you see liability transfers to the seller in this context? Strictly legally speaking, I think you are ignoring or unaware of several legal issues that make your conclusion incorrect.

Hint #1: If the money is seized by the Department of Justice, then why was the money seized? Because the money is being sent through channels that are used for money laundering. Therefore, any contract, if it even existed, would be unenforceable.

Hint #2: Usage of trade

i think that all %'s that have been shipped to the horse, should be canceled and left alone in their online accounts until this is straigthend out

and then if the money is free'd up, it should be shipped back to the investor, if the event has come and gone

i think thats the easiest way to avoid all this speculation of what to do, and to stop any potential angling

just my 2cents

Fatsofats says it all.

This is all wrong.

Go ahead and explain Todd why this would be an enforceable contract.

I guess things have changed for the bad since for years we didn't need contracts a gamblers word was his bond. If he said a bet was booked it was booked period no if's and or but's.

Because the subject matter is not illegal and no one violated any laws in the formation or performance of the contract.

Of course we should do what is right. That's what I have tried to do with all my high stakes transactions over the last three years. Fatso hit the nail on the head with what is right in this unfortunate situation. ITT we had a brief tangent about legal liability. We need to police ourselves in this case.

Method of payment is clearly material enough where it the method of payment is illegal, it is unenforceable. Sort of like if I wanted to buy three t-shirts off of you, but the method of payment would be I murder someone. A court can't enforce that I murder someone, nor can they enforce that I pay market value for the t-shirts.

And most importantly, payment was made, but no performance (i.e. playing poker tournaments) commenced.

EDIT: A better analogy might be if the method of payment was counterfeit bills.

Transferring someone online funds isn't illegal. Nor is depositing or withdrawing funds from an online site.

You have to add in the term "poker" or even worse, "gambling" site. And then the DOJ would clearly disagree with you. Nice try using the language that would describe PayPal. LOL.

They would clearly agree with me. You have no idea what you're talking about. And obviously I was talking about online poker funds. #notwastinganymoretimeonthis