In this scenario, the seller owns the buyer $ because it is absolutely clear why the seller didn't get his money and it has nothing to do with the withdraw process.

However, if the seller chooses to scam the buyer, he could say DOJ gave generic reasons on why he's not getting his money back and drag out the process until the buyer gives up.

I'm not sure how much time and effort the buyer can expert the seller to put into this. The seller sold his $100K account because he didn't want to deal with the all the BS and now, he's getting dragged into this withdraw process because he got $1k in affiliate money and didn't know this was going to be a problem.

I don't mind spending 10 hrs to get the buyer his money but knowing our government, this process might take 1000+ hrs and tons of paperwork. Is the seller on the hook for this? Is the buyer paying the seller for his time?

These uncertainties and risk is why the seller sold the balance in the first place.

*Note: I don't sell/buy FTP balances*

i def agree with you slowhabit wrt the responsibility (or lack thereof) of the seller to put in time/effort to recover the funds.

obv he must put forth a good faith effort (sending in bank records etc) but i don't think he should be responsible to retain legal counsel and spend thousands of hours filling out paperwork etc.

obv if the buyer wants to pursue those means the seller should work with him (ie: giving him the necessary personal info to fill in the paperwork himself).

also, think you make excellent points tdomski.

I think it's one thing if "x reason" is because the seller had an FTP banner on his blog or participated in refer a friend, or only funded his account through p2p transfers etc... I think most reasonable people in the poker community would agree that these reasons are not only ridiculous and somewhat arbitrary but also at no fault of the seller.

It's an entirely different thing if the DOJ is withholding money to cover personal debts that the government just happens to have the authority to enforce. The buyer should not be penalised because the seller hasn't settled all his debts. These have no bearing on whether or not the aggregate US player pool gets paid and have nothing to do with the transaction in question. I think this is still the case even if the back taxes are directly related to income derived in the FTP account. That's for the seller to work out with the IRS and has nothing to do with the buyer.

I don't see how anyone could argue e-dog doesn't owe the buyer in this example. (obviously we're talking in terms of what the poker community would expect, not what could be enforced in a court room)

+1

i agree. i asked cuz it seemed somewhat related to the question of DOJ withholding FTP balance due to IRS debt.

Yea I think it's 100% analogous.

Older man at casino shows me email sent to him stating he can't get his money b/c he received RB through an affiliate. I know the guy well and he was never a pro, or had a blog with a link, or anything we can think of. He did sign up for 27% RB though. Is anyone else unable to to receive their money only due to getting RB?

wtf? if this is accurate, almost nobody will get paid? god i hate the doj

Taylor,

I think it's unreasonable for the buyer to be affected by some scenario that doesn't involve online poker in any way. As an example if the DoJ withholds the money because the IRS informs them this person owes back taxes which are greater than the amount of the account balance then I think it's pretty clear the player owes the buyer. They are eligible for remission and in fact are having the money remitted to them in the form of reducing a debt to a different party. Simply because they are having the money forcibly directed to a different entity does not absolve them of the agreement made regarding the amount of money eventually remitted.

However, the contrasting situation of being an affiliate, Red Pro and/or Team Full Tilt member does absolve a seller of owing the buyer as no remission is taking place at all.

This is very clearly correct.

ya. thats pretty much what i said ITT as well.

Here is the agreement Tom and I have come to regarding the durrrr challenge (finally):

The agreement: Starting September 1st, 2013, Dan and Tom agree to make themselves available to play at least 8,000 hands every two month period (September + October 2013 is the first period, November + December 2013 is the 2nd period, and so on).

Requirements to fulfill this agreement: At a minimum, this should mean being out of the US and available to play for 14 days out of every 2 month period. If you do not make it known you are out of the country, or are unwilling to play during these days, then they do not count. The arbitrators will be responsible for judging what counts as "available to play". No penalty will likely be given for 12 days out of the country with 24 hour a day availability and impeccable communication, but a penalty might be given for a 20 day period out of the country during which the player is unable to be reached or is online playing other people and avoiding the other member of the challenge.

Penalties: Each two month period where the arbitrators determine a player is not fulfilling this agreement he will be subject to a penalty. The base penalty is $40k per period. Added to this will be 10k for each subsequent offense. Penalties do not affect the challenge total and will be paid on the side (immediately).

Example: 6 months of hiding will lead to penalties of $40k then $50k then $60k ($150k total).

Half Penalty: If a player is available to play for 7-13 days in a 2 month period, his penalty for that period will be divided in half.

Example: 4 months of hiding followed by 2 months where the player is available for about 10 days will lead to penalties of $40k, $50k and then $30k ($120k total).

If 4,000 - 7,999 hands are played, a half penalty will be the maximum penalty. No penalty will ever be given if 8,000+ hands are played in a period.

Exceptions: Extenuating circumstances that a player is not responsible for might be forgiven. If the player is in a coma for example, he will be excused from any penalties. This is only meant to be applied in extreme situations. Not prioritizing the challenge highly when you have control over the decision is not ok.


Remember, the arbitrators will ultimately be choosing who pays the penalty and whether it's a full or half penalty. As such, I HIGHLY recommend communicating constantly with ALL FOUR PARTIES to make it clear that you are available to play and fulfilling your minimum requirements. There has been a text message group created with the players and the moderators, so please use this as much as possible. Tom has stated that email is not the best way to reach him, so let's use texts as much as possible for his benefit.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ine-management

hsbc fined for 1.9b for handling drug cartel and international terrorist money

how do we have such a hard time getting a bank account?

You don't have 1.9b to move around