I feel sorry for both of you.

Tomas, Feel lucky you got 3.5k profit when there is inherent high risk in a deal like this. You could easily have received nothing at all.
From reading the chat log Zachary comes off quite reasonable and seems to have good intention of settling the tax, proving it, and settling the balance afterwards.

It seems like a waste of time going after this guy when he has no money at all and a lot of problems.

I understand your frustrations, but you would be best to leave the issue and put your efforts into something more positive and productive than trying to destroy the reputation of a broke ex-poker player with mental health problems.

Another rage inducing post.

Totally.

This is the crux of your argument and it is absolutely insane and is what genuine scammers use as a threat and leverage whenever the victim threatens to go public about the theft. Maybe you really feel this way but it's absolutely absurd and has no moral standing at all. If person A owes person B money, that debt remains regardless of all the other BS that ends up happening. A debt is a debt. There is no grey area on this. That money is owed regardless of whether someone acts like an angel or the worst person in the world. You don't get to back out of a debt because the person is a jerk or does something you don't like.

If a theft has occurred and the thief cuts off communication and says "it is what it is, deal with it", that thief loses 100% credibility in being even one shred bit upset that the victim feels compelled to go public. In your world, Zach simply made an honest mistake and was confused with how taxes work and how that should be relevant to the deal. So what did Zach do? Did he accept hearing furthering reasoning so he could realize he was wrong? Was he open to outside and impartial people moderating the situation? No. He stole the money and cut off communication.

In an incredibly high % of the thief/scammer type threads, the victim is told that should they escalate this they 'will never see the money'. In every situation, the thief is 100% to blame and has no standing and yet is making demands equivalent to straight up blackmail. If you say a word....

Meanwhile, the victim is left with no choice. Your claim that he should have come to YOU first is just so insanely laughable I don't know what to say. He not only tried to work it out with Zach, he DID contact a few of Zach's friends who all blew him off. Your claim that if he really cared and wasn't a terrible person he would have tried harder is crazy in light of the facts. For the love of god, get real. The order of events he took seem consistent with what a nice and reasonable person would do. He tried to reason and talk with Zach. That is all that I'd even say is morally required before going public and was met with resistance and being cut off. He then went the next level which basically shows his attempt to be reasonable beyond a doubt. He talked to a few of Zach's friends and still got no traction. At that point, no objective person could ever say he has no right to go public about the matter.

Your judgement is clouded here and most of us pointing that out have no stake in the matter whatsoever. If you and Zach care about reputation, you would make this situation right and the only way to do that is to arrange a payment plan to pay what is owed. I was very active in the original FTP thread before the deal was made and very clearly made my thoughts known that I was more optimistic than most about FTP funds. The one and only reason I didn't buy funds was because I was so worried about crap exactly like this. People coming up with every excuse in the book to not pay all or part of what they would owe me should FTP pay out. This situation is definitely one of the things I was concerned about and the way it has been handled, while somewhat predictable, is still gross and unacceptable.

You sound like a decent guy, and a loyal friend. However, as you admit, you may be a bit biased in this situation. Advising your friend not to pay the full amount owed is not doing him or his reputation any favors.

I don't agree that Tomas chose to attack rather than try to get his money. Zach flat out told him he was going to have to pay Zach's taxes, take it or leave it. Seems like Tomas was forced to back off a bit at that time for fear he wouldn't get anything.

I don't agree Zach's reputation is beyond repair. Either he or his vouchers should step up if Zach really wants to save his rep.

I agree that Zach might be more of a welcher than a scammer, but the proof is in the pudding--plenty of welchers have attempted to not pay or short pay, been called out, then paid up.

-Z

kartinken,

Everyone should have a friend as loyal as you.

At this point you seem to concede that the $4K is owed and your entire issue is the public posting of the issue and the using the word scam.

I do agree that scam isn't the correct term. But I think we're playing semantics. The money is clearly owed and Zack unilaterally declared that he was keeping the $4K and it was non-negotiable. Maybe scam isn't an accurate description, but it terms of bad stuff gamblers can do it's approaching the same level as a scam.

You seem so sure of yourself I went back and read through the messages again. Have those conversations been altered?

Thomas offered arbitration twice. Once when he was told that $4K was being kept and again after receiving 12K. Both offers were rejected and the second time Zack blocked him from FB.

You primarily take issue that Thomas didn't take further steps to quietly resolve this. Arbitration had been twice rejected. He was blocked from FB for asking. Do you really think it was that out of line for him to think public shaming was the next step? I probably would have worked harder to get mutual acquaintances to get this figured out, but I would have thought it was a long shot.

I was told Zach still has the 4k

Grow a pair and pay the money you owe.

I trust you will be reporting the threads about EPT Barcelona and New Zealand next to lose online poker as being way off topic for twoplustwo.

1. N.joy, the password was given to me in person, like the conversation states. I just did not want to log in to his account because it was not mine account.

2. Zach still got a chance to contact me, and clean his name. I might consider it was a lack of judgement, in a desperate situation. If he does not, I WILL make the website w/ personal details and then there is no going back.

3. Ken, you still have the chance to make this right. By this time, I consider you to be an accomplice to this whole situation. Loyalty is important, but you need to look at facts and opinions of people that got no agenda in this situation(like Me,you and Zach).

4. I don't think I handled the situation poorly. I just find it a logical follow up, to the events that happened.

FTP accounts registered to American players were never made accessible again for cashing out.

Serious question for the lawyer N joy.

If person A who lives in Georgia bought 16 diamonds worth $1,000 each (total of $16,000) from a vendor in Washington state FOB shipping point, and on the way out, the FBI confiscates the 16 diamonds when the truck is found to have illegal drugs on it (even though the diamonds were purchased legitimately, and the truck is carrying merchandise from 2 different vendors). Meanwhile person A spent all his money and has no money for rent next month. He believes there is a 50-50 chance to get those diamonds eventually from FBI, but if he eventually gets them back, it could take a few years (even though he owes rent now). Person B comes and says to A: "I'll give you $8500 right now if you give me ownership of the diamonds if they ever get released by FBI". Person A agrees and accepts the $8,500. Year and a half later FBI releases the diamonds to person A saying "These were purchased legitimately". Person A sends 12 diamonds to person B and says **** off for the other 4 diamonds.

In this scenario is this still considered a debtor creditor issue? Does the scenario change if you substitute the diamonds for cash and the FTP example? Thanks.

Think of it as going to a non participating insurance. Check usually goes to the paitent unless paitent signs a waiver allowing check to go to doctors office. Having access to account would have indeed made no difference as donkey had to fill out the paperwork and govt would have sent him payment regardless. Just a shame he decided to take advantage and blackmail the op. Op had every right to post this as donkey not willing to listen to reason leaving the op with no other choice.

Any talk of password is also funny, as logging on to the FTP client wasn't the key piece of remission. The original account holder was given instruction, he was allowed to apply, and he ultimately got the balance. That's how all of of in the US got our money, outside of a few people jerked around more. It doesn't matter if Zach provided or didn't provide control of the account, as the DOJ didn't care.

Zach got all the money and shipped some but not the agreed amount. He made some excuses and flatly refused further contact. One of his friends apparently came here to display some typical scammer behavior on his behalf.

These other statements seem to ignore the actual remission process, blame the victim, and assume legal things that aren't clear.

Still think that Zach could just agree to make good, start paying off, and get his good name back in reasonable good order.

Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his/her consent, induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, fear, or under color of official right[i]. The Use of a threat in order to obtain money or anything of value constitutes the crime of extortion. Intent is also regarded as an element of extortion. Extortion is a specific intent crime. Generally, a demand or a request for a specific sum of money is not considered a prerequisite to a conviction of extortion[ii].

It was observed in People v. Fort, 138 Mich. App. 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984) , that the elements of extortion are:

- Communication;
- Threatening accusation of any crime or offense or any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife, or child of another,
- With intent to extort money or pecuniary advantage as to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing an act against his/her will.

It is to be noted that a threat is not considered to be necessary for the commission of extortion in common law. However, in many jurisdictions, the crime of extortion has been expanded to include the obtaining of money, property, or anything of value by any person, by means of a threat.

Generally, a threat means something that ordinarily creates fear. Fear can be induced by a threat either to do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or to accuse him/her of any crime, or to expose or to impute to him/her any disgrace or crime; or to expose any secret affecting him/her[iii]. The threat may consist of destruction or of injury to a person, his/her character, or his/her property.

A threat is used as a means to obtain money or other things of value for the purpose of gain to the person making the threat. However, it is not necessary that a person who causes a threat must obtain something for himself/herself. Even an attempt to obtain something for another person is sufficient for the crime of extortion[iv].

[i] United States v. Hooks, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37466 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2005).

[ii] People v. Hesslink, 167 Cal. App. 3d 781 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1985).

[iii] People v. Oppenheimer, 209 Cal. App. 2d 413 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1962).

[iv] State v. Taylor, 30 Wn. App. 89 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).

[v] United States v. Aguon, 813 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. Guam 1987).

We've got a budding Lionel Hutz tarding up the thread now.

N.joy

It's not Zach's money, so how can he be extorted for it?
Are credit card companies guilty of extortion when they warn cardholders that failure to make payments will affect their credit history/score? (Which, of course, is another way of saying they are advertising the cardholders untrustworthiness as a warning to other financial institutions - see the similarity?)

It's just a breach of contract, plain and simple. A breach of an oral contract, given the fact pattern, which isn't too bright... File where the defendant resides, if you REALLY wanted the diamonds attempt to file a Temporary Restraining Order to keep the diamonds from getting sold. If they've already been sold, go after the fair market value of the diamonds either at the time of the contract or the time of the suit. A court would almost certainly rule in favor of the plaintiff given the facts you've presented. There would be a judgment for, let's say, $4,000 against the defendant. And then you're right back to the 'ol debtor creditor scenario from earlier. When you're making deals involving this much money between individuals, it makes sense to involve an attorney. The last position you want to be in is an unsecured creditor. The judgment is hardly worth the paper it's printed on, especially in jurisdictions where garnishment of wages is illegal. Hope that answers your question.

N.Joy

Nice translation from Thai law, which is the jurisdiction OP is currently in I believe.

Wow zachary parker is a bull**** scammer, his friend is an lol tool also. What an awful person. Hilarious how he tried to defend the scum.

PeteBlow, it's not Tomas's money either. He never had possession of it. It's a debt, end of story. Lots of people have debts, it's not a crime, no matter how many people in a 2+2 thread label it one... And this is a far cry from affecting somebody's credit score. Credit Reporting Agencies were created to keep ridiculousness like this from occurring. I can't imagine the field day debt collectors would have if they were allowed to post a debtor's personal information and label them a "scammer" to the world if they didn't get paid. And when a credit card company warns (not threatens) a cardholder that their failure to make payments will affect their credit history/score, it's because the company is legally obligated to do so before reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies. It's not, as you posted, "advertising the cardholders untrustworthiness as a warning to other financial institutions." It's a way of warning of the credit risk. Untrustworthiness has nothing to do with it.

That being said, as LectorAJ so astutely pointed out, Tomas is currently in Thailand and America's laws have no affect on him there. In addition, Tomas doesn't exactly have the option of reporting Zach to the credit reporting agencies. I'm pretty certain Experian, Equifax, and Transunion would never even consider this debt in calculating Zach's FICO score. So I guess your only option is to threaten him with your version of a credit score: Google search turning up scammer when you enter the kid's name. Go for it, I get it, I'm not saying anybody should or even could be suing you anytime soon. I'm just saying that for somebody claiming the moral high-ground, here in the States your threats for money would be considered extortion.

kartinken- Can you please give the community your real name? Based on your opinion of what constitutes a scam/how you feel about how Zach acted in this situation, I, for one, will make sure never to do business with you. I would imagine others probably feel the same way. Assuming you are 100% confidant in your stance here, you should have no problem letting us know who you are so we can avoid dealings with you in the future.

his name has been mentioned ITT already. now go find it

4JesseJames, keep up with the conversation. Kartinken was "outed" a long while back, everybody already knows who he is. If you want to attack somebody, go after me buddy. What about my opinion of what constitutes a scam vs. what constitutes a debt? Any thoughts on the matter? Or are we going to keep going after the guy who was attempting to defend his friend... What a scumbag that guy must be, am I right? His good friend gets outright blasted on a 2+2 thread for owing a debt, and this guy has the nerve to stick up for him?!? I wouldn't do business with that guy either, who wants loyalty in a business partner... Now let's get back to the actual thread - "Re: I assume Zachary Parker scammed me after i bought his FTP funds." I say it wasn't a scam, I say it was a debt that did not get fully paid. Lets hear your opinion on the matter. If you've got nothing to contribute, find a new thread.

N.Joy

I've asked this earlier in the thread but you refused to answer. You are a 'new' member who hasn't posted on a single poker thread on here, why is that? Because from here it looks as though you are involved with the scammer Zachary Parker in some way, even moreso now you are trying to stop people pulling Kartinken up for his warped view of the situation. It appears as though you are too afraid to use your own username though so created another one instead.

^^^^^ this is obv completely correct and if zach or ken honestly disagree they should agree to a neutral arbitrator and escrow the 4k.


lol at anyone defending this crap.