One week--Two weeks--geeze, what a nit!!!!

For everyone's edification, this poster was quite certain (in the original BF thread) that we wouldn't be seeing our PokerStars funds any time soon (if ever) after BF, so take his schadenfreude with a large dose of salt.

THIS minor difference between this and all the 'hundreds' of remission cases he has researched has been pointed out to him multiple times, but somehow the fact that they don't need to wait and make sure they have enough money to pay all the claims before processing in this particular case always ends up in his blind spot.

If the DOJ wants to manage the process in a way that allows them to make the biggest splash in the least amount of time - '$100M Returned to Poker Ponzi Scheme Victims', there is nothing in the 'law' to prevent them from doing so.

You seem to have forgotten that remission may be paid to victims of an offence related to the offence which gave rise to the forfeiture. It is not a stretch to say that the fraud on players was related to FTP's money laundering. Same money, same cast of charcaters, same business operation.

Different discretion, IMO. The discretion you cite regards whether to pay remission at all. The discretion 1938ford is talking about is discretion regarding the process to be followed. I'm not taking a position regarding the degree of discretion the AG has regarding process - just pointing out you haven't actually made your point.

Nothing they have done so far is depite the regulations, AFAICT.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. To wit, that the only people recognized as victims will be players, and that remission will be based on balances, not deposits. While both are likely, neither are established fact.

Golly gee, I'm so flattered you went back to read my posts. But, you must have missed this one ITT on 8/27/2012 when I commented on the remission process:

But, the very good news is.....it is going to happen. For a very long time I did not believe it would. I am happy to say I was wrong!

I certainly was always skeptical about FTP players ever seeing their $$$. I made no secret of that and I still think the process is going to delay the return of funds for another 6-12 months. But, that is just my opinion based on the cases and information available to me. For the sake of the many here negatively impacted by the delay I would love to be wrong (again)!

The point is that it is an incongruous statement to suggest the DOJ could violate DOJ remission regulations - so long as the AG or AFLMS approves.

If this was restitution, they would be bound to prove someone guilty of fraud before even seeking restitution from the court, but this isn't restitution and there is zero judicial review, as example in the adsurf case there are still pending appeals for the remission that was already paid out 'depite' regulations.

The DOJ doesn't care, every court has ruled that the AGUSA has complete discretion over the remission process, so googling a few cases isn't going to make anyone a better forecaster of what the DOJ has in mind for this case.

I didn't have to go back, I remember BF like it was yesterday, and everything you were saying made sense, I agreed (lurkingly), we were all likely screwed.

We were wrong then and hopefully wrong now, my own research has also indicated that all victims in all cases have been paid at the same time, the difference is that I recognize differences in this case, whereas you refuse to acknowledge them.

Really? Silly me. I thought I addressed it here ITT beginning on 8/27/2012 in several posts. (note I edited them down. Even I don't want read all that again!)

1. Just some additional FYI for those interested:

In the case below a forfeiture order was made in August 13 of 2010. The actual notification for remissions did not go out to victims until April 28, 2011. According to the claims administrator no remissions have been made. They hope to have "hard date" for actual checks going out before the end of September. This case involves less money and fewer victims than the FTP case.

http://www.xybernautremission.com/EN/

These are, unfortunately, typical time periods associated with remission. I'm not saying the FTP case will follow this pattern. I do not KNOW. But, at the very least history suggests it will take more than a few months to settle the matter.

2. Do you have anything, anything at all, to support your assertion that this particular case is one of "utter simplicity"? Did you even bother to read the xybernaut case?

Just so you don't have to here it is in a nutshell. This was a securities fraud case. There were very detailed records of all the investors and their transactions. So much so the claims administrator was able to send out claim forms with all of the claims/loss information filled out. If you agreed with the loss figures all you had to do was sign and return the form. That's pretty simple! If you did not agree you had to file a claim supporting your loss and submit documentation to support your position. That case involved way less than 50 million dollars and had way less than 50,000 potential victims. Although the forfeiture actually occurred August 13, 2010 and notifications went out April 28, 2011 remissions still have not been paid.

This case involves 1.3 million potential victims and more than 150 million dollars and must follow the exact same course procedurally as did the xybernaut case. What could possibly make handling that volume of victims and monies a matter of "utter simplicity"? Will this case take as long as the other to payout? Who knows? I hope not. But, it ain't gonna happen in 60 or 90 days and it ain't gonna happen because this case is "utter simplicity" and for you to suggest otherwise is just utterly simplistic (and plain nuts! Again....just my opinion!).

And here:
3. If you can find a remissions case where payments (other than those deemed as emergency payments) have ever been made before all claims have been completely processed I'd love to see it! If you can find a remissions case that involved more than 1000 victims and more than 1 million dollars that ever paid out remissions within 4 or even 6 months of forfeiture I'd like to see it. Now, I've showed you mine. Your turn...show me yours!

Now, the DOJ has the monies for remission to US players. The only way for them to remit this money to the victims as outlined in the settlement is to go through the remissions process. Period. There is now no other way. All I have been doing here is trying to present an accurate picture of that process to people waiting. I have done so with information....factual and verifiable information, as have others.

But, not to be a total contrarian....if some of you really believe wishing and hoping will help I will wish and hope right along with you!

Oh and here too!

4. Dude, read[B] the xybernaut case. The DOJ had nearly perfect records regarding all transactions including detailed customer/victim information. Two years later it's still not paid out the claims!

By the way there is no "normal" remissions process or "simple" remissions process there exists only a remissions process. The speed at which the process moves is unarguably directly influenced by factors specific to each case. I think it obvious these would certainly include the number of victims and the amount of money involved. It should be relatively clear that a case with a million victims would take longer to resolve than a case with 1000 victims. But, maybe that's only obvious to me.....sigh!


Gee here too!

5. xbernaut (US v Saltsman et al) On August 13, 2010 the DOJ received forfeited assets. Within a week or so of that date, just as in the FTP case, the DOJ sought a claims processor. In late November the DOJ gave the contract to analytics inc. (which was subsequently sold to BMCGroup). According to a company representative they developed a plan for remission and submitted it to the DOJ for approval in February 2011. The DOJ approved the plan in March/April and on April 28, 2011 notifications were mailed to known victims. The company also published notifications as required by statute.

This was (is) a case where, like FTP, nearly every victim was known. There were (are) detailed records of their stock transactions and the positions they held in the company at all times pertinent to the fraud. Each known victim received with their notice a claim form that contained their losses as per the xybernaut records. If the victim agreed to the amount of the loss all they had to do was sign. Which is, hopefully, similar to what will happen with FTP. Once the time to file a claim lapsed the processors began the task of vetting the claims....all of them. They recently finished that task and have now submitted the claims to the DOJ for final approval for remission. They expect approval to send checks out by late September. To date though the processors have not indicated whether or not victims will be paid on a pro-rata basis. I asked the company today, but they either could not or would not answer! I think it is generally presumed victims will be paid a pro-rata share of the forfeited funds.

This case is typical, in my experience, of the time it takes these cases to wind through the system. I don't necessarily believe the DOJ and their processors should take this much time, but, as I said in my experience, this is what they do. I hope, although without much faith, the FTP case does not take anywhere near this long.

As I mentioned above I would be very interested in any cases even remotely similar in size to the FTP case that have been settled and remission completed in less than 6 months (or even a year).

It's difficult to imagine how or even why the DOJ could/would release funds (except emergency/hardships proven to them) before they are able to gauge their total exposure. You and others continue to profess the DOJ has enough money to pay back everybody. I am also confident they believe they do as well. But, it would be contrary to all cases and procedures (as well as completely illogical) they would pay any remissions before they had the total exposure identified. What if they came up short? Who would pay that, or would the victims last in line get shorted?



There are more, but I think you get the point. Damn those blind spots!

Could be. Who's suggesting that? Incongruous with what? It seems to me that you are the one arguing that the DoJ can violate the regs, and 1938ford is arguing the contrary.

Please cite a ruling where a court has ruled that the AGUSA has discretion regarding how the regulations will be followed in a particular case rather than discretion to decide whether remission will be offered, discretion regarding prioritizing between class 3 and class 4, or possibly even in drafting the regulations. AIUI, the law lays out the bounds of the discretion available to the AG and to the head of AFMLS. These bounds, when I last read them months ago, did not appear to me to allow wholesale departure from regulated procedure. Perhaps I'm forgetting something, or overlooked it at the time. That the AG and Head have specified discretion doesn't necessarily mean they have unlimited discretion.

TAMiller, I don't refuse to acknowledge them. I just don't agree they will make much of a difference, if any at all, in the remissions process.

I know that you think the differences in this case will make the process different and, they may. I don't know for sure. But, I deal in facts and evidence and as of right now there is NO empirical evidence to support this. At least none that I can find!

Every case is unarguably different. My basic point here is that despite every case being different they have all been, to my knowledge, historically handled in nearly the exact the same way by the government in the remissions process. Which is not surprising to me since remissions themselves (not the way the DOJ handles the actual process) are regulated by Statutory Law. I would expect the actual remissions process (the one the DOJ uses) be consistent from one case to the next as all must comply with the same regulations.

Again, this is just my opinion based on the information I have available to me. I would love to be wrong and to have to write people (HuskerMoney are you listening? ) a very sincere apology.

All I'm trying to here is be informative and yet it seems I wind up being argumentative.....gonna try to stop that!

You ever hear of an "Alford Plea"?

The DOJ does not have their own "remissions regulations", they have procedures and policies. The US Code has regulations. The DOJ, including the AG, is bound by law and duty to follow and enforce those regulations. How they do it certainly allows for a great deal of discretion, but that discretion is necessarily confined to actions within the parameters of the Statutes.

OF COURSE large accounts will be handled first.
It is the most efficient way, because 5% of these accounts hold 95% of the balances.
They don't get "priority", but they will be first in line for practical reasons.

So I don't want to interupt this fascinating debate and I don't want to read it all.

Has this been decided:

How long will it be after the ROW start cashing out their bankrolls before American players can start freaking out?

I mean legally and politically, as well as the stories we'll hear.

There has got to be a certain amount of political pressure being applied to get this done quickly. If not, won't it look like we're all just be sitting around getting ****ed by our own government.

I mean that has to look bad for someone. Doesn't "Obama's Justice Department bankrupts American players while saving the French" sound like a nasty political argument. I know I'm over-simplifying compared to the over-analysis itt, but cmon, doesnt there have to be something there.

ps, I'm already freaking out.

It would look bad if it was 6 months later but even if it turns out to be a few months, it will not look bad.

The DOJ doesn't care about looking bad, but they may care about making Bitar et al look bad, so the sooner they can announce a large distribution of remission payments to victims of the fraud they accused them of committing the better for everyone.

Let me give it a try then.

The term "priority" refers to the distribution of refunds and not to a timeframe.
It is the alternative to a "pro rata" distribution.

So they are really debating nothing at all.

No doubt, especially since they used that same term "quickly" themselves, it's their selling argument.
The faster they pay the better they will look and they realize that very well.
They have a strong incentive to do this as "quickly" as possible, so that pressure is coming from within.

1.3 Million voters. I bet you get your money before the elections.

It will be announced that you can begin applying so no real advance notice. They want to be able to have all the information on hand so they don t get flooded with phone calls.

All the accounts have been adjusted for deposits that didn t clear and aswell, withdraws that also didn t clear. Accounts with negative balances they are leaving alone except if there were transfers to other accounts. In these cases, the transfers are being cancelled

As long as I get my money before wsop 2013 I will be happy.

A lot of people seem to think this case has some special importance. As far as the government is concerned it's just another case. Poker players are not special, as much as 2+2 wants to think this is some earth-shattering unprecedented scenario of the utmost importance, it just is not.

At the NORML meetings I'm sure everyone is dumbfounded as to why marijuana has not yet been legalized outright -- it's the most important issue so it should be done by now.

+1

So then I can take it?

Thanks for all your info sir.... rooting for you!

This case is different than most remission cases in a couple of ways, the amount of money forfeited far exceeds the amount owed to victims being the primary one.

The other being that in most other fraud remission processes, the litigation is completed simultaneously with the forfeiture agreement, with the final order of forfeiture being entered later.

This case is most unique because the forfeited funds came from a third party (PS), allowing the government to utilize the remission process to create evidence of victims for the Wire Fraud litigation still pending.

In other words, the government has motivation to accelerate the process in this case, which it normally doesn't have.

There was one other case (adsurf) in which the government was able to forfeit funds prior to prosecuting the criminal fraud case, and it was only the effort of the defendant's legal team* that prevented an expedited remission process.

After 15 months of saying they were working tirelessly to recover player funds, it's unlikely that Bitar et al would mount a similar legal challenge, so I would not be that surprised to see remission payments this calendar year.

* The adsurf defendants filed suits against every step of the process, from calling the notification period insufficient to asserting the victims were co-conspirators, along with threatening their customers that signing a remission claim would be committing perjury since they weren't a 'true' (investment) ponzi scheme.

Remission ended up taking almost a year in that case, but could well have been completed in three months if not for the legal challenges.

Just a couple of questions for you:

Since there is not yet a claims processor who will make this "announcement" and to whom will players begin "applying"?

Since there is "no real advance notice" has the DOJ decided to forgo the requirement that potential victims be notified of the remissions process?

Who is the "they" you speak of?

Who made all of the adjustments and withdrawals to the 1.3 million potential victim accounts you describe? Was it one person in the DOJ, or a team of people?

If the DOJ could do all of this on their own in less than 60 days why do you suppose they want to hire a claims processor?

Why would the DOJ post an employment ad and describe the job duties to potential applicants as the responsibility to “design and execute a process to solicit, receive and evaluate claims, and to process payments, for losses incurred by U.S. victims that are attributable to the fraud alleged in the [Full Tilt Poker complaint]. In so doing the Claims Administrator will obtain and evaluate information, such as financial transaction records, from claimants, and analyze information contained in user account records provided in database and other format by Full Tilt Poker.”?

Where do you suppose the DOJ obtained all of the FTP information necessary to make the "adjustments" you describe to 1.3 million victim accounts? According to the settlement agreement PStars was responsible for providing the DOJ with this information, but PStars has just recently taken control of FTP hardware and is in the process of moving it. Did the DOJ already have all of the info? Did PStars put the info on a floppy disk and send it over before they moved the computers? Without a claims processor who would they have sent the information to?