Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
This is also the reason, I think, that during a bankruptcy or other proceeding,before rendering the final adjudication, that certain transactions, sales of property etc, going back for a specified period of time, would be reversed. Same as in the USA, when the elderly are committed to health care facilities for the rest of their lives in exchange for their possessions, anything they tried to transfer to thier kids etc, to avoid giving it up, reverts back to the persons living estate.This used to be a 2 year timeline, now I think its 5 years.
The reason I mention the latter, is because I think that would also apply in the case of FTP at this time. Even if the DOJ was found to have no standing in the Irish court, certain transactions could be reversed if they happened in some period of time prior to the filing of the bankruptcy.
Finally as to the civil/criminal thing... in the case of FTP...if someone was told by the court to hand over document XYZ and they did not, that would be a civil infraction. OTOH, they have been served with specific restraining orders forbidding anyone touching in any way, certain properties, bank accounts etc. By anyone, I mean anyone in a far reaching sense. If someone were found to have violated that restraining order (forbidden action), they could be facing criminal charges.
This is my citing: Popular Bank of Florida v Banco Popular De Puerto Rico, 180 F.R.D. 461.465 (S.D.Fla.1998): see also US v Cable News Network Inc. 865 F. Supp 1549 (S.D.Fla. 1994)
Again, I defer to the legal ppl who know this stuff much better than I
ah ok thanks, so do they get fined for the civil infraction or get teh banhammer
?
As I understand it breaching a foreign restraint order would be a breach of that sovereign nation's own laws. I'm guessing the DOJ and most crown prosecutors would prefer for foreign asset recovery to use that foreign countries laws if suitable so if a restraint order was breached then it would be a criminal matter in that country. A small subtle point in the Neteller case was that they used the foreign (likely Canadian restraint orders) which remained until the DPA was reached.
As a tangent since Ive been looking into these things (not a lawyer)
iirc 28 U.S.C. 1355(b) (2) gives US federal Courts jurisdiction over any property in the world under civil in rem proceedings.
No sovereign nation has the ability to enforce judgments of its own Courts on other nations (especially where laws differ -hence treaties) so the scenario where a judgment of a U.S. federal court may not be binding and ultimately conclusive on the parties and give the United States of America true right and interest of the in rem property vs the rest of the world can occur.
If the foreign court refuses or is unable to enforce fully through the lens of it's own laws the U.S. judgment then the question must be asked did the U.S. Court really have constructive control over the in rem property and is effectively providing evidence to the foreign court and advice on judgment?
Traditionally in rem descended from 17th C English law about one's animal injuring another human and in modern times is used in Maritime law due to the nature of shipping and multi-jurisdictional - even the U.S. civil forfeiture notice for this case references Admiralty and Maritime schedules.
Maybe some of HDemet's friends are involved
here in teh Cosco shipping dispute using in rem in it's proper Maritime place
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
If you are talking about the value of bank accounts on the seized list, they won't release that info yet, because technically it is not yet property of the Government. It's still in limbo until the Judge actually grants the forfeiture.
Once that happens, its all public information. (Example...all those banks accounts that were seized in 2009 on the list attached to this case have actual amounts. Those properties had already been transferred to the goverment).
Fwiw, FOIA does not apply yet for the above reason.
This.
As I wrote in the Neteller post today, Neteller were aware of the amount seized as ~55 million USD 2 weeks after restraint of accounts so FTP
should have a good idea of the amount seized unless it had poor accounting. Also iirc the DOJ made no objections to publishing this detail in the Press release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD
I can't prevent anybody from doing anything. I simply don't want to encourage people to bug the DOJ because I don't think that that will help things.
Despite my repeated criticism of the use of in rem civil forfeiture in this case. I agree with Noah to not 'bug' the DOJ. I said it before but if I was you I would contact your political representatives and if enough make a noise or the right people are contacted they will contact in turn the DOJ and remind them of player's plight.
However, if the USAO made a statement that they are aware of (US) player's funds situation and consider them victims then...