Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP) FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP)
View Poll Results: Do you want the AGCC to regulate the new FTP?
Yes
1,156 56.58%
No
887 43.42%

07-20-2012 , 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by starvingwriter82:

"I appreciate all the legal digging, study, etc. that goes on in this thread, but I can't be the only one wondering what half the people ITT are going to do with their lives once this is over.

I can't shake the impression that people ITT are just spending hours a day reading this thread, scouring court documents, searching for new rumors, etc..."

----

You overestimate how long it takes to find (and cut and paste) readily available information.
07-20-2012 , 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
At best, US players would have had to apply to the Asset Forfeiture Money Laundering Section(AFMLS), criminal division, DOJ for remission.
It is unclear how much would have been available in the fund to make payments to the US players. Some people think it could have been a total of the $ 80M expected from Tapie, others think more, others less.AFAIK, SDNY would never commit to an amount. In the end, its AFMLS who has complete discretion.
In addition, any ROW players likely could have opted to apply for the remission as well rather than go the play/pay to release your own funds rakeback scheme. There would have been contingincies on what amount GBT would have had to pay DOJ to compensate for those ROW payments, and there were multiple different scenarios, none of which would have amounted to full payment for all ROW players via the process.
OK, so it's probable that US players would have gotten back 100% after some red tape. But no one knows for sure.

And anyone with a real roll in ROW would have been screwed over.
07-20-2012 , 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Get It
OK, so it's probable that US players would have gotten back 100% after some red tape. But no one knows for sure.

And anyone with a real roll in ROW would have been screwed over.
Hard to say, US balances are ~ $150M, Tapies $ 80M wouldn't get anyone 100%, especially if any ROW players were included. Unknown whether other funds in this case would have been available for this remission.
07-20-2012 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidNB
100% payback for US players. Payout would of been done by DOJ and players had to prove they made the deposits, and give proof of who they are. I assume drivers licsense, copy of a bill with a address.

Most of the ROW would of gotten paided back with 90 days.



for both US and ROW players, 94.9% would of gotten a full refund within 90 days. The balance was the high rollers, I don t remember what the deal was with them as GBT wanted to do something different. DOJ wanted everyone paided back in full in 90 days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidNB
Sorry, I found the right information in the thread cliff notes.
If by 94.9% of "players" you mean mostly empty or dormant accounts with pennies in them then yes 94.9% of players would have been repaid.
07-20-2012 , 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gioco
Most the world views the majority of governments as an tool of their domestic commercial interests (or in many cases there is a merger with those interests) that act mostly to advance and protect those interests. I think the US government is viewed in that manner, you know what Calvin Coolidge said.
I wonder why they would think that?

Many years ago there was an article in the NY Times about 2 small nations coming to an agreement after being at odds with each other for many years. There was a picture of the leaders shaking hands and smiling. What was not mentioned in the article was mentioned in a foreign (non US) business magazine. Two companies in the two countries had come to a business deal.

So the only way this could happen was for the governments to bury the hatchet. I imagine that the hatchet originally resulted from prior business considerations.
07-20-2012 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
Sigh.

Whether bail was granted, opposed, appealed or stenciled on the side of a circus tent, the case remaining as to Bitar would have been on Kaplan's docket, and once Jack Baughman of Paul, Weiss, et al filed his appearance, as he had to, Kaplan would have had to make a recusal decision. The recusal had nothing to do with the bail.
Judges aren't obligated to recuse themselves until/unless they are making a ruling, even then many judges wouldn't recuse themselves since it is their decision to judge whether or not they are bias, but Kaplan doesn't even like the appearance of impropriety.
07-20-2012 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDSaussure
If by 94.9% of "players" you mean mostly empty or dormant accounts with pennies in them then yes 94.9% of players would have been repaid.

I didn t word it right sorry. I am getting my ino from the cliffs on page one.
The 94.9% refered to the ROW players paided in full on day 1. I beleive that meant their balances were restored but they had to play a certain amount of hands to be able to withdraw. The deal fell thru because DOJ, amoung other issues, wanted all players including the ROW paided infull within 90 days.

Quote:
GBT proposed a plan that would have resulted in immediate reinstatement of all ROW player balances, with a right to withdraw those funds over time, based on the size of the player balance and the extent of the player’s playing activity on the re-launched site. All players would have been permitted complete withdrawal of their balances, regardless of whether they played on the site, by a date certain, and 94.9% of ROW players would have been fully repaid on day 1. DOJ ultimately insisted on full repayment with right of withdrawal within 90 days for all players– a surprise demand made in the 11th hour, after months of good-faith negotiations by GBT.
07-20-2012 , 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidNB
I didn t word it right sorry. I am getting my ino from the cliffs on page one.
The 94.9% refered to the ROW players paided in full on day 1. I beleive that meant their balances were restored but they had to play a certain amount of hands to be able to withdraw.
I think you've missed my point.

It is true that 94.9% of accounts would be instated with their full balance (i.e. all accounts <=100$). They would be able to play/withdraw or whatever else they wanted to do.

Everyone else would have their balance over $100 instated as "restricted" and have to unlock that by playing. Of course we all know this is just a bonus, effectively a form of rakeback. I don't think that should be considered repayment in any sense of the word.

My point is that the 94.9% figure, whilst technically true, is misleading in sense because a huge number of the accounts making up this number are effectively non-players with a close to zero balance, certainly below whatever minimum amount that would be required to actually use one of the withdrawal methods. It's a bit like claiming you've paid back money to someone you didn't owe money to in the first place.
07-20-2012 , 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkey
re: recent motion by the DOJ, isn't this entirely expected?

AFAIK Bitar is a US citizen, Scheinberg is a foreign National. He never left the US, there is likely no change (unless as mpethy says travel docs can prove otherwise) in his conduct and living arrangements from before the case than now so can not be considered acting as a fugitive.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a "fugitive" (probably Interpol definition applies here) is one who has fled arrest? You can only arrest someone if there is a warrant out in the jurisdiction in which they reside. So the argument can be made they haven't completed the arrest process fully yet.

Begs the question - if someone is a fugitive then why haven't the DOJ applied to for an extradition warrant already? Why because IMHO if they did because of the dual criminality rule, many foreign Courts may not be able or willing to grant an extradition warrant. So the only way to submit to US custody is as Bitar did to voluntarily come in.
__________________________________________________ _______
Originally Posted by ike hax0r
Hi, I represent the Department of Justice from the country of Lulzistan. By offering TwoPlusTwo (a gambling information site) to citizens in our jurisdiction, you have violated 88 federal and provincial Lulzistani laws. As the owners and operators of TwoPlusTwo, you are hereby charged and face a minimum punishment of [death]. Should you choose not to surrender to the Lulzistani authorities, you will be considered a fugitive at large and you waive your right to a fair (LOL) trial. In that case, you forfeit all assets by default to the Lulzistan Department of Justice.
__________________________________________________ _______

LOL but you do comically highlight the serious ethical issues imo.

I believe the stickling point isn't about doing x time (Judge decides sentencing) -it's that the USAO can't be seen to directly drop criminal charges in return for settlement of assets, only under a complete case settlement of both as (AFAIR in NET) could it occur.

There are obvious reasons why this guideline exists and I think it's a sensible rule and probably embedded in USAO culture - like over here "we don't negotiate with terrorists" we just send Herr Heckler and Koch
__________________________________________________ ________

Quote:
A bare legal interest, however, without actual dominion
or control of the subject property is not enough to demonstrate
standing to contest the forfeiture. “Possession of mere legal
title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the
property is insufficient even to establish standing to challenge
a forfeiture.” United States v. Nava, 404 F.3d 1119, 1130 n.6
(9th Cir. 2005).
__________________________________________________ _________


I find it a tad ironic that the argument proposed i.e constructive control over the asset so it's judgment is non-binding and invalid is precisely the argument I've made before that could be made in a foreign Court that an in-rem forfeiture order made in an external Court can't directly be executed as it is this Court that has control of said assets and therefore must conduct it's own due process under it's own Sovereign laws. Especially where there is no bijective mapping of laws and criminality.

IMHO, realistically the Chancery or any Commercial Court in the world (that respects private property) will rule that even if some transgression is proven in a foreign location somehow 'taints' all the other legal activity of said corporation. Especially where there is little demonstrable loss or damages incurred to the Plaintiff.

Otherwise, it would set the precedent that analogously IDK say if a company were to break Chinese gaming laws in Macau they could lose the whole caboosh to the Chinese authorities

Hypothetically, assuming DOJ got summary judgment and then attempted to enforce and seize the whole property of PS and the foreign Courts rejected the claims in full or part thus effectively invalidating the in-rem judgment. This is obviously a worse outcome for the DOJ than a settlement deal as it makes the originating proceedings look impotent.

The two extraordinary points in this case that one of the defendant corporations is potentially willing to compensate FTP 'victims' of which they have no connection to the offence for a substantial amount. Secondly that in this international case what the company did is viewed in the ROW as no different than selling bananas are.

No prosecutor is an island - in international cases as the DOJ is no doubt fully aware foreign assistance is imperative.

/DTM style post
P.S. Why the British are long-winded
It is always a rare pleasure when you post.

I must however disagree that your post was in the style of DTM.

Also, although many words were used your post was not long winded as unnecessary words, ideas and examples were not used.

I am in no way implying that DTM uses unnecessary words. I was merely commenting on style.

Disclaimer: English is my second and only language.
07-20-2012 , 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDSaussure
I think you've missed my point.

It is true that 94.9% of accounts would be instated with their full balance (i.e. all accounts <=100$). They would be able to play/withdraw or whatever else they wanted to do.

Everyone else would have their balance over $100 instated as "restricted" and have to unlock that by playing. Of course we all know this is just a bonus, effectively a form of rakeback. I don't think that should be considered repayment in any sense of the word.

My point is that the 94.9% figure, whilst technically true, is misleading in sense because a huge number of the accounts making up this number are effectively non-players with a close to zero balance, certainly below whatever minimum amount that would be required to actually use one of the withdrawal methods. It's a bit like claiming you've paid back money to someone you didn't owe money to in the first place.
Your 100 % right. the firgue of 94.9% came from GBT and I would assume they included every player account regardless of the balance. the more the accounts, the higher the percentage. I would of like to know the real numbers.

1: How many accounts have zero balance
2: How many accounts have less the $1 ( anything under $1 shouldn t require repayment)
3: How many accounts have more then $1

Myself, I don t think DOJ really pulled the 11th everyone has to be paided back with 90 days. i suspect it was part of the talks since day one.
07-20-2012 , 02:17 PM
can someone explain whats going on to those of us without law degrees? who am i supposed to be angry at right now
07-20-2012 , 02:19 PM
It blows my mind that there are still players with money invested in this that don't realize the GBT deal was a total scam.

GBT wasn't going to pay back anyone. He was effectively going to toss everyone $100 (or the total of their account balance, whichever was less) and give them a RB deal to get back the rest of their funds.

Anyone who thinks that was a great deal, PM me for an absolutely free vacation to anywhere in the world - it's on me. You can even choose the location. (Taxes and "service fees" may apply.)
07-20-2012 , 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bene Gesserit
foldacedeuce.......Well, sir, 1, 2 and 3 nobody really knows jack, so this thread will be restricted to endless loops of FTP software was best, PS was better, FTP was a ponzi scheme/no it wasn't, multi page legal briefs from DTM and several others, several well established trolls berating everyone, a new insider with "real news" every five days, DF telling posters they are wrong about everything (cause they are), and of course Braindead saying some jabberwocky and Joeyrulesall threatening to kill everyone at FTP and anyone who won't help him do it! That's about it!
Let's nuke the whole thread and just leave this post.
07-20-2012 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
players with big rolls pretty much had to play with 100% rakeback for years.

the sick part being actually having to deposit only to get some money back (and maybe losing it)
Not even a guarantee of 100% RB iirc. Just some amount of RB.
07-20-2012 , 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenzor
can someone explain whats going on to those of us without law degrees? who am i supposed to be angry at right now
The funniest (in a complete torturous way) part about this is that a year later, we still don't really know with any certainty who to blame for anything besides Ray Bitar.

We don't know who has caused delays, who has been greedy, etc. We know Bitar was a big reason for the shortfall, but we don't know who or what has prevented it from being corrected ever since. (save your responses speculating on who to blame, I know who we can speculate about, I'm saying we don't KNOW who to blame)

The secrecy behind everything in this whole situation makes it so much more difficult for everyone. And it's what leads us to clinging to every bit of available information as a sign of hope of conclusion or evidence of the demise of the deal. When in reality, the available information only gives us probably 10% of the whole picture.

To state the obvious, tough situation.
07-20-2012 , 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starvingwriter82
Anyone who thinks that was a great deal, PM me for an absolutely free vacation to anywhere in the world - it's on me. You can even choose the location. (Taxes and "service fees" may apply.)
This is a pretty awful analogy fwiw
07-20-2012 , 02:50 PM
@df, do you know what was the problem in the "eleventh hour"?
07-20-2012 , 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Glove
Let's nuke the whole thread and just leave this post.
actually, I wished I saved the post from FTP forum. Some guy wanted to start a classaction lawsuit over his $20 balance
07-20-2012 , 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenzor
can someone explain whats going on to those of us without law degrees? who am i supposed to be angry at right now
Obama, obv.
07-20-2012 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJo336
This is a pretty awful analogy fwiw
Yeah, except for being 100% spot-on, it's pretty awful.
07-20-2012 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidNB
Your 100 % right. the firgue of 94.9% came from GBT and I would assume they included every player account regardless of the balance. the more the accounts, the higher the percentage. I would of like to know the real numbers.

1: How many accounts have zero balance
2: How many accounts have less the $1 ( anything under $1 shouldn t require repayment)
3: How many accounts have more then $1

Myself, I don t think DOJ really pulled the 11th everyone has to be paided back with 90 days. i suspect it was part of the talks since day one.
Almost every withdrawal method had a $50 minimum so I wouldn't be surprised if a crushing majority of those accounts wouldn't be able to withdraw at all actually.
07-20-2012 , 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NopeChuckTesta
Is it really obvious that "winning" the case is indeed "Jackpot" for the DOJ? Isn't there a very real chance that they won't be able to enforce the judgement beyond any bank accounts that are currently frozen, probably even limited to those in the US?

Couldn't they, from a practical point of view, be a lot better off, both financially (= money that they earn / win) and in public reception (players are paid 100%), by settling than by fully "winning" the case in court?
You raise an interesting point.

By using the tem "Jackpot" I may have inadvertently given the impression that outcome is measured in dollars, but I don't think it is. I'm not trying to assert that the maximum amount of dollars will be extracted from Stars in a summary judgement. There may be a chance that Stars will actually part with more money under a settlement than under an enforced judgement.

What I meant was that under a summary judgement, the DoJ will get from the court all of what it wanted, whereas under a settlement they will get somewhat less (otherwise why would Stars want a settlement?).

As to public relations, that ought not motivate the DoJ except insofar as its goes to deterring unlawful acts. In that regard, winning summary judgements is more effective than making deals. Having an image as saviour of poker players is not something the DoJ particularly seeks, nor would it necessarily be regarded positively by the US population as a whole.
07-20-2012 , 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingkong32
@df, do you know what was the problem in the "eleventh hour"?
That's what I want to know. Also, did anyone else find it tilting that in Matt Glantz's blog post when he was finally going to write something interesting and state what a "major shareholder" had to say about why the deal was pushed back in the 11th hour, he chose to dismissively say "blah, blah, blah" instead of what he actually heard?
07-20-2012 , 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by munkey
/DTM style post
My name is DTM, and I approve of this post.

I'm glad to see that the average quality of posting ITT has improved recently. Munkey's was a "DTM style" post because it was rich in content. A "DTM style" post is one that emphasizes information over style. In contrast, this is not a "DTM style" post.
07-20-2012 , 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
You raise an interesting point.

By using the tem "Jackpot" I may have inadvertently given the impression that outcome is measured in dollars, but I don't think it is. I'm not trying to assert that the maximum amount of dollars will be extracted from Stars in a summary judgement. There may be a chance that Stars will actually part with more money under a settlement than under an enforced judgement.

What I meant was that under a summary judgement, the DoJ will get from the court all of what it wanted, whereas under a settlement they will get somewhat less (otherwise why would Stars want a settlement?).
Because of the "clean record" factor (regarding possible future business in the US).

This is only relevant to one of the parties but not to the other, which means that "better for one side" does not automatically equal "worse for the other side". Their interests are asymmetrical which makes this more complicated than a straightforward financial EV formula.

      
m