Here is the German forum: http://de.pokerstrategy.com/forum/ Probably a couple million posts. 3500 poker strat videos as well.

Do you really think that new owner would not repay US players? Does it make any sens to all of you ?

They are gonna repay USA players as well as RoW due one and only reason- they need trust back ! If they want to buy and invest they will repay all of their customers . If they not repay do you really think that some1 will trust em ?

Think logical before shoot something out .

Only in that way they can return and gain old/new customers .

Wow, with all due respect, why even mention this (that the DOJ will let them off if they sell the company)? Come on...you are living in complete LALA land and a state of denial, if you think the DOJ is going to just let anyone from FTP just walk away....

I know this is your own opinion (and not one of the PPA), but your relationship with the PPA clearly has biased your opinions if you think there is ANY chance of that. I also realize that people are innocent until proven guilty, but FTP was short $300M and was caught paying themselves millions each month while player balances were on the way to zero (all the while telling players their money was safe). I am sure their lawyers will have some interesting defense strategy for that one, but its going to take some real explaining.

No jury is going to let a bunch of sick rich guys walk on this case during these economic times. The DOJ has them dead to rights and I dont see them just walking away so the players get paid (if that were a condition). Criminals/wrong doers make full restitution all the time and still go to jail or lose civil cases.

Sure that makes alot of sense, LOL LOL, now I hear your momma calling, she says it is your bed time.

WOW, that must be some crazy assed chit you is smoking to come up with those there delusional thoughts!!! PS Please send some this way.

Your righteous indignation is affecting you reading comprehension.

If you would reread my post the only thing close to an opinion that was expressed was the statement that it is legally possible, though unlikely, for a deal to cover everything.

Much more likely is the also clearly legal possibility that a deal with a new investor/buyer can be structured so as NOT to include any resolution of the criminal or civil charges against FTP's owner/operators.

I was responding to a post that implied that a resolution of the civil case only involving FTP the corporation could not occur because of the pending criminal cases. My reason for posting was to simply point out that as a purely legal matter this is not the case.




And I was betrayed by FTP (to whatever actual extent we were betrayed) just as much as you, and hate it just as much, so get off the high horse.

Skallagrim

Uh, do you suppose that maybe that's why he used the word "unlikely" in reference to the comment you're blowing a gasket over?

Here in lies the problem then.

The US problems are stopping anythign from happening so something has to give.

It seems pretty obvious that a saviour taking on all player fund repayments is not going to happen (or at least hasnt happened to date) so something different has to be agreed.

To be honest the players have no say in any of this anyway and the decision will be made for them (not saying this is right) and probably some kind of sacrificing of the US players wil take place if any deal is to be done. Hoepfully that sacrifice is just something along the lines of you will be paid but not for 3 months 6 months 1 year or whatever.

Anyone know if there is any truth to this:

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politic...d5L/index.html

"The Poker Players Alliance received $90,000 (from FTP or Board Members), accounting for a third of its funding. The alliance, formed to help lobby lawmakers to legalize online gaming, then doled out most of that money to lawmakers."

Its been reported that Barney Frank is going to return the money. I wonder if the PPA plans to do anything similar, especially since it turns out it was player money.

Barney Frank is a stand up guy....its been reported he is going to donate the money to a DOJ fund to repay players.


"Unlikely" More like impossible. This would be like being a thief, getting caught, having your father pay the victims off and then getting a 'get out of jail' card.....This is a global story....FTP isn't going to get a walk. There was no reason to mention it.

There's not a snowball's chance in hell a deal to sell FTP will include dropping the criminal charges against the indicted FTP execs.

They have a right to seek compensation from the perpetrator. They do not have a right to compensaton from the government, even when the government gains control of a perpetrator's assets through forfeiture.

US forfeiture laws, both civil and criminal, provide for the possibility of remission payments by the government to certain qualifying victims of a related crime who apply for compensation, at the unappealable discretion of the District Attorney.

All three assertions about which you think there is no question are, in fact, in question.

The DoJ doesn't actually have a lot of that money. It is frozen, but not forfeited.

It has not yet been proven that players on a poker site whose funds have not been refunded are the victims of a crime. Yes, it sure looks like they are crime victims to you and me, but we are not judge and jury.

Many people would agree with you that the money in question belongs to the players, yet that is probably not actually the case in law. Most likely, ownership of the money passed to Tilt when it was deposited out of the control of players, and not in trust. If so, in return for their money, players became creditors of FTP, with access to online poker.

The real question may well be whether failure to repay a debt to players constitutes a crime under these particular circumstances. (It seems that failure to pay most debts when bankrupt is not a crime). Another question is whether, for the purposes of the remission payment provisions of forfeiture law, those players who apply will qualify as victims whose losses are eligible to be remitted. The final question is whether the DA will choose to pay any qualified player victims.

Right, let me make this as plain as possible:

I am in no way suggesting what is actually going to happen or not.

I am merely pointing out, as a purely legal matter, - and this is a good thing for those who continue to hope for the "investor/buyer deal that will pay back players" - that because FTP the corporation is not a defendant in the criminal case, it is possible for the DOJ to settle all its claims against FTP the corporation with the alleged new investor/buyer of that corporation and that new investor/buyer to reopen the site with confidence.

You can all make your own predictions as to what will actually happen.

Skallagrim

I think this has been discussed many times already.

Personally I cannot see any relevance whatsoever to a new investor as to whether or not FTP has a licence or not. The new owner has to get his own licence anyway so this talk by JI of any Alderney decision revoking the licence being important is totally overstated and another red herring.

My thinking about AGCC and any decision is clearly laid out in previous posts and this all just serves to cause further smoke and confusion and deflect from the more important underlying issues:

FTP Stole player funds

A New Investor can only conclude that $350 million+ is too much to pay for all FTP's current financial liabilities.

Persons responsible should go to prison for their crimes (bank fraud, theft money laundering etc etc )

More specifically rea;ting to your point JI will not and cannot answer as he is unable to justify why The AGCC not revoking the licence makes any difference whatsoever.

It has been suggested that the bank fraud consisted of deceiving the banks regarding the nature of the transfers, regardless of whether the true nature of the transfers was otherwise legal.

IIRC are there not also allegations of people bribing small banks with loans during the recent global financial crisis in exchange for processing payments to various poker sites?

+1 Could not agree more

Harry you said in a previous post tom dwan has stated FTP have lied to previous investors, I must have missed that could you expand on that please? What actually happened?

He implied it in an interview with Noah of Subject Poker and you can listen to it here:

http://www.subjectpoker.com/2011/09/...ftp-interview/

Ahhh yeah ive not listened to that yet, will stick it on later thanks ledason

Neither Lederer nor Ferguson ever gave money directly to the PPA (unless maybe they paid membership dues). Also, the PPA never gives money to politicians or political campaigns.

Lederer and Ferguson, along with many others, gave money to the PokerPAC, a legal political action committed formed directly for the purpose of contributing directly to politicians who support poker rights.

I can only assume that the story confuses the PPA with the PokerPAC.

As to the last point, please drop it already. I used the word unlikely because "impossible" is clearly an opinion on the state of the evidence. Todd Terry's comment is in a similar vein. I no longer express my opinion on the state of the evidence in this thread nor on the conclusions others make. You may well be right about impossible; Todd may well be right about the snowball's chance. I merely felt compelled to be technically accurate and state that such a thing was not legally impossible among all the legally possible outcomes.

Skallagrim

What is your source for this info?

So then FT owes ROW more than it owes U.S. players, according to your percentages?

Thanks for the clarification on the PPA, someone should contact the Boston Globe and get a retraction.

As for the other, consider it dropped.

I think its something that came out in an interview with Tom Dwan with Noah on Subject Poker if my memory serves me correctly.

Apologies its already been answered.

I tend to work through the posts and answer before continuing on and therefore miss things may already have been answered.

Thanks for pointing me to the source.

The DoJ complaint is totally ambiguous regarding whether the approximately $150M owed to US players is net of the $9M recoverable for uncleared deposits, net of all uncleared deposits, or the gross amount before reversing uncleared deposits. So it may be possible that their net debt to US players, out of $390M less $130M is $150M less $130M or about 7% of all player accounts. More likely it is larger, but it seems almost certain that, according to the complaint, debt to US player is less than half of their total player debt.

I think he specifically said ~"NOT lied, but kept somethings away in hopes they'd be passed (???) unnonticed... "

I think the simplest explanation is that the debt to US players is 150 or 141. This lines up roughly with the cash game numbers. Also current player debt is 300 as ftp paid out/raked 90 against the ROW debt in the ten weeks post bf according to the doj.