Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
Use FTP as the contractor for distributions?!? Give yourself a shake!
As I said
___
Yes there is a lot of flexibiity (including the flexibility to decide not to pay remission). I agree that there may be a role for the FTP platform in a remission process. I also think that this may speed things up relative to what would probably happen if they processed individual applications though some other gateway. Given the phantom deposit issue, I expect they won't just automaticaly give out account balances as recorded on April 14. For that reason I think the process of evaluating petitions will take a bit of time. Also, I think the bit about allowing one petitioner to petition on behalf of multiple people pretty much is intended to handle people who know each other, or at least have a working relationship. It is a proxy system.
You seemed to think I was arguing with you, I was not. Just going through the remission regs and explaining my opinion.
Now, I am arguing with you (respectfully) on two points:
They seemed to know that they would only knock off $9 million or whatever it was from the total liability by adjusting the phantom deposit accounts. So as long as they actually do that, or have done that, at some point over the past year, I don't see that holding up a potential FTP cashier cashout process.
Agreed on the intent of the consolidated petition regulation, however, given the wide discretion given to the Ruling Official, I could see him just considering everyone with money in the FTP2 cashier (from the U.S.) as an implicit group of consolidated petitioners. Or alternatively, as individual petitioners, but the petitioner process is through FTP2. So cashing out and clicking some DOJ acknowledgement type consent form would qualify as the individual petition.