Well, that didn't happen and isn't going to happen. Is there any point to mentioning this over and over?

I wonder, assuming this is true, if team ftp player means the likes of Howard, Durrrr, PA, ect or any red pro?

I have been on the email mailing list since day 1 and haven't received a single email.

So, in your opinion, by allowing decedent victims' estates to make claims, is the DoJ ignoring the plain wording of the regulation where it states that a person cannot become a claimant through assignment or subrogation, or is such a claim allowed because the estate obtains the ability to make the claim through a process other than assignment or subrogation?

me too, thanks good to know

I imagine that when they say team full tilt that is what they mean. That is anyone who invested in FT and was therefore receiving our money as dividends.

I'm sure this has been asked before in the history of the multiple FTP threads, but just throwing a devil's advocate question out there...

Could some jackass feasibly delay the process by claiming they're owed, let's say, $185 million or some outrageous amount like that?

Or would that immediately be dismissed for how outrageous a claim like that would be?

This was the forum that it was posted in. Just shows you really don't read this forum.

I'll try and let you know.

I don't think the concern here will be claims like that from victims. However, "owners and lien holders" can also petition for remission. I don't know how likely it is to happen in this case, but former FTP shareholders, investors and creditors claiming an ownership interest in the forfeited property, can also seek compensation through remission. If that were to happen l would suspect those claims could be for significant dollars and , if allowed, they get paid first. I don't think it is likely we will have such claims, as it is usual for legitimate owners and lien holders to file a claim against the in rem funds in court before they are forfeited to the government, but it could happen.

The fund currently available for remission certainly seems sufficient to cover just about anything. However, that fund can and will be reduced by the costs of remission. Also, the fund CAN be reduced by the government compensating itself for the costs associated with obtaining the forfeitures. There is no clear indication that they are going to do this before paying out remissions, but it remains within their rights to do so.

Even with all of that it still seems to me there will be enough money to make all the victims whole.

Can I get some cliff notes on this thread? Like when we will get our money?

I have little doubt that there will be more than enough money as well.

I just meant, from a hypothetical angle, could some stupid outrageous claim possibly stop their attempts at paying out at a faster rate, or would they have to address the disputed monies (if it were for some farcical amount that they claimed their account balance was) before they could properly move ahead.

So the owners/shareholders/etc aren't disqualified from the remission process? I guess the post by The Engineer/Tiltpro hasn't been verified. And I suppose we'll find that answer out on Monday.

The claims processor will email applications starting September 16 (i.e. a few days from now) to the email addresses in the Full Tilt database. The claims window will be open through November 15.

For those who agree with the amount on the application, fill it out properly, and send it back in on time, they will most likely get their money sometime in 2014. Whether it will be early, middle, or late in the year is open for debate. It also might drag on longer, there are no guarantees.

For those who appeal the amount on the application... who knows. They'll get their money when they get it.

Yeah, I saw that info as well. I don't know the source, so it is hard to comment on. The statute and internal procedure allow for "owners and lien holders" to petition. Perhaps though, the DOJ, who are the sole authority with respect to remissions, have decided to make these people ineligible. Who knows?

So I signed up to be an affiliate and had a link on a personal website of mine to direct people to sign up for Full tilt. Of course, no one ever signed up (my site had basically nothing to do with poker) but is the fact that I was a registered affiliate going to screw me and make me disqualified for remission?

I'm lovin the fact that all the full tilt pros and affiliates are getting the big goose egg. That is what they deserve, for scamming the word with their horsecrap scam poker site...lol.

I LOVE IT. I also love the fact that all those clowns who were trying to create fake markets for full tilt poker claims trading are about to get the big goose egg. Reasonable people told them how moronic they were trying to act like someone was willing to put up real money for phoney full tilt claims.

Beautiful news, and I can't wait to watch all the crybabies whine for years on end about how they were "cheated". What goes around comes around...haha.

Yes

when the time comes should i do anything special like alert my bank i should be expecting a huge wire soon from the DOJ? i created a schwab free checking account in like late 2011 specfically for my ftp monies before everyone even knew how broke FTP really was. but this account only has like only $5 in it and literally hasn't seen a single transaction in like 2 years. i don't want schwab to reject a six figure wire cause they see it's incoming to an account that's been "inactive" for so long. or should i pick to have my money wired to chase/who i've been banking with for like 8 years.

I can't believe it has been so long since Black Friday that we have to talk about whether or not a deceased person's family can claim their balance or not....

I'd relax until you know for sure. I mean, if someone earned 10 dollars a month as an affiliate to some small stakes friends of theirs and yet deposited 5k a month in losing poker and had a 5k balance from their last deposit, I can't imagine the DOJ is going to keep that 5k.

I think the part about affiliates is that if you felt you were owed affiliate payments that were never sent to you or you never cashed out, there is no way the DOJ is going to compensate you for that.

But poker money? I'm sure you'll be ok. From what I hear, full tilt hadn't been reimbursing the affiliates at the end anyway, so it is probably safe to assume that money in your account is yours and you'll get it.

I don't have any inside info, but it would not seem like you were being treated as a victim if you had poker money kept by the DOJ. I mean, lots of players deposited money on that site. For any money that was deposited to not get sent back would seem like they weren't being treated as a victim.

Therefore I can't see how they wouldn't be reimbursing your balance. I think they only mean the money that was never sent to the affiliates...that money...is gone.

Not to be smart, but, neither of the above.

The wording of the regulation is not "plain", it is painfully distorted. It does not say what your post suggests it says. The property rights it discusses are difficult to understand but the estate is the genuine owner (though manager might be more technically correct, as the executor or personal representative through his/her letters of authority or administration is actually better described as the manager of the decedent's property and property rights which so long as they remain in the estate remain technically titled in the name of the decedent) of the victim's claim and of the underlying property right that forms the basis of the claim. Regardless of whether they remain in the estate or have been distributed to a devisee or legatee, the person holding the right of claim is in ownership of it.

The statute governs the regulation. To the extent the regulation, directly or inadvertently, contravenes the statute, the regulation is inoperative.

The DOJ has always recognized claims filed by the estates of deceased bona fide victim claimants. The statute requires it. A refusal to recognize a valid claim by the estate of a deceased bona fide victim would result in a civil action on a number of grounds including denial of equal protection of the law. To my knowledge, that has never happened because no estate pursuing the valid claim of a deceased bona fide victim has ever been denied because it is an estate.

Charles Dickens exasperation with the legal system is sometimes justified but the legal system does not deny the rights of widows and orphans because of an untimely death.

Nobody knows. Wait a few days and see if you get a claim form when everyone else does. If not, that's a bad sign, although you still should contact them and see what you can do.

First, I apologize to all for this long winded rebuttal. I would suggest if you are not interested in a rather dry debate over the law you just skip it. It really doesn't have much to do with anything important in this case.

You would be 100% correct, if the estate was making a "claim" for the forfeited funds as an "owner" with the court of jurisdiction. But, for purposes of this particular case FTP customers were not "owners" of the forfeited funds and therefore could make no claim against the forfeited funds. At least one of the FTP customers made such a claim of ownership (Webb) but his claim failed due to lack of standing as an owner. Every victim of FTP's fraud also has the right to file their own lawsuit seeking restitution and/or damages from the perpetrators of the fraud. Nobody in this case had to wait for remissions. The problem was that the government seized and/or caused forfeited all of FTPs assets. Consequently what good would a successful lawsuit have done a victim? This scenario is precisely the reason the government "invented" remissions. Remissions is the way the government legally transfers what are now government funds to crime victims.

Your position seemingly relies on the notion that a petition for remission is the same as a claim for property. It is not. A decedent's estate is the Real and Personal Property (and the rights to that property) that an individual owns upon his or her death. I will suggest to you that the possible potential opportunity to file a petition for remission, at some date in the future that may or mat not ever come to be, with the DOJ, is not real or personal property. There exists no guarantee anywhere in the law that any victim of any crime, anywhere or at anytime, will ever have an opportunity to file a petition for remission with the DOJ. That "act of grace", as described by one apeelate court, is granted at the sole discretion of the DOJ.

However, in the case at discussion a victim of the FTP fraud DOES have a legal right to file a lawsuit seeking restitution and/or damages against the "person(s)" responsible for the fraud. This is a right that survives the decedent and passes to the estate who can then initiate a lawsuit by subrogating the decedent estate and/or its executor in place of the decedent. Why do you suppose the regulation at TITLE 28 CHAPTER I
PART 9 § 9.2 (v) contains the following if not but to limit who or what is a victim?:

(v) The term victim means a person who has incurred a pecuniary loss as a direct result of the commission of the offense underlying a forfeiture. A drug user is not considered a victim of a drug trafficking offense under this definition. A victim does not include one who acquires a right to sue the perpetrator of the criminal offense for any loss by assignment, subrogation inheritance, or otherwise form the actual victim, unless that person has acquired an actual ownership interest in the forfeited property.

What is the "statute" you claim "requires the DOJ to recognize claims filed by the estates of deceased bona fide victim claimants". Where can I find this "statute"? What court has jurisdiction over the DOJ (AG) with respect to executive decisions made with respect to remission?

Contrary to your assertion otherwise, there have been many, many lawsuits attempting to challenge the DOJ remission policy, including lawsuits brought by persons, corporations, estates, heirs (and I'm sure some widows and orphans too) denied status as a victim. But not even one has ever been successful. Since the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 (Title 5 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 500) the courts have continued to hold that the exercise of discretion by the Secretary of the Treasury or of the Attorney General in denying a petition for remission or forfeiture, is not reviewable. Associates Investment Co. v. United States, 220 F.2d 885 (C.A.5, 1955); United States v. Gramling, 180 F.2d 498 (C.A.5, 1950); United States v. One 1957 Buick Roadmaster, supra; United States v. One 1951 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, 108 F.Supp. 286 (W.D.Pa.1952); United States v. One 1946 Plymouth Sedan, 73 F.Supp. 88 (E.D.N.Y.1946).

Judicial control of the Attorney General's remission and mitigation function has been exercised only when administrative officials have refused to entertain a mitigation claim on the erroneous belief that they had no statutory authority to do so, Cotonificio Bustese, S. A. v. Morgenthau, 74 U.S.App.D.C. 13, 121 F.2d 884 (1941), and the extent of judicial control has been merely to require the officials to exercise jurisdiction over the claim, not to review the official decision of the merits.

In the case UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE 1961 CADILLAC et al., Defendants, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. 337 F.2d 730 (1964) The court found the following:

"The purpose of the remission statutes was to grant executive power to relieve against the harshness of forfeitures. The exercise of the power, however, was committed to the discretion of the executive so that he could temper justice with mercy or leniency. Remitting the forfeiture, however, constituted an act of grace. The courts have not been granted jurisdiction to control the action of the executive, even where it is alleged, as here, in general conclusory language, that discretion has been abused.

Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 591, 99 L.Ed. 868 (1955), relied on by G.M.A.C., is not apposite. The Court there stated that the legislative history of the 1952 Immigration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act indicated Congressional approval for a full review of deportation orders. This is not true of orders denying petitions for remission, which have never been regarded as subject to review by the courts.

G.M.A.C. argues that the courts have been liberal in construing the Administrative Procedure Act and in extending its scope. Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579, 78 S.Ct. 433, 2 L.Ed.2d 503 (1958); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 75 S.Ct. 790, 99 L.Ed. 1129 (1955); Gonzalez v. Freeman, 334 F.2d 570 (C.A.D.C.1964); Estrada v. Ahrens, 296 F.2d 690 (C.A.5, 1961); Obrenovic v. Pilliod, 282 F.2d 874 (C.A.7, 1960); Adams v. Witmer, 271 F.2d 29 (C.A.9, 1958); Homovich v. Chapman, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 150, 191 F.2d 761 (1951). It urges that we should construe the Administrative Procedure Act so as to furnish reviews of orders of the Attorney General denying remission of forfeiture. The trouble here is that the Administrative Procedure Act expressly exempted matters committed to the discretion of an agency. We have no right to disregard this plain language.

The District Court was correct in ruling that it was without authority to review the action of the Attorney General in denying remission."

What if someone doesn't have the e-mail address associated with their FTP account any longer? If I am not mistaken, I can submit a request right from the GCG website. I called the hotline, and they said I was already in the system.

I find it incredibly shady that FTP and all parties involved have had 3+ years to sort this **** out but the players only have a 2 month window to submit a claim. There can and will be many people who have disconnected from the poker world that don't make the cut.

By the way does anyone remember what the maximum cashout by check was pre-BF? I had that amount missing from my balance from a withdrawal that never got processed. Was it $2500?