If that was what they were alleging, then they would have carefully, deliberately, and methodically explained that with evidence like they did with all the other charges. They would not just drop that into one line.

They didnt rig anything, just seems like a dumb choice of words by the DOJ.
They could just have Howard sit down with Guy or Isildur1 or anybody and "fix the deck against them" and snatch an easy $500k though :E

[X] GTFO, let smart ppl talk

Gtfo seriously

If that is the case...second thought, let's not even go there.

Bitar Beer Face

Some mildly interesting tidbits: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

I respectfully disagree with this. Madoff was the most infamous man in America (and one of the most recognizable). He lived on the Upper East side of Manhattan and literally could not set foot outside his apartment without being swarmed by press (remember that shoving match with a reporter). The feds could have strolled up to his apartment anytime they wanted and arrested him. He was out of options, and had no leverage. He turned himself in to avoid being forcefully arrested by a jacked-up cop and perp walked down Park Avenue.

Bitar was just some random fat guy in Ireland. Outside of this forum, few people knew his name, and many fewer would recognize him. As far as I know, the US authorities were not making any real effort to arrest him in Ireland. There really isn't any reason why he would ever set foot on American soil without an implicit understanding with the DOJ.

Now, of course there is no agreement officially in place (as noted by Forbes and the AP). The government does not do plea deals with fugitives on the lam. But there have certainly been intensive discussions between the DOJ and Bitar's lawyers (as there continues to be with Scheinberg et. al.). And there is certainly an implicit agreement between the parties as to punishment. Why else did he turn himself in? The authorities had no leverage, as the did in the Madoff case. Because he has a sick aunt in Iowa? Now, maybe the DOJ will double-cross his ass, and throw the book at him. But there's gotta be some sort of understanding.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning.

I had thought that the fact that payouts came from player funds was already made sufficiently clear in the revised civil complaint, so I wasn't seeing the new indictment as changing the known facts on the ground except wrt the likelyhood of guilty knowledge on the part of non-director owners. Before, we only had a lack of evidence regarding guilty knoweledge. Now we actually have some evidence of owners having been misled. IMO we've moved from

• A possibilty of owners having to pay due to guilty knowledge and a possibility of owners having to pay due to unjust enrchment,

to

• Almost no chance of owners having to pay due to guilty knowledge, and no change in the chance they'll have to pay due to unjust enrichment.

I'll grant the mention of the use of player funds in the new indictment is even clearer than in the amended civil complaint, but I don't know if that clarity or any of the new factual allgations changes the principle of civil responsibility possibly faced by non-director owners. Perhaps the mention of the use of player funds in a criminal indictment rather than the amended civil complaint is more signficant (wrt owner liability) than I realize.

The Wall Street Journal article says: "Full Tilt was started in Los Angeles by Mr. Bitar, a stock trader, and Chris Ferguson, a successful professional poker player. Later a host of well-known professional poker players became founding owners and took stakes in the company, along with Messrs. Bitar and Ferguson. The company moved to Ireland as the U.S. government increasingly clamped down on online gambling companies." However, no mention of Lederer by name. Was Ferguson higher up in the pecking order than Lederer? I never knew that.

Also, doesn't it stand to reason that since the DoJ sees internet poker as illegal, that the repayment of funds will not go back to the players? I hope I am wrong, but why would the DoJ let the players get their money back? Please explain. Thanks.

I feel, Ray is doing the Right thing,just wish he/they would of put out some kind of statement before he got all lawyered up. Howard L. & Chris Ferguson are still cowards.

I am speculating that Bitar has always lied to the DOJ and said he wants players to get their funds back. I suspect the DOJ has ultimately required a Bitar surrender for any deal to take place.

"This author is, however, able to report that multiple sources have confirmed that any new agreement with this buyer would provide for repayment to players in the U.S.A. and “Rest of World”."

http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/04...ayers-interest

Also logic, but I'm past arguing about those kind of things.

The government has no actual expectation that they are goign to get $2.5B. It is what they may be entitled to ask for because it approximates all the money ever deposited. Nobody informed person in their right mind thinks this figure represents actual profits.

My understanding has always been that Bitar and Ferguson were the original founders, and then Lederer put up a lot of the startup money (followed by more professional poker players, albeit with smaller pieces). Such as set forth in this Forbes article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanva...ceo-ray-bitar/

Clean lobster

And **** this guy:

And anyone have the full text of this:

Cool, thanks for the response. I wonder if it will ever become public how much the poker players (Jesus, Lederer, et al) actually knew about the financial workings.

My understanding is that Ferguson was behind much of the internal development of FTP as a company/product early on, but Lederer is mainly to do with the branding of FTP as a site "run by poker players, for poker players". I'm pretty sure it's well established that Ferguson might be the largest shareholder up to even having twice as much stock as Lederer in the company?

Yep. I hopefully they let people speak at his sentencing. Maybe a few players showing up would convince the judge to up his time by a couple of years.

I don't check NVG for one day and this happens?!?!?! O ... M ... F ... G

Are you suggesting that Bitar got scammed by the DoJ?

Thanks for response. So this essentially means that when Bitar paid owners with what little cash was left prior to black friday, Ferguson accepted his check knowing the company was essentially cash poor. Damn, that sucks to hear for the first time.

See OP.

I don't know what went through Bitar's mind in all this. He must be a huge ******. The guy only owns like 8% of the company. He took almost all the risk stealing money while only getting to keep 8% of it. It seems he was trying his best to make all the owners happy no matter what.