Bitar got hit with another charge when he got off the plane.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...ads-not-guilty

Already posted.

I can't recall exactly where I heard or read this, (it might have been an interview with Frank Fahrenkopf Jr. on Quad Jacks radio), but Mr. Fahrenkopf recalled a meeting or an industry conference (prior to Black Friday) where Howard Lederer came across as "arrogant" expressing contempt for the U.S. Government while insisting that Full Tilt Poker was not breaking any laws. I'm trying to recall this from memory, but Mr. Fahrenkopf went on to characterize Howard's attitude as something akin to: "So what if the Government comes after us. Big deal! We'll pay a fine and continue with business as usual." Mr. Fahrenkopf went on to state that Howard Lederer was one of the most arrogant people he had ever met. (I'm paraphrasing a bit as I'm attempting to recall that interview from memory.)

Frank Fahrenkopf has his own reasons for characterizing an interaction with Howard Lederer in that manner, but assuming there is some truth to his recollection; people who talk like that and express those kind of sentiments are just asking for trouble. People who effectively taunt the U.S. Government and say, in effect, "F you Government, you can't touch me!" are the kind of people U.S. Attorneys like to make an example of.

I have a feeling Preet Bharara has Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, and Rafe Furst in his cross hairs - at a minimum. Those are the three "big fish" the Assistant U.S. Attorney is gunning for. So far, all the payment processors and lower-level "minnows" that have been arrested, (i.e. Campos, Elie, Rubin et al.), have taken plea deals and agreed to testify for the Government in exchange for greatly reduced sentences. There's no way Ray Bitar "voluntarily" returns to the United States to face charges unless he intends to rat out his [former] friends. Either that or he has an incredibly incompetent lawyer.

Yep, he is a little biased. Just a little.

It is so obvious to me. On Friday, the SCOTUS votes for Obama's healthcare law; on Monday, Bitar returns to the US. He wants healthcare. Probably has a toothache.

Har normally I rather dislike your humor but you got a legit chuckle from me finally on this one.

cliffs so far anyone plz?

+1

in OP
AND in a sticky at the top of this subforum
AND in pokerheadlines.

Well its a good new, it's show how pokerstar want to buy back FTP

I hope we will see our money back

I didn't use that example to make the argument that governmental regulation isn't needed. I used it to show that regulation doesn't always work and it's not the panacea offered by many people on this board.

And surely, if you are a liberal and try to approach reality in structural terms, you can't simply cop out and simply say that better regulation is a matter of better personal competency. There's an inconsistency there. Why for example, can't I turn around this and ask: "don't look at the FTP/UB situation as examples that point to more regulation. Look at them as demonstration that what is needed is more poker executives who do their jobs?"
I know I came off as a free market anarchocapitalist in the post you quoted, but I am anything but. Personally I think that the question of regulation, really all questions surrounding the emergence and proper design of the institutions that govern a market economy are insanely complex ones for which I don't pretend to have the answers. What I do know however is that the simple ones offered here don't work.

Free markets don't always work. There is market failure. Governmental regulation doesn't always work either. And it doesn't work partly for the same reasons you mentioned against the free market. Government also suffers from information asymmetries and its actions can bring about unintentional consequences. Most importantly, people who compose government can be rational, but the ends they promote aren't necessarily the public's ends but their own. Since they also govern people who are rational, we are often faced with phenomena like regulatory capture and rent seeking which takes advantage of the unintended or cooked effect of regulations.

While the free market doesn't work perfectly, it works reasonably enough, certainly better than any alternative. While people aren't always rational, the assumption of their individual rationality works well enough to produce collective prosperity. And surely, there's a difference between regulating drugs and regulating poker.

To put it succinctly: Not that we have any choice in the matter as the end result is almost certain, but we are faced with a tradeoff. The tradeoff is paying a tax in order to get regulation that's going to offer increased consumer protection. Is the tradeoff worth it? Perhaps it is, I am not certain. I am certain it's not as clearcut as people are making it out to be.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim it always works. It is absolutely necessary, however.

First effect of the arrest: with the loss of their best customer, lobster market collapses:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/forget...161429633.html

"Supply right now far exceeds demand, resulting in a "perfect storm" for the industry, he said."

Do you trust online gaming companies with your money?

OK, I did a little research and located the Quad Jacks interview with Mr. Fahrenkopf.

http://quadjacks.com/2012/03/21/fran...ker-community/

I was wrong in attributing words spoken directly between Howard Lederer and Mr. Fahrenkopf. That may (or may not) have been the case as Mr. Fahrenkopf did not identify, by name, the person (or persons) he spoke to. From the interview, this is what Mr. Fahrenkopf actually said as reported by Marco Valerio:

When asked about what he thought of PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and UB, the former U.S.-facing industry leaders, Fahrenkopf chose not to mask his contempt.

“I had met the operators of PokerStars, Full Tilt, et cetera, To be very candid with you, I thought they were extremely arrogant about violating U.S. law. They were, in effect, saying they didn’t care that they were violating it, that they would continue to do so, and if they had to pay a fine later on, so be it.”

You can bet your bottom dollar that news of that conversation found its way back to Arlo Devlin-Brown and Preet Bharara.

Not sure if it's been posted yet, but there's been an email from FTP to a player offering 40c on the $1 of their bankroll.

I read somewhere that as far as FTP goes the DOJ is charging Ray Bitar but they have no plans to charge Howard, Jesus, or other owners. WHY WHY WHY, are Howard and Jesus getting a pass?

(anyone?)

Just a guess: they need Bitar to cut a deal and roll over on Lederer, Gordon, Ferguson etc... They probably don't have enough evidence at this point and need Bitar to testify.

No there isnt. Its an email that is offering a company [we dont know what kind] .40 on the dollar for their outstanding debt.

apparently everyone got paid with stolen funds according to some posters on 2p2. But FTP did also make "some" profit from rake, so who then got paid by the rake? Without some deeper look into FTP finances its quite ridiculous to assume Ivey or other pros got paid by players money. Not that I say they were not but innocent until proven guilty

The problem with your logic is the player funds were not segregated from operating funds so any time salaries, dividends etc. were paid out they were taken from the same account that player's funds were in...so you see how they were using player funds for all payments, considering they were spending money they didn't have?

Do you have proof that they were taken from the same account? I understand not being segregated as that Lederer and Bitar always had full access to that players money account not that it was all one pool of money on one bank account (It wasnt trust fund money or something like at pokerstars). Im sure FTP had more than one bank account hehe.
I think without taking a very deep look into the financial books of FTP (which will probably take years) its hard to say who got paid with what kind of money.

Read the indictment. Same accounts.

I think I did read the indictment but can't remember that it said their pros got paid by the same bank account the players money was in. Can you direct me to it?
But let's assume its all on on the same bank account, rake money and players money. How can we know the salary came strictly from players money and not from rake? Maybe they paid the pros only with rake-money and Bitar and Howard put players money into their pocket or maybe its the other way around, but how can we know? It looks like not even the DOJ knows exactly?

#16, Page 10 Unfortunately, can't cut and paste from the document. But, that should clear up everything. Of course, these are just allegations at this point and still need to be proven in court.

I don't have any proof. I'm giving an opinion based on lots of other stuff I've read.