1. I sold my xxx on ebay usually works

2. I've heard porn can get some people to get off ur back too.

I would say these are funds for services and they were sent at my request.

These are commission payments from an online business that I'm an affiliate of.

I'm a web developer/ or I'm in online marketing/ or I'm in sales/I'm an investor/ and this is a payment sent to me at my request.

etc etc etc...

I like the affiliate one because it's the truth and most people don't even know what that is/means especially when it comes to online business and that will usually not only satisfy the person but it will quickly bore them and confuse them into a state of wanting to move on.

Hi guys, I haven't had the time yet to look at the docs Kevmath posted. I'm assuming this is where the reporter got her information for the story, so if anyone has read them already could they answer this?
Thanks.

Wow, thanks sba. Could you give a bit of context to that, was that reported by the secret service agent?

Pleas ignore if wanted, as I understand I and others need to look through these docs for themselves.

That's the most likely assumption. It could have also been an industrious bank security officer. I'd bet it was the Secret Service. "Open source online research..." sounds like FedSpeak for "google."

Sba's answer as to how this information was obtained is as good a theory as any. IMO the main thing to take away is NOT that this was found as part of the investigation or was in the affidavit. Both of those make sense. This was part how the Secret Service showed that the checks were most likely proceeds from online poker in the affidavit. Since that was their justification for freezing the funds in the account it had to be there.

The point to take from this is that the reporter in the linked newpaper story didn't do any special investigation. The section of the story that named names was obviously all taken from this area of the affidavit. Although they could have done the story without including the names they were reporting information from public records that was going to come out anyway. If having your name show up as part of this kind of investigation would be a problem for in some way it is a risk that has to be considered in the future.

Do you guys think this changes the theory that the players mentioned in the docs were also players that possibly told the bank their checks were from online poker?

On page 20 of the document it says that two players told a bank officer the checks on one of the accounts was from online poker and another refused to discuss it and walked out without cashing the check although she presumably knew who it was (it doesn't identify the specific players). Although I can't find it I believe I saw elsewhere that another player said it was a check from ultimatebet. These could easily be different players than those listed by name.

The Secret Service could have looked at checks that had cleared one of the accounts to get a list of names the checks were written to. They then researched those people using public internet sources to find any that could be identified as poker players (I think someone ITT mentioned a google search). That seems the more likely way they got those names since it references places where they found indications that these were poker players and even says how they found this for some of the players in the snippet of the document posted. These people may well have had no contact or conversations with the bank or secret service.

For $10 million I will move to the Bahamas and set up a payment processing business for US poker players to withdraw through. I am getting tired of Kentucky winters anyway.

Seriously though "ECHECKS!!!!!!!" and shut the heck up at your banks people.
Let the PPA get this mess straightened out.

If the Secret Service wanted to find out who online poker players are all they have to do is check any poker magazine or P5s profiles/leaderboards. Most online players are very open with what they do and how they do it. What surprises me here is the cloak and dagger spin they (USS and the news) put on the whole thing. Once the case hits adjudication that over zealousness just might bite them in the butt. Judges and Juries don't like to be talked down to and most are smart enough to smell BS when they hear it.

There is no way to know, it's not stated specifically in the document.

Keep in mind, there is just enough information for probable cause, not all facts known to investigators.

The way Schuett handled things, I'm surprised he stayed in operation as long as he did. He was going down with or without the poker players calling the banks.

Welcome to my back yard. But the guy had 400+ business started in his name. That doesn't set off alarm bells, let alone the high $ wire transfers with multiple accounts at banks.

I read the arrest doc (45 pages ish) and all the forums, just want to add my 2 cents... my opinion isn't new, just adding my voice.

This is about a shady business man who lied again and again and broke many laws in the conduct of his business. It is only peripherally related to poker and doesn't affect play or players. This is a cycle that happens again and again, all our money gets refunded, a new hopefully reputable company comes along and we're back to business as usual.

This is my honest and somewhat informed opinion on a matter of extreme importance and relevance to me.

I have been playing online poker since back when Party was in the US market, following the issues the whole way, and I am going to continue playing online without concern having now spent about 15 hours researching the matter.