From AGCC website here http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/questions8.php

"AGCC requires its licensees to adhere to strict prudential ratios in order to ensure that assets exceed liabilities and cash exceeds player liabilities."

emphasis mine



Clearly Full Tilt's assets did not exceed their liabilities and their cash definitely did not exceed their player liabilities.

What I'm willing to wager is dependent on what the odds are. "How much you wanna bet" is a meaningless schoolyard question.

If you're so sure you're right, offer me large odds.

Do you have a link for that?

Because while I agree this is close to what we want, I'm unclear as to the difference between the "licensee" and the "operator." Is Pokerstars the licensee or the operator (or both)?

What does section 4(a) mean when it says, "guarantee any outstanding debts"? To "guarantee a debt" has a specific connotation; it doesn't seem to apply here so the word "guarantee" is not unambiguously defined.

I'm not trying to be a nit; as I pointed out above, the word "segregated" doesn't exactly mean what everyone thinks it means, and all these sorts of legal definitions are full of similar weirdly-defined terms. Since a later paragraph suggests interest is generated (in that the licensee is allowed to keep the interest), it stands to reason that the bank is reinvesting the funds somehow; it may just be that the IoM regulations shift the burden of maintaining working capital ratios to the banks in which Pokerstars is forced to deposit. I am extremely skeptical that at some point there was an Isle of Man bank which kept millions (billions?) liquid just in case there was a worldwide rush on Stars dollars, as people generally can't resist touching big pots of money. Is some IoM bank really just holding all of Pokerstars' money without reinvesting it and paying millions per year for the privilege? I doubt it.

it's from "Guidance Notes for making an Online Gambling application", 2nd link here: http://www.gov.im/gambling/licensing/

I think (not very sure) an "Operator" is a gaming service provider, a "licensee" is an operator who has obtained an IoMGSC license. They seem to use the terms interchangeably at times. The document (as the title suggests) is giving advice to potential applicants, but also stating what is required of it's licensees. I agree it is somewhat ambiguous.

The "guaranteeing of debts" is for the IoM govt. If the operator wants to not put the player funds in an IoM bank account, rather they wish to make "alternative arrangements" - they must convince the GSC the funds are guaranteed if IoM Govt. wants them.

Sure, the bank will of course be investing / speculating with the contents Stars player balances account - but it's a bank and that's what they do. Stars won't be it's only customer, player balances probably not even their biggest account. If there's a run on Stars balances it shouldn't be a problem for a large bank. This is imo why they want the funds in an IoM bank account, so the govt. knows the status of said banks. for example the local nation bank, IoMBank - is part of RBS / NatWest. not small banks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man_Bank

Yea this is key here. Seems like FT was profitable at some point and such profits were distributed to the owners. Fine. But any distributions above and beyond those profits are basically coming from player funds. Seems almost impossible that FT had positive equity, but these guys were essentially self-regulated so they could get away with it.

Put me in the camp of not believing every bit of the story from US government perspective. They could be wrong on everything (doubt that is actually the case) and it's not like they'll be accountable to someone for it. Like anything else, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Assuming there is some amount of truth in the government's allegations, FT is at minimum extremely shady.. and more likely a bunch of greedy f****. Again, they're basically self-regulated, and maybe they met their definition of "segregated" deposits per their weak ass regulator to keep their license or whatever, but a US seizure/shutdown should have been viewed as a reasonably possible outcome by prudent management. They should have been in a position to survive it.

4. Your shoe store analogy sucks because players did not "lend" money to Full Tilt. Players did not "invest" money in Full Tilt. At no point did you have partial ownership of the site because you had money in there; it's exactly like depositing your money in a bank - if the bank goes belly-up, you're ****ed except for FDIC (a government program). Except in the case of Full Tilt, there was no Alderney equivalent of FDIC. Players have to accept some blame in this as well; we all knew that playing on these sites were somewhat risky. We knew about problems depositing and withdrawing long before April 15th, we saw the charges from Algerian furniture companies and lolled. We knew these sites were licensed out of weird-ass quasi-countries and nobody looked very closely at the regulations. What the **** did you (we) think was going on?[/QUOTE]

all players falt.ty i the 1 sat at home with millions

I lost money at FT, and I just don't understand why you would be so adamantly sticking up for these thieves. Are you a friend by chance?

I guess since you got most of your money back you can sit back and say all this Bullsh$$. What they did was most likely illegal, immoral, and disgusting. Anyone who defends them must be the same sort.

This whole thing is bull****. Full Tilt was functioning perfectly fine until the DOJ ****ed them on 4/15. The DOJ is holding player money as we speak, and is misleading the public by using the phrase "ponzi scheme" for dramatic effect just like Rick Perry created a fantastic sound byte calling Social Security a ponzi scheme. Anyone who isn't colossally ignorant knows neither are ponzi schemes.

I'm in agreement with callipygian here, and I had ~3x more money on FT than on PS.

PokerStars always danced around the minefields better than Full Tilt, but the DOJ is the reason Full Tilt was "insolvent" in the first place. They're the ones who refuse to work with them to give us our money back.

Perfectly? Are you kidding? People waiting months for payments (which they never got) is "perfect"? Getting a song and a dance when all they wanted to know is when the check they requested 30 days ago is gonna arrive. Perfect? Orders from the FTP store indefinitely unfulfilled? Perfect?

The word "ponzi" does not appear in the amended complaint. What is there is a description of outright theft and fraud - whatever name you want to call it, that is what it is.

First of all people are being way to nitty with the "ponzi scheme" thing. Of course Full Tilt was not technically a ponzi scheme in the legal sense. However it appears that it was a ponzi scheme in the way that most people use the words "ponzi scheme."

If the DOJ allegations are true, then Full Tilt was severely insolvent way before Black Friday. I don't know what you mean by saying that the DOJ won't work with Tilt to give us back our money. Our money is in the bank accounts of Lederer, Ferguson and Furst. Full Tilt doesn't have our money and neither does the DOJ. The DOJ has a small amount (relative to what is owed) frozen, but definitely not all of our money.

This is because of the DOJ ****ing with processors, not because they were insolvent. Like I said, PokerStars had the same problems with transactions as Full Tilt. Were they insolvent too? No. They just danced around the minefield better than FT did. And the DOJ laid all the mines.

But Full Tilt has stated that they "picked the tab" on the processors. If FTP was operating w/o 100% of all player funds being maintained is some FTP account (not a personal account of Bitar or Lederer or any other clown), this amounts to an outright lie. If they distributed 5 cents of dividends to any of their execs or shareholders during this period, than it's some form of theft/fraud.

The DOJ has evidence that both of these assumptions are true. Howard and company can show up in court to argue otherwise.

Full Tilt would have had plenty of money to cover player deposits and still turn a massive profit if it had not paid out massive dividends to it's owners.

Madoff makes big headlines and now everything is a ponzi scheme. "Most people" are clueless idiots (my non-poker-playing friends) who text me saying, "Dude, Full Tilt Poker is a ponzi scheme!" You can replace "ponzi scheme" with something broader like "scam" and it doesn't change the fact that FT wasn't some big scam planning to run off with our money. The DOJ is claiming this now, when in fact, if they didn't exist, then I'd still be playing on Full Tilt and my typical Friday withdrawal request after receiving rakeback would be processed and in my bank account on Tuesday. But it's a ponzi scheme AMIRITE?

Obviously I'm not omniscient, but if there is anything I've learned from playing poker and reading about the actions of our government and the DOJ, it's that their allegations are not the whole story, just what they want us to perceive. #PerceptionIsReality

The DOJ believes that FT's operations are in violation of US law. Nothing stopping FT from showing up in court to prove them wrong. In fact, they might have even been proactive in doing so. Like suing the first time the DOJ froze a single account, long before BF.

The fact is that FTP didn't really care what the DOJ did, because it was our money not theirs that was being frozen.

I don't know how you can say things like this in light of all the facts and information you've been presented. No you're right they weren't planning to run off with our money, they already did! The only thing keeping withdrawals flowing was new deposits. And this was before Black Friday! 'Your' money had more likely already been stolen and was sitting in a private bank account of Lederer, Ferguson or Bitar - ready to add to their collection of mansions or whatever other nouveau riche inclinations might strike their fancy for the day.

Don't forget Rafael Furst or "Telamonian Ajax" or whatever other alias this guy uses.

callypgian and TeflonDawg are owning this thread. Too many emotional rollercoaster types overreacting to this fake Ponzi scheme headline. If there is any hate to be directed, it should be toward the DOJ. It's not entirely clear what FTP's financial status may have looked like before they were trapped. The DOJ is claiming that FTP's intentions were to blatantly rob players of their funds, an assertion that is just clownshoes ******ed.

Stumbled across this from a channel island law firm.

http://www.careyolsen.com/downloads/...-_guernsey.pdf

"In order to effect a distribution or pay a dividend, a board of directors (“Board”) must approve a certificate signed by one of them that in the Board’s opinion, the company will, immediately after payment of the distribution, satisfy the solvency test and the grounds for that opinion (a “Solvency Certificate”). A director who fails to comply with this requirement or signs a Solvency Certificate without having reasonable grounds to do so will be guilty of an offence.

A Board may authorise a distribution or pay a dividend if:-
(a) it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the company will, immediately after the distribution or payment, satisfy the solvency test prescribed by the Law; and
(b) it satisfies any other requirement in its Memorandum and Articles of Incorporation.
For the purposes of the Law, a company satisfies the solvency test if:-
(a) it is able to pay its debts as they become due; and
(b) the value of its assets is greater than the value of its liabilities"

Why? Cause Ferguson and Lederer are such good guys?

Yea "trapped". Trapped into taking down $400M. About the same money they now owe players world wide. Very trapped.

FT didn't care what the DOJ did in past seizures because they were making so much ****ing money they just ate the cost. PokerStars did the exact same thing.

The DOJ also believes online poker is illegal. Nothing is stopping the DOJ from taking all online poker sites to courts for breaking the law over the last decade...

"Facts and information" which are misleading to say the least.

You can build straw men to support whatever story best fits with your attempt to recoup a few thousand dollars, but the best course of action may actually be to stay level-headed and wait for all of the information to come out on both sides.

From here: http://crossborder.practicallaw.com/7-505-4862#a673914

"The Court can declare that any persons who knowingly carried on the business with an intent to defraud creditors, or for any fraudulent purpose, must make any contribution to the company that the Court directs. That person will also be guilty of a criminal offence."

Here is the problem - they didn't eat anything.

If they did, there wouldn't have been problems processing withdrawals before BF. If they did, they would have been able to fulfill the orders made in the FTP store. And most importantly, if they did, they would have paid us back, like PokerStars did.

They can't claim that they ate the cost of the seizures and at the same time say we can't pay you now because of the seizures.