Yeah then obv you owe it, don't think anyone could doubt that.

I'm sure some stuff will come to light that proves whether he did or didn't, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the concept that Alec would owe anything if he wasn't aware that the money was stolen.

Hope this doesn't turn into a thread like the perky/onepac disaster though!

But this is the thing. Alec HELPED steal it. Whether he knew it or not, Alec engaged in some pretty shady behavior by agreeing to break the ToS and dump such a huge amount of money when it should send off huge warning signs that he can't just have it transferred and can't even talk on the phone while dumping. He may have unwittingly assisted in the theft, but he still did so. It is very different than perky just transferring him stolen money and him being totally innocent in all of it.

Alec seems to now KNOW he was paid with stolen money, and you can't argue he didn't help steal it, regardless of whether the latter was intentional.

While I agree he'd be less likely to be obligated to pay the victim if he was just handed the stolen money, and to give a really sensational hypothetical, what would you do if you got 100k from someone in a fair way (handed to you or transferred legally to you with seemingly no strings) and then find out that a girl was kidnapped and abused to hell until her parents agreed to give the kidnapper 100k which then went to you. I am sure many would return that money.

this hypothetical obviously has to be changed so that the 100k you received was owed to you.

its also very difficult to conceptualize unless you are used to dealing with that amount of money.

Yeah man, he obviously acquired the money illegally, I just don't think it matters as to whether he owes the money since I think they are separate issues. Like yeah maybe he should be punished for chip dumping (not now, too far in the past) but I don't think just the fact that he was willing to partake in shady dealings to get paid changes whether he owes the backer the $ or not.

Also I don't necessarily think it should have set off alarm bells. Perky is pretty infamous for being very erratic and just acts weird with $ in general. Also as you acknowledged, that hypothetical changes everything and in that situation I'd give the $ back mainly because I'd feel so sorry for what the people had to go through etc etc. Don't think it's particularly relevant.

Whatever though, I'm no master in ethics so I'll stop posting in this thread until new info comes to light. I'm sure Alec has made up his mind as to whether he owes the original backer any $ or not and I doubt he'll change it because some 2p2ers think he owes.

Do your thing viff!

It's tough to define later. I can't imagine anyone turning away a verifiable claim to the money if it occured, say, 5 minutes after the payment was made. Or an hour. Or a day. If the backer's claim is valid then I don't understand why there's a time limit.

OP stated..

Which bothers me. OP extended credit to Perky. He fails to see why he should assume responsibility for the risk he exposed himself to. OP, you were getting freerolled the entire time because you made a bad loan, why should a third party pay the consequences on your behalf?

Edit to add: It's clear that Alec was not directly involved in the theft and did not have prior knowledge of Perky's plan to screw his backer. Perky is the real villain here.

Second edit: My politics posting is the nut low, you should de-friend that person ASAP

Alec made up his mind when he found out perky wasnt paying him and they came up with a plan to get money from a 3rd party.


Alec " perky where is my money "

Perky " sorry bro i cant pay, let me light a joint and see what i can come up with. "

Alec " come on man you lost just pay me, what can we do to resolve this "

Perky " well this guy will stake me to play you hu and i can dump chips to you "

Alec " man i dont know, but if thats the only way im going to get paid i guess "

Perky " ok lets do this. **** alec is so bad im beating him and cant make things look so bad. Alec when i do this im bluffing so do what you have to!!!"

Alec " man that was fun, glad i got paid, ow let me go judge others and tell everyone how ethical i am. Also anyone that says different has it out for me!! "

I like how Torelli claims to be one of the most upstanding and ethical actors in the poker community; failing to realize that loaning money to a pill addict and degenerate gambler, while fully intending to exploit that person by playing heads up poker with him while he's known to be at his worst- in terms of card-playing and living with severe addiction, has to be one of the most unethical schemes ever concocted.

Further, Torelli claims that the poker community is full of highly ethical people... What a sham. Was that statement seriously said in ignorance? If every single poker player is not in debt, then they are likely someone's creditor. Everyone I know has debts owed to them that they have come to accept will never be collected. And if there are a few subjects out there who are themselves neither a debtor or a creditor in this community, then they are not more than one person removed from a player that is.

Further, Torelli has the audacity to permanently display the indignation of Perky... it's not enough for Alec to simply live his life knowing that he's the benefactor of someone-else's ill fate, he feels proud to remind everybody in his circle of friends, every day and every where he goes, exactly who has taken advantage of. Nobody would buy this movie.

So, you even resort to pal around with your victim? You rejoice. Assured that he would forever know how you have lavished yourself at his expense. Even after biting the hand that fed you, you could never get enough. You would return day after to have a lick of blood.

If I were the director of this movie, I would have directed Perky to put a screwdriver in your throat the moment he set foot in your TYPERKY car. Alas, this is not a movie. In real life, PERKY has treated you better than anyone you have ever come across in your life - and now that you have ventured to post this information to a public forum, you have opened yourself up to a personal defamation lawsuit that perky would most definitely win.

Ask yourself, "is it worth it for you to lose everything over 85k?" Everything you have reaped from a person controlled by hormones that led them to the verge of ruin. Now you seek to ruin his reputation and/or his family's- isn't that the purpose of this this thread? You, yourself have inquired to perky as to his intention to pay you off 85k. So if the debt is legitimate, the respectable action is to file a lawsuit against him. What you have done here is intentional defamation, and I expect perky will recover a bit more than 85k if he or his family should find this thread defaming them.

viffer that is conjecture

oh you, stop being so modest

If this is what happened, I REALLY hope it comes to light

I mean which version of the story is more likely? That perky had to chipdump on FTP for some strange reason instead of a transfer, which Alec was 100pct unaware of the reason and didn't question it.....or that he knew what was going on and accepted it.

The guy offered to escrow 50K. I am assuming there are texts or Emails or something to back this up. Would he risk 50K that someone would take Perkys word alone and rule in his favor?

Ebarnet,

I'm very impressed with your points. You're a very good writer, far better than I. Unfortunately for me, you don't seem to agree with anything I say The only thing you left out, was perhaps that he has stolen millions from the poker community and I'm not sure how crucified one should be for exposing that. Nobody seems to defend Chino...

I should apologize for the way I came across earlier in my postings. I seem to have taken a "holier than tho" attitude which I don't feel is representative of the way I feel. It's often hard to convey things when you can't see the emotions behind it (precisely why texting is so inefficient). I've done plenty of things in my life that I'm not proud of, this being one. I'm far from perfect and don't claim to be. As for my role on the ethics committee, I can name plenty of people who would be better suited for job than myself.

As for the writing style, it's something I enjoy deeply and any opportunity to articulate a point I view as an exercise to improve upon the craft.

Insideman,

I like your hypothetical situation, however it has one flaw. Had I lost the 150,000, I would have paid, thus I was getting free rolled. As for the situation with Perky and his backer, looking back on the situation, I'm pretty sure that Perky was backed the entire time we played, both for the freezeouts and before/after. Assuming this were true, then he lost the money to me regardless and while I acknowledge that he chose to send the money wasn't the best, it would inevitably be the same result.

SoLost,

I appreciate what you said. You put it best, those who know Perky can attest that he does a lot of weird things, many of which don't make sense, like playing the best players in the world for millions of dollars and cross booking. I'm not proud of the chip dumping, but I was 19 at the time and faced between that or potentially not getting paid, I did it. I'm not happy with chip dumping and yes, I broke the ToS.

Viffer,

As for the 85,000 loan, that's easy to explain. Perky and I loaned money plenty of times, all of which got paid back. We played freezeouts on credit. We played heads up live on credit. At that time, many people in the high stakes community would loan money without any thought. You get burned a few times and you learn. My opinion of Perky only changed after this situation and after he decided to not repay me. In fact, and this is quite embarrassing, I actually took a piece of him in a game at Commerce where he lost something like $100,000. Why I did it, I have no idea.

It appears to me like you knew perky was staked when he chipdumped to you.

i remember railing the 200 400 nl games that ran all the time on Full Tilt back in 2006-2007, and by far the biggest **** talker /deuchbag was traheho, not even close, i mean grimstarr would spazz out after he sucked out but he wasnt talking ****, just being grimstarr. pretty lol how you went from that to the whole im so intelligent image.

Krmont22,

I am saying that looking back on the situation, meaning knowing what I know now, 5 years later, it seems like he had a backing deal the entire time. Like I said, I was 19 having the opportunity to play Perky heads up, I knew he was a rich trust fund kid, I didn't think to inquire about where he got his money. I'm pretty sure nobody cared. Why would they?

Even today, I don't inquire about where people get money. Its none of my business.

IHaveStrong9,

You are right, and I apologize. I was a little ****** at the time and notoriously berated short stacks or whoever sucked out on me. I mistakingly thought it was a fun game, like the kids who play Call of Duty. It was wrong of me, especially since the stakes were so high, but I hope you know there's a fine line between playful banter and stealing money.

If I ever meet you, punch me once and I'll still buy you a drink. We'll call it even?

Alec

Who cares? It might make it slightly more likely that he has something to cover up with this image, but I mean cmon people change all the time. Pretty sure if I was playing the stakes I am now 3 years ago I would act like a little sht and trashtalk all the time. I pretty much never ****-talk at the tables now.

edit: traheho there's really no need to apologise for being a douche at the tables 3 years ago. It happens to a lot of people, very easy to act in ways you're not proud of when you're a 19 year old playing a 'fun game' for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's really no big deal.

Some other interesting things about this:

Had I the choice between being 150,000 poorer and having a perfect reputation or keeping the 150 and being convicted of this alleged theft, I would snap take the former. Then I thought about just paying the 150,000, to be done with it, but the action itself would be an admission of a crime which I am not guilty. I would gladly give it back, well not gladly, but I would if I thought I had stolen the money.

TwoPlusTwo is quite addicting. I never post on here, and now, like the family who tunes into a major criminal case on TV, I find myself clicking refresh on this page throughout the day. Personally, when it comes to 2p2, the lines seem to blur between finding information and addiction. That being said, I am leaving on vacation on Saturday for 5 days and won't be bringing a computer or cell phone. I won't be posting during that time and if this gets dragged out, I apologize for my absence. I will say, it would really suck to be a celebrity. No wonder they go crazy when they read the tabloids.

I do not know any of the parties involved but here are my thoughts:

Alec's claim to deny any knowledge of accepting perky's money in the form of c-dumping can't be proven to be 100% false unless perky were to come forward. If Alec wants to play dumb and just say that he was playing a fish all along and he won that money legitimately you can't prove otherwise.

But krmont22 really hit it on the head... which is more likely: that perky had to chipdump on FTP for some strange reason instead of a transfer, which Alec was 100pct unaware of the reason and didn't question it.....or that he knew what was going on and accepted it.

Like another person ITT said, c-dumping can be innocent at times, however it is still against the ToS/T&C, and it can be just as malicious as any other form of cheating.

If Alec were to give back 150k, it would not necessarily be out of an admission of guilt, but can be out of good faith so long as the other party were to agree that Alec did nothing wrong. I understand this case would be unlikely.

If someone can confirm that there was a bet-sizing tell in order to signal alec during these games to indicate whether he was bluffing or not i think that is a huge factor in determining whether Alec had knowledge he was accepting stolen/backed money during this play. My reasoning behind this is that Alec would have to question why there would have to be a bet-sizing tell in order to indicate bluffing...

I am not on anybody's side of the matter, but that is just my thought process/conclusion from reading the thread. I think when we judge this type of matter it is important to note that "beyond all doubt" is going to be impossible to prove... what we should look for is what is "reasonable doubt"

"This is not even remotely true. If someone embezzled money from their employer, deposited the money onto an online poker site and chip dumped it to me to pay a debt, and I had no knowledge of the situation/embezzlement and then 5 years later the company came and tried to collect the money from me; I wouldn't owe that money, the person who stole it would.

Obviously in this case Perky owes his former backer the money not Alec. Alec, would only be guilty in this situation and owe money if 2 things are true:

1. Perky Wasn't backed for the FREEZEOUT matches he played
2. Perky told him he was stealing from his backer."

Im pretty sure this is not true legally. Everyone that collected from Madoff was forced to pay back all profits and in the poker world the people that won money from the LA games where the money was stolen (remember the tobey/leo headlines). and number 2 is clearly the issue and it seems quite obvious that there were bad intentions betting certain numbers when bluffing clearly that is going beyond chip dumping and clearly trying to hide it from someone on perkys side. it is far more suspicious to the site that you catch every bluff rather than talking on the phone and waiting for a colddeck situation and put it all in. imo viffer is clearly correct and alec was well aware that he was stealing from someone even if he didnt know who the someone is.

makes no sense why you would start this thread when you had no shot of collecting a dollar

You don't have to actually know the money was stolen.
If it is reasonable to assume the funds are fraudulent/stolen then you take on some responsibility.

The responses from traheho, #138 and after are so manipulative it's tilting the **** out of me.

If you are aware of theft amounting to millions of dollars, then you call the police, or the FBI. What is wrong with you?

You need to press charges for what you're alleging(it's called fraud, and is punishable in civil and criminal court), not defame people in public.

anyone with a rough idea of how much perky has lost and how much to Alec? Did he really make a huge difference in his life?

Exactly. The standard is whether a reasonable person would know the funds were stolen. In this case, using chip dumping over a transfer combined with bet size signals instead of an IM or phone chat indicates something nefarious was going on.

Also Alec, for future reference... slander is limited to speech. Libel is written or published.