http://www.gambling911.com/

hope they win.....

Good read. Thanks for POsting

Win what?

Seems beyond obvious they were breaking a ton of laws in order to transfer money...

 

Originally Posted by I Suckout

You fight federal government and you will lose. There is no such thing as early release. The parties involved will spend.many years behind bars. They better make a decent or as decent a plea they can get. The money laundering alone is dam tight. Billing people for comic books and condoms to bypass the banking system is pretty blatant fraud.

who are yo udefrauding?

 

Originally Posted by I Suckout

Listen, not saying they are defrauding players, but there are strict rules in place regarding the US banking.system. Using fraud or deceit to by-pass the banks in order to process a poker.transaction and the fact.the UGIEA prohibits banks.from dealing with online sites I would.say makes a strong case. How many people.do you see beat the feds in court? I am being devils advocate, that's all

Not a lawyer, but from what I understand there has to be a victim for there to be fraud, and there has to be an underlying crime for there to be money laundering. So, if those statements are actually correct I don't think the gov. case is really that tight. Still would be a pain in the ass/ risky for the individuals to fight though.

 

Originally Posted by shakhtar

You obviously have either not read the final Fed Reserve regulations pertaining to UIGEA, or your just not very bright. Strict rules in place? The rules are so ambiguous and vague, that you can hardly even call them rules, let alone describe them as strict. To keep this brief, I won't recite the actual regulations, but with the exception of credit and debit cards (which are more stringent in enforcement), a bank DOES NOT have to block ACH,wire, or check payments related to unlawful internet gambling to be in compliance with the final rule.

Why do you think the DOJ makes so many plea deals? Because they get beat in court often. The reason they don't go to trial is that they intimidate the accused with 50 year sentences. And considering most of the people they indict are multi-millionaires, how many do you think want to leave the fate of possibly spending the rest of their life in a cage up to a jury, when they can do 9 months in a country club and then go back to their beach houses, yachts, and 25 year old girlfriends?

This is a unique case, in that usually bank fraud charges involve a banks money getting stolen, not a bank RECEIVING money. And since an appeals court has already ruled that the Wire Act of 1961 relates only to sports betting, and NOT poker, there is a viable scenario that no laws have actually been broken.

It it sad that so many citizens are so cowardly and indoctrinated with state sponsored propaganda, that they forget that the US Constitution limits the authority of the Federal Government, especially when it come to banking. The interstate commerce clause does not give them cart blanche like they would have you believe. The Feds are usually just hired goons doing the dirty work to protect someones private interests or political agenda. Not to mention, blatant thieves who can seize assets quite easily as burdens of proof don't apply towards asset forfeiture as much as they do in criminal cases.

Someday when you have time, go ahead and research all the cases that the Federal government loses in court. When your done, I'm sure you won't repeat your last sentence.

Pretty interesting for your first post on here!

 

Originally Posted by shakhtar

You obviously have either not read the final Fed Reserve regulations pertaining to UIGEA, or your just not very bright. Strict rules in place? The rules are so ambiguous and vague, that you can hardly even call them rules, let alone describe them as strict. To keep this brief, I won't recite the actual regulations, but with the exception of credit and debit cards (which are more stringent in enforcement), a bank DOES NOT have to block ACH,wire, or check payments related to unlawful internet gambling to be in compliance with the final rule.

Why do you think the DOJ makes so many plea deals? Because they get beat in court often. The reason they don't go to trial is that they intimidate the accused with 50 year sentences. And considering most of the people they indict are multi-millionaires, how many do you think want to leave the fate of possibly spending the rest of their life in a cage up to a jury, when they can do 9 months in a country club and then go back to their beach houses, yachts, and 25 year old girlfriends?

This is a unique case, in that usually bank fraud charges involve a banks money getting stolen, not a bank RECEIVING money. And since an appeals court has already ruled that the Wire Act of 1961 relates only to sports betting, and NOT poker, there is a viable scenario that no laws have actually been broken.

It it sad that so many citizens are so cowardly and indoctrinated with state sponsored propaganda, that they forget that the US Constitution limits the authority of the Federal Government, especially when it come to banking. The interstate commerce clause does not give them cart blanche like they would have you believe. The Feds are usually just hired goons doing the dirty work to protect someones private interests or political agenda. Not to mention, blatant thieves who can seize assets quite easily as burdens of proof don't apply towards asset forfeiture as much as they do in criminal cases.

Someday when you have time, go ahead and research all the cases that the Federal government loses in court. When your done, I'm sure you won't repeat your last sentence.

Weird, plenty of attorneys say just the opposite, that the DOJ almost never loses at trial after an indictment. Surely there must be some data to back up one of these positions.

Why isn't this guy running the PPA?

 

Originally Posted by bonflizubi

either way - I don't know the stat....

But, regardless, a plea deal is like a chop. takes less time and reduces variance.

ha, as a former crim def attorney, i know that...i was referring to him saying the DOJ loses a ton at trial...i heard elsewhere they almost NEVER lose at trial...so that was what I was trying to reconcile

 

Originally Posted by unta

Why isn't this guy running the PPA?

No doubt..

Plea deal at the Federal level are real BS. I have experience with the wrong side of the gov't stick. I ran a multi million dollar residential construction / remodeling company. I did hundreds of jobs for granda ma's, MSA president, lawyers, doctors, and regular people. I did very well but was just a guy with 4 trucks 12 employees and a home office.I had no business training.

For 10 years I did great work and busted my butt. My overhead was $15,500 before i got a cheeseburger and I felt responsible for a dozen guys and their families. I got burnt for a considerable amount of money by a big company that went bankrupt. I tried to come out of it but the comingled funds that went to operating left me in a bad spot. With no intention of committing a crime I effectivley stole over $100,00 from several customers by taking deposits and not starting the jobs on time.

The Pa Attorney General came after me like I never did a job and was just taking the money and running. I lost everything including my freedom for 2 years over less than a $100K. The first offer was for 8-16 years. $50k to the lawyer later and the balance of my house to pay some back 15-30 months. All for a headline and a conviction. 6-12 more months and I would have voluntarily returned the money.

The whole time in jail I read the newspaper with CEO's stealling tens of and hundreds of millions getting plea bargins to return a small fraction of what they stole while retaining assets like summer homes. They intentionally did this stuff for years, WTF.

AND the Feds have like a 90% conviction rate.

How much justice can you afford? That is the real question. And hope to God they don't want to make an example for the groundswell of public opinion.

By the way I'm not saying I was innocent I just had no intention of commiting any crime. I accepted the consequences and feel terrible.

[QUOTE=TheVillageGrinder;6313422]Shakhtar-very interesting stuff that has got my mind running.

A.) To you, or others who may know, do we really think that FTP and the other convicted sites actually plan on defending themselves vs these charges? I just figured that most of these guys would just never come to the US again, knowing that they won't be extradited by the countries they live in since those countries don't recognize what they did as a crime. Couldn't the indicted simply raise their middle finger to DOJ and be done with it?

B.) We've heard about the deals that the sites have struck with the DOJ to regain their .com domain names. Were the terms of those deals ever made public. Obviously we've all seen the indictments. Is there any way to view what deal was signed between the sites and the DOJ?

C.) What about the civil cases? If the defendants just choose to blow off the charges and remain outside of US jurisdiction, what leverage, if any, does the DOJ have in terms of trying to get them to pay back the $3B they want?

D.) Sort of related to A-but what do we know, if anything, about anything the sites have already done in an effort to defend themselves versus the charges made? FTP said they intend to mount a vigorous defense, have they take any steps in that direction? Is there any publicly available info/documents showing what they've done/intended to do?

If anyone has any info about any of this or any links, I'd really appreciate it. I'd like to dig in t


geiser, I feel for you my friend. You are a prime example of how how you, unknowingly, and without intent, got reamed , albeit on a small scale. As.far as ambiguity goes regarding the UGIEA, the scales of.justice, at least in a federal case, are tipped toward the government. This clouded law benefits not he online.poker community, but the government.

Meant to quote geisser