What would ensue if gov't seized nt funds w/o plans of returning them?

[iceman5]

Playing online poker is not illegal so this wont happen.

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing online poker is not illegal so this wont happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it could very easily happen. What percentage of the $55 million do you suppose is attributable to Neteller customers that can prove that the money came solely from poker winnings and other forms of gambling legal in their state, and what percentage do you suppose is attributable to sportsbook winnings or poker winnings from a state where poker is illegal?

The government could easily seize the funds, eventully bring a forfeiture action against the $55 million or get an order in a Neteller case that the $55 million is forfeit, and leave it to the Neteller customers to bring innocent 3rd party claims.

Not all, or even most, of the money the government seized is attributable to legal online poker playing by Neteller customers.

OP: I would prosecute innocent 3rd party claims against the US Attorney.

[Skallagrim]

Do you guys realize there is a BIG difference between seizing funds and forfeiting them? The DOJ can sieze funds it thinks might be illegal, but it takes a COURT OF LAW to transfer (forfeit) those seized funds to the government. In that Court of Law the DOJ has the burden of proving that the funds are illegal gains and subject to forfeiture. How they going to do that? Think Pokerstars will give the DOJ a list of its players and their winnings?

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys realize there is a BIG difference between seizing funds and forfeiting them? The DOJ can sieze funds it thinks might be illegal, but it takes a COURT OF LAW to transfer (forfeit) those seized funds to the government. In that Court of Law the DOJ has the burden of proving that the funds are illegal gains and subject to forfeiture. How they going to do that? Think Pokerstars will give the DOJ a list of its players and their winnings?

[/ QUOTE ]

The burden of proof in a forfeiture proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence standard. Forfeitures of property can occur in criminal cases as well as in civil cases. Yes, it takes a court order. I'd rather not lay out the DOJ's case for them here, but the argument is not terribly difficult to imagine, and there is not likely to be anyone in court that day arguing on behalf of the online poker players/sportsbettors whose money was seized.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys realize there is a BIG difference between seizing funds and forfeiting them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course they do not but even you informing them of the difference in an even-handed, well-written post won't stop idle speculation.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys realize there is a BIG difference between seizing funds and forfeiting them? The DOJ can sieze funds it thinks might be illegal, but it takes a COURT OF LAW to transfer (forfeit) those seized funds to the government. In that Court of Law the DOJ has the burden of proving that the funds are illegal gains and subject to forfeiture. How they going to do that? Think Pokerstars will give the DOJ a list of its players and their winnings?

[/ QUOTE ]

PS would sing like a canary if the DOJ grabbed Moneymaker! On a serious note, thanks for being the voice of reason here (and elsewhere) Skallagrim.

[iceman5]

I really doubt that the motives behind any of this DOJ stuff is to steal / seize / confiscate the funds of American players. Some of you guys have very active imaginations.

[Petomane]

"Playing online poker is not illegal so this wont happen."

It's already happened. And the longer the money stays "frozen", the less likely it'll be returned - not enough outcry.

[iceman5]

The original post is about the government seizing funds WITHOUT PLANS TO RETURN THEM.

Please tell us your source that says this has already happpened. Again, you have an active imagination.

[djoyce003]

how exactly is the us government going to sieze the funds of a foreign bank when that foreign bank didn't break any laws in that country?

Sorry, the DOJ isn't getting any of the funds deposited in NT. NT would be foolish to turn over the funds when they don't have to as they'd be opening themselves up to lawsuits from all their depositors.