Neteller Stock Exchange Statement

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
JC is correct.

This statement is confusing on purpose. Less than 55 million? It could be 100k.

One thing that needs to be considered is that the current Directors of Neteller don't want to be indicted as well, so they will co-operate fully. They don't want to go to jail, but they want to keep their paychecks from running the company.

Pretty obvious they don't have much incentive to pay back the players and much incentive to co-operate fully.

Unless ordered to do so (which never happened in the BOS case), I cannot foresee any possible conclusion to this whereby Neteller pays anyone.

It would be interesting to see what happens if they were ordered by a federal judge to pay people. We could see just how well intended and dedicated these people are to paying everyone their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming that the government doesn't want people to get their money back. I think quite the opposite is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they want everyone to get paid? Because they are good and decent people these prosecutors? Everyone is very naive about the way these people work and think. I think their (the DOJ's) desire to see people get paid back is anywhere from indifferent to vehemently opposed.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was to always try and interpret the motivations and incentives in order to predict a person's future behavior.

Nobody cares if the players get paid back, why should they??

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
JC is correct.

This statement is confusing on purpose. Less than 55 million? It could be 100k.

One thing that needs to be considered is that the current Directors of Neteller don't want to be indicted as well, so they will co-operate fully. They don't want to go to jail, but they want to keep their paychecks from running the company.

Pretty obvious they don't have much incentive to pay back the players and much incentive to co-operate fully.

Unless ordered to do so (which never happened in the BOS case), I cannot foresee any possible conclusion to this whereby Neteller pays anyone.

It would be interesting to see what happens if they were ordered by a federal judge to pay people. We could see just how well intended and dedicated these people are to paying everyone their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming that the government doesn't want people to get their money back. I think quite the opposite is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they want everyone to get paid? Because they are good and decent people these prosecutors? Everyone is very naive about the way these people work and think. I think their (the DOJ's) desire to see people get paid back is anywhere from indifferent to vehemently opposed.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was to always try and interpret the motivations and incentives in order to predict a person's future behavior.

Nobody cares if the players get paid back, why should they??

[/ QUOTE ]

The DoJ are public servants whose mission is to protect the public from criminal activity. It thinks that it is doing that by going after businesses that offer services to US customers that it perceives to be illegal.

I happen not to like what the DoJ is doing, or to agree with that legal interpretation. But the DoJ's job is to ENFORCE THE LAW and that's what it thinks it's doing. It is not behaving maliciously.

I'm not even sure that the DoJ could (permanently) hold customer funds even if it wanted to. My understanding is that it would need to prove that those funds were the result of profits from criminal activity, which would probably require an affirmative ruling that a particular customer violated the Wire Act in connection with particular activity in their Neteller account. That is much much much MUCH more difficult to prove than the BetOnSports case, which rests in part on BoS' policy of taking sports bets over the phone, or the case against the Neteller founders, the backbone of which is really racketeering statutes that have to do with running a gambling racket, rather than participating in one.

Nor does bringing a legal case against an individual bettor really further the public interest. If you look at the USAO's press releases, you'll find that they are not interested in prosecuting what might be called 'victimless crimes', of which playing online poker probably qualifies. They go after drug traffickers, for example, but not drug users, as the latter is small beans for an organization with finite bandwidth and resources.

Just because you don't like that the DoJ is doing doesn't mean that they're out to get you.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
The DoJ are public servants whose mission is to protect the public from criminal activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate, Nate, Nate. Good luck but you are very naive.

[CrazyEyez]

Nate,
I'd like to believe you. But it seems more likely that the DoJ would much rather keep the money themselves (in the form of fines/penalties/what-have-you) than see it returned to citizens so they can tax it. They'd rather cut out the middle man.

[sergsz]

[ QUOTE ]
One key revelation here seems to be that some funds were seized, but only that small minority of funds that were en route when the [censored] hit the fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my funds were in that small minority (I had the good luck of initiating a withdrawal of my entire Neteller balance the day before the arrests), do you think I still stand a decent chance of recovering the funds? Are my chances worse than the chances of customers whose funds were not en route when the [censored] hit the fan?

[KARLC]

That's like saying "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate,
I'd like to believe you. But it seems more likely that the DoJ would much rather keep the money themselves (in the form of fines/penalties/what-have-you) than see it returned to citizens so they can tax it. They'd rather cut out the middle man.

[/ QUOTE ]

What jurisdiction does the DoJ have to keep they money? If they filed a complaint against Neteller and prevailed in court, they could possibly keep Neteller's profits, but that's different from confiscating the funds in what are essentially foreign bank accounts.

[Smoke em']

For what it's worth to everyone I just contacted the USAO press office and was told that 'there is nothing on public record about the seizure'.

I think it is worth our time to write letters to the office explaining that we believe their office may have or be attempting to seize our money and as honest American taxpayers we expect them to promptly return any of our money that they have seized. Political pressure can work on these people but we need to swamp them with letters to get anything done.

Contact information:
Southern District
Michael J. Garcia, USA*
One St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
(212)637-2200 Voice
(212)637-2611 FAX

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
What jurisdiction does the DoJ have to keep they money? If they filed a complaint against Neteller and prevailed in court, they could possibly keep Neteller's profits, but that's different from confiscating the funds in what are essentially foreign bank accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

No funds were seized in foreign banks...it was pending transfers that were in the ACH system that have been frozen.

[bossplayer]

So are you saying that all US funds are not frozen, just what was being transferred?