Towerflower said:
His statement is largely valid and frankly it should be obvious as to why. Honestly, while I applaud you for trying to do something (assuming your intentions are pure, as others seem to be questioning them), I don't see you getting anywhere with taking this to court. I get that it's perhaps more an issue of principal, a way of formal protest and trying to attract attention to the situation. That's great, and if that's the whole point here, then more power to you.
But realistically, even if the DoJ took it up as a criminal case, secured an indictment, and a US court ruled against Lock, it would totally be up to Lock to surrender themselves to the judgment voluntarily. AFAIK the US has no jurisdiction in or treaty with Curacao beyond a tax treaty with the Netherlands (Curacao is a territory of the Netherlands). Curacao has very lax business license requirements, and their eGaming licenses are easy to get and hard to lose, with no formal complaint process in place. That's why they're such a popular place for such things. And you're talking about a civil case, which has much less international clout and reach than a Federal criminal case.
Look at Black Friday -- the only action the DoJ could take against PokerStars, Full Tilt, and AP/UB was seizure of funds that they had access to through US or Allied financial institutions, and the seizure of US web server assets. The only people they could actually touch (i.e. arrest and/or seize assets from) were the US-based management and payment processors. They could not actually shut the companies down directly, because they were all offshore. PS continued to operate and prosper after BF. FT tried to continue as well but were already (unknown to the world yet) operating in the red and the overnight loss of 80% of their market finished them off. And AP/UB were pretty much a scam anyway who just cut & run afterwards with no real consequences other than loss of future revenue as a gaming site.
Lock is not a business operating under US jurisdiction (for what should be obvious reasons). Virtually all online gaming sites that accept US players go out of their way to base themselves in jurisdictions that have little or no legal treaties with the US. In order for any legal judgment to actually mean anything, it has to be enforceable, either directly or through agreement with local authorities. Calvin Ayre has been a US fugitive for like a decade, yet Bodog still thrives and he maintains public and online appearances to this day, he's just careful not to put himself in a situation where a sympathetic US authority might catch and extradite him.
With businesses like Lock there is little to no accountability to US players or to the US government -- the only real motivation (aside from ethics and morals) for them not to screw their customers is so they can keep and grow their business, as would any well-run company like PokerStars. If they lose (or never had) such a motivation in the first place, then they simply don't give a crap and can pretty much rest easy knowing they're pretty much out of legal reach. Especially if they're "taking care" of their host country through taxes and other local economy boosts. Every dollar they bring in is theirs to do with as they please, and I think Lock long ago crossed that threshold. Obviously they care nothing for the poker players that have already given them money, and are counting on revenue from new players who are ignorant of the situation to keep the money flowing.
This is why the US needs online poker regulation, so that US players can be protected from such exposure. Until then, we have to police ourselves and communicate by word of mouth. Which is actually pretty effective -- Lock is a mere shell of their former size and revenue stream. Most of the player funds that are tied up have probably been spent already, they're likely depending on the trickle of new deposits to keep the lights on. It sucks for those that got screwed, but the backlash has damaged their future revenue potential far more than any empty US legal judgment could.
nowitsover said:
No one is buying... Getting .01 per dollar will be the only way I can see you getting anything unless you sell to some one who doesn't know Locks situation and even then you better hope they don't use Google.
You may be able to sell to players who play at Lock still...
Thanks for your response dmorris68!dmorris68 said:
1) Everyone who says that "we can´t take them to court", should be able to explain why(based on facts and not based on personal thinkings or sights).
2) There are minimum 3 jurisdictions involved, but yes(as you have correctly analysed), not the US.
3) Everyone who misleads victims with their personal thinkings and or sights(which have in most cases no relation to the reality), supports Lock and other shady sites with their ongoing scam.
4) If you want to try that authorities step in, you need proof of the damage. The more victims are involved and the higher the damage is(you can provide), the higher is the chance that an or the authorities will step in.
5) If you cannot find an authority to step in, then you can at least publicise that you have an approved damage of $ "xy" mio., with "xy" victims involved and that the authority(s) "xy" is not willing to step in, although it would be obliged.
I have so far offers from news sites and will gladly publicise the outcome of this as well here on cardchat.
We umderstand
We understand completely. We have all, or most of us, have been ripped off by one poker site or another.
Seem Uncle Sam would regulate it for our protection.
mike
We understand completely. We have all, or most of us, have been ripped off by one poker site or another.
Seem Uncle Sam would regulate it for our protection.
mike
Dmo explained why we can´t bring these criminals to an US court or why the DOJ can´t step in, but he didn´t explain why we can´t bring them to one of the minimum 3 other courts(outside the US).S3mper said:
I never heard that an US citizen can´t sue someone at a court outside the US and I have no knowledge about that Jennifer & co have legal immunity.
mange1234 said:
I'm not sure it would be so much protection, it is more for an extra income for them to waste. Also with regulation, poker will never be like it was pre black friday, I imagine, less bonuses, less rakeback, hopefully the withdrawal fees will be less, but that is about it.
http://www.pocketfives.com/f10017/lock-poker-tied-canadian-real-estate-company-688311/
interesting ....Lock's payout service JDB Service is also tied in. gross
interesting ....Lock's payout service JDB Service is also tied in. gross
I've been waiting over 18 months for my payout. I've already mentally kissed it good bye. I e-mail Lock support every so often and just get their standard BS. I truly believe that they have no intention of ever paying me.
I'm trying to warn others. When I'm playing online now at other sites like Bovada I'm posting in the chat "DON'T PLAY AT LOCK - NOT HONORING PAYOUTS". Others should be warned. I hope others start doing something similar. If we can drive down Lock traffic maybe they will abandon the business. I'm sure some will say something like "If they go bankrupt, they will never be able to pay". Hey, get some brains. They aren't going to pay anyway. Maybe we can hurt them some. What are they going to do? Take us to court?
I'm trying to warn others. When I'm playing online now at other sites like Bovada I'm posting in the chat "DON'T PLAY AT LOCK - NOT HONORING PAYOUTS". Others should be warned. I hope others start doing something similar. If we can drive down Lock traffic maybe they will abandon the business. I'm sure some will say something like "If they go bankrupt, they will never be able to pay". Hey, get some brains. They aren't going to pay anyway. Maybe we can hurt them some. What are they going to do? Take us to court?