Does anyone have an exlplanation or theroy as to why with all the sportsbooks, why did the fed's target BETed, which seems to be one of the smaller players???
I realize only the fed knows this for certain, but I would expect Freedom or some one else, with a lot of knowledge in this area, to have some possible explanation or theory.
There had to be some logic to why this particular book was targeted. Was it an easy target, did they piss someone off, did they not cover up their activities as well as other books or some other reason/theory?
If this has been explored previously, I applogize that I missed it.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Does anyone have an exlplanation or theroy as to why with all the sportsbooks, why did the fed's target BETed, which seems to be one of the smaller players???
I realize only the fed knows this for certain, but I would expect Freedom or some one else, with a lot of knowledge in this area, to have some possible explanation or theory.
There had to be some logic to why this particular book was targeted. Was it an easy target, did they piss someone off, did they not cover up their activities as well as other books or some other reason/theory?
If this has been explored previously, I applogize that I missed it.
thats easy. because they broke the law. fyi beted wasnt the only book busted. there are just the only sportsbook to close shop and steal players funds.
0
thats easy. because they broke the law. fyi beted wasnt the only book busted. there are just the only sportsbook to close shop and steal players funds.
I do know the answer to this question. But cannot post publically. You have to ask yourself how did Beted do business with Linwood. How did the two get together. That will answer this question for u
0
I do know the answer to this question. But cannot post publically. You have to ask yourself how did Beted do business with Linwood. How did the two get together. That will answer this question for u
They weren't the only one targeted. 10 books were affected by the sting. The indictments were unsealed 3 days before any accounts and domains were seized. Of the 10 books affected, 9 (not Beted) went on to change their sites domain name and continue business as usual (showing that the account seizures weren't a really big hit or they got their money out beforehand).
The indictments were unsealed on May 20. On the night of May 20, Beted offered a ridiculous 100% bonus on all WU and MG deposits (they refused e-check, probably because they knew the channel for that method was being seized). This appears to be a last minute cash grab before their domain was seized on May 23.
They closed down shop completely. It is presumed they claim to have lost all funds to the DOJ (which is stupid if that's the case because they had a 3 day window to get money out). They also had zero communication to the players. Beted owners indicted went on to deny ownership of the company. From an outside glance, you can piece things together and come to an educated conclusion that they took the deposit bonus money and withdrew some money from the accounts, then denied ownership. They also had a chance to do a bailout but turned it down saying they are looking for better options for the players, then a few days later ceased bailout negotiations alltogether.
The facts here are the indictment date, the ridiculous bonus offer timing, and the day the accounts were seized. What we are waiting for is actually how much money was seized in those accounts (which should be made public eventually) to get a better idea of whether Beted can justify playing the victim or not.
0
They weren't the only one targeted. 10 books were affected by the sting. The indictments were unsealed 3 days before any accounts and domains were seized. Of the 10 books affected, 9 (not Beted) went on to change their sites domain name and continue business as usual (showing that the account seizures weren't a really big hit or they got their money out beforehand).
The indictments were unsealed on May 20. On the night of May 20, Beted offered a ridiculous 100% bonus on all WU and MG deposits (they refused e-check, probably because they knew the channel for that method was being seized). This appears to be a last minute cash grab before their domain was seized on May 23.
They closed down shop completely. It is presumed they claim to have lost all funds to the DOJ (which is stupid if that's the case because they had a 3 day window to get money out). They also had zero communication to the players. Beted owners indicted went on to deny ownership of the company. From an outside glance, you can piece things together and come to an educated conclusion that they took the deposit bonus money and withdrew some money from the accounts, then denied ownership. They also had a chance to do a bailout but turned it down saying they are looking for better options for the players, then a few days later ceased bailout negotiations alltogether.
The facts here are the indictment date, the ridiculous bonus offer timing, and the day the accounts were seized. What we are waiting for is actually how much money was seized in those accounts (which should be made public eventually) to get a better idea of whether Beted can justify playing the victim or not.
It's actually my belief that this situation has more to do with the poker indictments than has been mentioned anywhere.
The elephant in the room regarding the betED indictment is the facts surrounding the amounts of transactions processed.
The press releases indicate 33 million in transactions, of which betED accounted for only about 2.5M and Bookmaker's numbers are not specific other than like 90K going in one direction.
But there is a third, unindicted company that's mentioned prominently in the indictments, which happens to be an e-wallet company that services the poker industry, and Absolute Poker in particular.
So, why is this company, which appears to make up the bulk of the transactions, not indicted?
Probably because they don't have the goods on them yet.
So we have a 2+ year investigation, that only netted a minor operation in betED and another minor figure from Bookmaker, while the poker wallet company gets off scot-free.
This tells me that this investigation was probably wrapped up early, before they had a chance to really attract some beefy perps.
Why would they do that?
Well, what if the AbsolutePoker investigation was about the blow the cover of this processor, Linwood, that was also processing poker transactions? They would have to wrap things up pretty quickly before word got out that this processor was a sting.
So they wrap it up quickly, and they only cases they have are against little old betED and poor AM from Bookmaker. they have to make the best of it.
And to be proactive before people start looking closely, they throw that ridiculous photo-op and take $470K for themselves to cover for the fact that they ran a 2 year investigation and probably spent a HUGE amount of resources and got nothing of substance to show for it.
That's my theory.
0
It's actually my belief that this situation has more to do with the poker indictments than has been mentioned anywhere.
The elephant in the room regarding the betED indictment is the facts surrounding the amounts of transactions processed.
The press releases indicate 33 million in transactions, of which betED accounted for only about 2.5M and Bookmaker's numbers are not specific other than like 90K going in one direction.
But there is a third, unindicted company that's mentioned prominently in the indictments, which happens to be an e-wallet company that services the poker industry, and Absolute Poker in particular.
So, why is this company, which appears to make up the bulk of the transactions, not indicted?
Probably because they don't have the goods on them yet.
So we have a 2+ year investigation, that only netted a minor operation in betED and another minor figure from Bookmaker, while the poker wallet company gets off scot-free.
This tells me that this investigation was probably wrapped up early, before they had a chance to really attract some beefy perps.
Why would they do that?
Well, what if the AbsolutePoker investigation was about the blow the cover of this processor, Linwood, that was also processing poker transactions? They would have to wrap things up pretty quickly before word got out that this processor was a sting.
So they wrap it up quickly, and they only cases they have are against little old betED and poor AM from Bookmaker. they have to make the best of it.
And to be proactive before people start looking closely, they throw that ridiculous photo-op and take $470K for themselves to cover for the fact that they ran a 2 year investigation and probably spent a HUGE amount of resources and got nothing of substance to show for it.
They weren't the only one targeted. 10 books were affected by the sting. The indictments were unsealed 3 days before any accounts and domains were seized. Of the 10 books affected, 9 (not Beted) went on to change their sites domain name and continue business as usual (showing that the account seizures weren't a really big hit or they got their money out beforehand).
The indictments were unsealed on May 20. On the night of May 20, Beted offered a ridiculous 100% bonus on all WU and MG deposits (they refused e-check, probably because they knew the channel for that method was being seized). This appears to be a last minute cash grab before their domain was seized on May 23.
They closed down shop completely. It is presumed they claim to have lost all funds to the DOJ (which is stupid if that's the case because they had a 3 day window to get money out). They also had zero communication to the players. Beted owners indicted went on to deny ownership of the company. From an outside glance, you can piece things together and come to an educated conclusion that they took the deposit bonus money and withdrew some money from the accounts, then denied ownership. They also had a chance to do a bailout but turned it down saying they are looking for better options for the players, then a few days later ceased bailout negotiations alltogether.
The facts here are the indictment date, the ridiculous bonus offer timing, and the day the accounts were seized. What we are waiting for is actually how much money was seized in those accounts (which should be made public eventually) to get a better idea of whether Beted can justify playing the victim or not.
10 Books were not targeted. 4 companies were.
1. BETED
2. k23 (like 6 books, two poker rooms and a bingo site)
3. Usemywallet (Online Wallet/Processor) This company was not indicted because they BARELY did any volume with linwood. Not enough volume to warren an indictment.
4. Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet (They were not indicted because SDNY already did. The GOV just stole their money)
Bookmaker had been tipped off of the events of Blue Monday days before. Just look at the date they registered bmaker.ag Was on May 19th. NOT A COINCIDNENCE. They are also big enough to shrug this off, because they certainly have more bank accounts. Beted unfortunetly probably just had those 2 accounts.
The bonus is just bullshit. They offered this same bonus 4-5 other times this year. This IS a coincidence.
Again, like I said in this thread, why were these four companies targeted? So wide of a spectrum. And people say why Beted why Beted. Again brings me to my original question: How did Linwood penetrate these companies? See if you can figure this one out.
Freedom please PM me. We need to talk
0
Quote Originally Posted by jdamon26:
They weren't the only one targeted. 10 books were affected by the sting. The indictments were unsealed 3 days before any accounts and domains were seized. Of the 10 books affected, 9 (not Beted) went on to change their sites domain name and continue business as usual (showing that the account seizures weren't a really big hit or they got their money out beforehand).
The indictments were unsealed on May 20. On the night of May 20, Beted offered a ridiculous 100% bonus on all WU and MG deposits (they refused e-check, probably because they knew the channel for that method was being seized). This appears to be a last minute cash grab before their domain was seized on May 23.
They closed down shop completely. It is presumed they claim to have lost all funds to the DOJ (which is stupid if that's the case because they had a 3 day window to get money out). They also had zero communication to the players. Beted owners indicted went on to deny ownership of the company. From an outside glance, you can piece things together and come to an educated conclusion that they took the deposit bonus money and withdrew some money from the accounts, then denied ownership. They also had a chance to do a bailout but turned it down saying they are looking for better options for the players, then a few days later ceased bailout negotiations alltogether.
The facts here are the indictment date, the ridiculous bonus offer timing, and the day the accounts were seized. What we are waiting for is actually how much money was seized in those accounts (which should be made public eventually) to get a better idea of whether Beted can justify playing the victim or not.
10 Books were not targeted. 4 companies were.
1. BETED
2. k23 (like 6 books, two poker rooms and a bingo site)
3. Usemywallet (Online Wallet/Processor) This company was not indicted because they BARELY did any volume with linwood. Not enough volume to warren an indictment.
4. Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet (They were not indicted because SDNY already did. The GOV just stole their money)
Bookmaker had been tipped off of the events of Blue Monday days before. Just look at the date they registered bmaker.ag Was on May 19th. NOT A COINCIDNENCE. They are also big enough to shrug this off, because they certainly have more bank accounts. Beted unfortunetly probably just had those 2 accounts.
The bonus is just bullshit. They offered this same bonus 4-5 other times this year. This IS a coincidence.
Again, like I said in this thread, why were these four companies targeted? So wide of a spectrum. And people say why Beted why Beted. Again brings me to my original question: How did Linwood penetrate these companies? See if you can figure this one out.
I don't think the bonus is a coincidence. I just checked my emails and looking all the way back to last August, no sign of any 100% bonus...and it's not like I rarely received email offers from them. I got emails once to twice a week. I should also state that on February 2, I got an email offer titled "Our Biggest Bonus Ever- 45 Percent for Super Bowl 45".
Also, how can one confirm that bookmaker changed their domain on May 19th? I'm not saying you're lying, but I just don't believe it until I can confirm it.
Either way, I'm not buying the same bonus 4-5 other times this year, considering this happened in May so that would mean that this offer would have been on the table almost monthly. Also, I checked my emails and saw nothing to support the claim. Even if Beted has just those 2 accounts as claimed, how is it they weren't able to get money out of those accounts of Friday late afternoon, Saturday (if the banks were open on Saturday), or Monday morning before the seizure (unless the seizure happened at 9AM or something)? I'm not buying that Beted is innocent in all of this.
0
I don't think the bonus is a coincidence. I just checked my emails and looking all the way back to last August, no sign of any 100% bonus...and it's not like I rarely received email offers from them. I got emails once to twice a week. I should also state that on February 2, I got an email offer titled "Our Biggest Bonus Ever- 45 Percent for Super Bowl 45".
Also, how can one confirm that bookmaker changed their domain on May 19th? I'm not saying you're lying, but I just don't believe it until I can confirm it.
Either way, I'm not buying the same bonus 4-5 other times this year, considering this happened in May so that would mean that this offer would have been on the table almost monthly. Also, I checked my emails and saw nothing to support the claim. Even if Beted has just those 2 accounts as claimed, how is it they weren't able to get money out of those accounts of Friday late afternoon, Saturday (if the banks were open on Saturday), or Monday morning before the seizure (unless the seizure happened at 9AM or something)? I'm not buying that Beted is innocent in all of this.
2. k23 (like 6 books, two poker rooms and a bingo site)
3. Usemywallet (Online Wallet/Processor) This company was not indicted because they BARELY did any volume with linwood. Not enough volume to warren an indictment.
4. Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet (They were not indicted because SDNY already did. The GOV just stole their money)
Bookmaker had been tipped off of the events of Blue Monday days before. Just look at the date they registered bmaker.ag Was on May 19th. NOT A COINCIDNENCE. They are also big enough to shrug this off, because they certainly have more bank accounts. Beted unfortunetly probably just had those 2 accounts.
The bonus is just bullshit. They offered this same bonus 4-5 other times this year. This IS a coincidence.
Again, like I said in this thread, why were these four companies targeted? So wide of a spectrum. And people say why Beted why Beted. Again brings me to my original question: How did Linwood penetrate these companies? See if you can figure this one out.
Freedom please PM me. We need to talk
I dont like riddles.
Just tell us how linwood penetrated these companies if you know.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hobsjeff:
10 Books were not targeted. 4 companies were.
1. BETED
2. k23 (like 6 books, two poker rooms and a bingo site)
3. Usemywallet (Online Wallet/Processor) This company was not indicted because they BARELY did any volume with linwood. Not enough volume to warren an indictment.
4. Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet (They were not indicted because SDNY already did. The GOV just stole their money)
Bookmaker had been tipped off of the events of Blue Monday days before. Just look at the date they registered bmaker.ag Was on May 19th. NOT A COINCIDNENCE. They are also big enough to shrug this off, because they certainly have more bank accounts. Beted unfortunetly probably just had those 2 accounts.
The bonus is just bullshit. They offered this same bonus 4-5 other times this year. This IS a coincidence.
Again, like I said in this thread, why were these four companies targeted? So wide of a spectrum. And people say why Beted why Beted. Again brings me to my original question: How did Linwood penetrate these companies? See if you can figure this one out.
Freedom please PM me. We need to talk
I dont like riddles.
Just tell us how linwood penetrated these companies if you know.
2. k23 (like 6 books, two poker rooms and a bingo site)
3. Usemywallet (Online Wallet/Processor) This company was not indicted because they BARELY did any volume with linwood. Not enough volume to warren an indictment.
4. Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet (They were not indicted because SDNY already did. The GOV just stole their money)
Bookmaker had been tipped off of the events of Blue Monday days before. Just look at the date they registered bmaker.ag Was on May 19th. NOT A COINCIDNENCE. They are also big enough to shrug this off, because they certainly have more bank accounts. Beted unfortunetly probably just had those 2 accounts.
The bonus is just bullshit. They offered this same bonus 4-5 other times this year. This IS a coincidence.
Again, like I said in this thread, why were these four companies targeted? So wide of a spectrum. And people say why Beted why Beted. Again brings me to my original question: How did Linwood penetrate these companies? See if you can figure this one out.
Freedom please PM me. We need to talk
I just dug up 8 emails that go back to December and the best offer i see is 30% March Madness. Jdamon says there was a 45% super bowl offer but there was NEVER a 100% offer. If you believe that is a coincidence, you got to be a complete moron.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hobsjeff:
10 Books were not targeted. 4 companies were.
1. BETED
2. k23 (like 6 books, two poker rooms and a bingo site)
3. Usemywallet (Online Wallet/Processor) This company was not indicted because they BARELY did any volume with linwood. Not enough volume to warren an indictment.
4. Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet (They were not indicted because SDNY already did. The GOV just stole their money)
Bookmaker had been tipped off of the events of Blue Monday days before. Just look at the date they registered bmaker.ag Was on May 19th. NOT A COINCIDNENCE. They are also big enough to shrug this off, because they certainly have more bank accounts. Beted unfortunetly probably just had those 2 accounts.
The bonus is just bullshit. They offered this same bonus 4-5 other times this year. This IS a coincidence.
Again, like I said in this thread, why were these four companies targeted? So wide of a spectrum. And people say why Beted why Beted. Again brings me to my original question: How did Linwood penetrate these companies? See if you can figure this one out.
Freedom please PM me. We need to talk
I just dug up 8 emails that go back to December and the best offer i see is 30% March Madness. Jdamon says there was a 45% super bowl offer but there was NEVER a 100% offer. If you believe that is a coincidence, you got to be a complete moron.
I don't think the bonus is a coincidence. I just checked my emails and looking all the way back to last August, no sign of any 100% bonus...and it's not like I rarely received email offers from them. I got emails once to twice a week. I should also state that on February 2, I got an email offer titled "Our Biggest Bonus Ever- 45 Percent for Super Bowl 45".
Also, how can one confirm that bookmaker changed their domain on May 19th? I'm not saying you're lying, but I just don't believe it until I can confirm it.
Either way, I'm not buying the same bonus 4-5 other times this year, considering this happened in May so that would mean that this offer would have been on the table almost monthly. Also, I checked my emails and saw nothing to support the claim. Even if Beted has just those 2 accounts as claimed, how is it they weren't able to get money out of those accounts of Friday late afternoon, Saturday (if the banks were open on Saturday), or Monday morning before the seizure (unless the seizure happened at 9AM or something)? I'm not buying that Beted is innocent in all of this.
I don't think the bonus is a coincidence. I just checked my emails and looking all the way back to last August, no sign of any 100% bonus...and it's not like I rarely received email offers from them. I got emails once to twice a week. I should also state that on February 2, I got an email offer titled "Our Biggest Bonus Ever- 45 Percent for Super Bowl 45".
Also, how can one confirm that bookmaker changed their domain on May 19th? I'm not saying you're lying, but I just don't believe it until I can confirm it.
Either way, I'm not buying the same bonus 4-5 other times this year, considering this happened in May so that would mean that this offer would have been on the table almost monthly. Also, I checked my emails and saw nothing to support the claim. Even if Beted has just those 2 accounts as claimed, how is it they weren't able to get money out of those accounts of Friday late afternoon, Saturday (if the banks were open on Saturday), or Monday morning before the seizure (unless the seizure happened at 9AM or something)? I'm not buying that Beted is innocent in all of this.
My 100% match was for a "new account/1st deposit".
Thats makes sense for a first deposit. Ive been getting emails from beted for 3 years and have never seen a 100% reload offer...NEVER until they knew they were closing
0
Quote Originally Posted by THEYTOOKRJOB:
My 100% match was for a "new account/1st deposit".
Thats makes sense for a first deposit. Ive been getting emails from beted for 3 years and have never seen a 100% reload offer...NEVER until they knew they were closing
I do know the answer to this question. But cannot post publically. You have to ask yourself how did Beted do business with Linwood. How did the two get together. That will answer this question for u
Yep. We have a winner.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hobsjeff:
I do know the answer to this question. But cannot post publically. You have to ask yourself how did Beted do business with Linwood. How did the two get together. That will answer this question for u
They weren't the only one targeted. 10 books were affected by the sting. The indictments were unsealed 3 days before any accounts and domains were seized. Of the 10 books affected, 9 (not Beted) went on to change their sites domain name and continue business as usual (showing that the account seizures weren't a really big hit or they got their money out beforehand).
The indictments were unsealed on May 20. On the night of May 20, Beted offered a ridiculous 100% bonus on all WU and MG deposits (they refused e-check, probably because they knew the channel for that method was being seized). This appears to be a last minute cash grab before their domain was seized on May 23.
They closed down shop completely. It is presumed they claim to have lost all funds to the DOJ (which is stupid if that's the case because they had a 3 day window to get money out). They also had zero communication to the players. Beted owners indicted went on to deny ownership of the company. From an outside glance, you can piece things together and come to an educated conclusion that they took the deposit bonus money and withdrew some money from the accounts, then denied ownership. They also had a chance to do a bailout but turned it down saying they are looking for better options for the players, then a few days later ceased bailout negotiations alltogether.
The facts here are the indictment date, the ridiculous bonus offer timing, and the day the accounts were seized. What we are waiting for is actually how much money was seized in those accounts (which should be made public eventually) to get a better idea of whether Beted can justify playing the victim or not.
There are actually two companies whose "owners" have been indicted. BetEd and some other one.
Others only had their domain names seized.
The only long term investigation was of BetEd. That investigation started immediately on the heels of the Bodog bust and seizure of $20 million, the indictment of two Bodog frontmen for running US based processors, and the very mysterious disappearance of all PACER file materials a couple of months later, and their failure to reappear again.
That tells me that either a cooperation deal was struck, or that the original investigation, which really was an investigation of Calvin Ayre, concluded that there was an ongoing special reason to now target BetEd.
If it was cooperation, I doubt the deal was struck with Ayre specifically, because the DOJ would never agree to let him keep on running Bodog taking US customers. So that leaves a deal with the two others who were indicted. The dropping of their charges in exchange for very very helpful cooperation is within the powers of a USA.
The only info these guys could give would be on Calvin,
0
Quote Originally Posted by jdamon26:
They weren't the only one targeted. 10 books were affected by the sting. The indictments were unsealed 3 days before any accounts and domains were seized. Of the 10 books affected, 9 (not Beted) went on to change their sites domain name and continue business as usual (showing that the account seizures weren't a really big hit or they got their money out beforehand).
The indictments were unsealed on May 20. On the night of May 20, Beted offered a ridiculous 100% bonus on all WU and MG deposits (they refused e-check, probably because they knew the channel for that method was being seized). This appears to be a last minute cash grab before their domain was seized on May 23.
They closed down shop completely. It is presumed they claim to have lost all funds to the DOJ (which is stupid if that's the case because they had a 3 day window to get money out). They also had zero communication to the players. Beted owners indicted went on to deny ownership of the company. From an outside glance, you can piece things together and come to an educated conclusion that they took the deposit bonus money and withdrew some money from the accounts, then denied ownership. They also had a chance to do a bailout but turned it down saying they are looking for better options for the players, then a few days later ceased bailout negotiations alltogether.
The facts here are the indictment date, the ridiculous bonus offer timing, and the day the accounts were seized. What we are waiting for is actually how much money was seized in those accounts (which should be made public eventually) to get a better idea of whether Beted can justify playing the victim or not.
There are actually two companies whose "owners" have been indicted. BetEd and some other one.
Others only had their domain names seized.
The only long term investigation was of BetEd. That investigation started immediately on the heels of the Bodog bust and seizure of $20 million, the indictment of two Bodog frontmen for running US based processors, and the very mysterious disappearance of all PACER file materials a couple of months later, and their failure to reappear again.
That tells me that either a cooperation deal was struck, or that the original investigation, which really was an investigation of Calvin Ayre, concluded that there was an ongoing special reason to now target BetEd.
If it was cooperation, I doubt the deal was struck with Ayre specifically, because the DOJ would never agree to let him keep on running Bodog taking US customers. So that leaves a deal with the two others who were indicted. The dropping of their charges in exchange for very very helpful cooperation is within the powers of a USA.
The only info these guys could give would be on Calvin,
It's actually my belief that this situation has more to do with the poker indictments than has been mentioned anywhere.
The elephant in the room regarding the betED indictment is the facts surrounding the amounts of transactions processed.
The press releases indicate 33 million in transactions, of which betED accounted for only about 2.5M and Bookmaker's numbers are not specific other than like 90K going in one direction.
But there is a third, unindicted company that's mentioned prominently in the indictments, which happens to be an e-wallet company that services the poker industry, and Absolute Poker in particular.
So, why is this company, which appears to make up the bulk of the transactions, not indicted?
Probably because they don't have the goods on them yet.
So we have a 2+ year investigation, that only netted a minor operation in betED and another minor figure from Bookmaker, while the poker wallet company gets off scot-free.
This tells me that this investigation was probably wrapped up early, before they had a chance to really attract some beefy perps.
Why would they do that?
Well, what if the AbsolutePoker investigation was about the blow the cover of this processor, Linwood, that was also processing poker transactions? They would have to wrap things up pretty quickly before word got out that this processor was a sting.
So they wrap it up quickly, and they only cases they have are against little old betED and poor AM from Bookmaker. they have to make the best of it.
And to be proactive before people start looking closely, they throw that ridiculous photo-op and take $470K for themselves to cover for the fact that they ran a 2 year investigation and probably spent a HUGE amount of resources and got nothing of substance to show for it.
That's my theory.
As theories go, that's a good one.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:
It's actually my belief that this situation has more to do with the poker indictments than has been mentioned anywhere.
The elephant in the room regarding the betED indictment is the facts surrounding the amounts of transactions processed.
The press releases indicate 33 million in transactions, of which betED accounted for only about 2.5M and Bookmaker's numbers are not specific other than like 90K going in one direction.
But there is a third, unindicted company that's mentioned prominently in the indictments, which happens to be an e-wallet company that services the poker industry, and Absolute Poker in particular.
So, why is this company, which appears to make up the bulk of the transactions, not indicted?
Probably because they don't have the goods on them yet.
So we have a 2+ year investigation, that only netted a minor operation in betED and another minor figure from Bookmaker, while the poker wallet company gets off scot-free.
This tells me that this investigation was probably wrapped up early, before they had a chance to really attract some beefy perps.
Why would they do that?
Well, what if the AbsolutePoker investigation was about the blow the cover of this processor, Linwood, that was also processing poker transactions? They would have to wrap things up pretty quickly before word got out that this processor was a sting.
So they wrap it up quickly, and they only cases they have are against little old betED and poor AM from Bookmaker. they have to make the best of it.
And to be proactive before people start looking closely, they throw that ridiculous photo-op and take $470K for themselves to cover for the fact that they ran a 2 year investigation and probably spent a HUGE amount of resources and got nothing of substance to show for it.
There are actually two companies whose "owners" have been indicted. BetEd and some other one.
Others only had their domain names seized.
The only long term investigation was of BetEd. That investigation started immediately on the heels of the Bodog bust and seizure of $20 million, the indictment of two Bodog frontmen for running US based processors, and the very mysterious disappearance of all PACER file materials a couple of months later, and their failure to reappear again.
That tells me that either a cooperation deal was struck, or that the original investigation, which really was an investigation of Calvin Ayre, concluded that there was an ongoing special reason to now target BetEd.
If it was cooperation, I doubt the deal was struck with Ayre specifically, because the DOJ would never agree to let him keep on running Bodog taking US customers. So that leaves a deal with the two others who were indicted. The dropping of their charges in exchange for very very helpful cooperation is within the powers of a USA.
The only info these guys could give would be on Calvin,
Not bad. Pretty close, but far off. Why BETED? Still doesn't answer the question in this thread. How did they even hear about Beted?
No deal was ever struck with Bodog. Maybe the processors who got nabbed, but never with Bodog.
0
Quote Originally Posted by PaddyMacR:
There are actually two companies whose "owners" have been indicted. BetEd and some other one.
Others only had their domain names seized.
The only long term investigation was of BetEd. That investigation started immediately on the heels of the Bodog bust and seizure of $20 million, the indictment of two Bodog frontmen for running US based processors, and the very mysterious disappearance of all PACER file materials a couple of months later, and their failure to reappear again.
That tells me that either a cooperation deal was struck, or that the original investigation, which really was an investigation of Calvin Ayre, concluded that there was an ongoing special reason to now target BetEd.
If it was cooperation, I doubt the deal was struck with Ayre specifically, because the DOJ would never agree to let him keep on running Bodog taking US customers. So that leaves a deal with the two others who were indicted. The dropping of their charges in exchange for very very helpful cooperation is within the powers of a USA.
The only info these guys could give would be on Calvin,
Not bad. Pretty close, but far off. Why BETED? Still doesn't answer the question in this thread. How did they even hear about Beted?
No deal was ever struck with Bodog. Maybe the processors who got nabbed, but never with Bodog.
Not bad. Pretty close, but far off. Why BETED? Still doesn't answer the question in this thread. How did they even hear about Beted?
No deal was ever struck with Bodog. Maybe the processors who got nabbed, but never with Bodog.
Yep, that's what I said. But the processors don't make a deal without Cal's approval.
I don't thing there was a deal with Bodog. It would be a scandal for the DOJ.
At some point in this process, the sting operators either have to make an approach to BetEd to provide processing, or BetEd approaches them. If the latter is the case, its likely the person who led BetEd to the sting is working with the DOJ.
But why BetEd. It isn't much of a catch.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hobsjeff:
Not bad. Pretty close, but far off. Why BETED? Still doesn't answer the question in this thread. How did they even hear about Beted?
No deal was ever struck with Bodog. Maybe the processors who got nabbed, but never with Bodog.
Yep, that's what I said. But the processors don't make a deal without Cal's approval.
I don't thing there was a deal with Bodog. It would be a scandal for the DOJ.
At some point in this process, the sting operators either have to make an approach to BetEd to provide processing, or BetEd approaches them. If the latter is the case, its likely the person who led BetEd to the sting is working with the DOJ.
The way I heard it, betED's referral came from a banker or another processor. Somebody they trusted anyway, and probably had no idea themselves.
But that's another question I have. I heard some stories that Linwood was operating for a while beforehand, so it's possible that they found an already operating company (possibly Linwood was already in shit with the DOJ?) and converted them over to a sting.
Time to call Dun and Bradstreet.
0
Not necessarily, Paddy.
The way I heard it, betED's referral came from a banker or another processor. Somebody they trusted anyway, and probably had no idea themselves.
But that's another question I have. I heard some stories that Linwood was operating for a while beforehand, so it's possible that they found an already operating company (possibly Linwood was already in shit with the DOJ?) and converted them over to a sting.
Court filings in Maryland say that in January and February a total of
$14.2 million was seized from accounts in the name of JBL Services and
Transaction Solutions at Wachovia, Regions Bank, BkofAma and Sun Trust
Bank. In July, filings say, another $9.9 million was found in eight
accounts at Nevada State Bank, a unit of Zion Bancorporation (nasdaq:
ZION - news - people ), in the name of Zaftig Instantly Processed
Payments, doing business as ZipPayments.com. The companies are described
as helping to facilitate parts of the Bodog operation.
The court papers detail an elaborate international structure put
together to allow Bodog to collect money and write checks to winning
gamblers in the U.S. One affidavit by Randall S. Carrow, a special agent
with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's Criminal Investigation
Division, said that $248 million involving entities linked to Bodog was
processed through Wachovia Bank, from which $11 million of the $24
million was seized.
In a statement to Forbes, Wachovia said the bank cooperated with law
enforcement, doesn't knowingly allow Internet gaming operations to open
accounts, and the funds ending up at the bank were in accounts of a
third-party CC servicer. The statement also hinted that various accounts
might have been kept open at the request of investigators to aid their
efforts.
According to Carrow's detailed sworn statements, the IRS's Criminal
Investigation Division started looking at Bodog in 2003 and opened a
formal probe in 2006. The extensive sleuthing has involved close
examination of public and bank records, the enlisting of unnamed
cooperating witnesses and informants, and undercover efforts to make
bets on football and collect winnings.
Ayre, says Carrow's statement, is president of Middleton Financial, a
Nevada corporation described as a key cog in the U.S. Bodog machinery,
as well as Stratham Finance, said to be based in Malta. Other entities
linked to Ayre in the court filings are Gateway Financial Services,
EBanx Ltd., Gregor Financial Ltd. and Calvtek Industries. The filings
list dozens of businesses involved in processing Bodog transactions.
Wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that someone inside Bodog was leaned on and was used as an informant.
0
Court filings in Maryland say that in January and February a total of
$14.2 million was seized from accounts in the name of JBL Services and
Transaction Solutions at Wachovia, Regions Bank, BkofAma and Sun Trust
Bank. In July, filings say, another $9.9 million was found in eight
accounts at Nevada State Bank, a unit of Zion Bancorporation (nasdaq:
ZION - news - people ), in the name of Zaftig Instantly Processed
Payments, doing business as ZipPayments.com. The companies are described
as helping to facilitate parts of the Bodog operation.
The court papers detail an elaborate international structure put
together to allow Bodog to collect money and write checks to winning
gamblers in the U.S. One affidavit by Randall S. Carrow, a special agent
with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's Criminal Investigation
Division, said that $248 million involving entities linked to Bodog was
processed through Wachovia Bank, from which $11 million of the $24
million was seized.
In a statement to Forbes, Wachovia said the bank cooperated with law
enforcement, doesn't knowingly allow Internet gaming operations to open
accounts, and the funds ending up at the bank were in accounts of a
third-party CC servicer. The statement also hinted that various accounts
might have been kept open at the request of investigators to aid their
efforts.
According to Carrow's detailed sworn statements, the IRS's Criminal
Investigation Division started looking at Bodog in 2003 and opened a
formal probe in 2006. The extensive sleuthing has involved close
examination of public and bank records, the enlisting of unnamed
cooperating witnesses and informants, and undercover efforts to make
bets on football and collect winnings.
Ayre, says Carrow's statement, is president of Middleton Financial, a
Nevada corporation described as a key cog in the U.S. Bodog machinery,
as well as Stratham Finance, said to be based in Malta. Other entities
linked to Ayre in the court filings are Gateway Financial Services,
EBanx Ltd., Gregor Financial Ltd. and Calvtek Industries. The filings
list dozens of businesses involved in processing Bodog transactions.
Wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that someone inside Bodog was leaned on and was used as an informant.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
