History of Big Top Poker Chips (1 Viewer)

How many tens hundreds of thousands did they collectively profit on the resale market? It would be an easy conviction if Paulson wanted to press charges.
GIVNCn5XwAAs8eb.jpeg
 
Not to be pedantic, but there is no universe where a US Attorney would consider wasting resources on this. Now, a civil suit? Perhaps. But as noted in this thread, there are legion reasons why that would almost assuredly never happen. Sorry to break it to you, but your fever dreams of being Paulson’s star witness are just that. Sorry, Matlock…case dismissed.

View attachment 1292381

Like I said. We are in agreement they have openly confessed to felonies. Now they are at the mercy of Paulson and the US government to do as they wish.
 
Like I said. We are in agreement they have openly confessed to felonies. Now they are at the mercy of Paulson and the US government to do as they wish.

Civil suit will "Almost assuredly never happen"? You might be deluding yourself. Depends on how seriously Paulson values its reputation.
 
I don't really care either way.

Dude. This post was dead for 5 years until you brought it back to life & now you won't stop trying to convince people you're right . Don't tell me you don't really care because that's BS.

Also good luck trying to work with people here buying or selling chips in the future. You're gonna need it.
815fa910-91f6-49e8-a7bf-c177a583fbcf_text.gif
 
Dude. This post was dead for 5 years until you brought it back to life & now you won't stop trying to convince people you're right . Don't tell me you don't really care because that's BS.

Also good luck trying to work with people here buying or selling chips in the future. You're gonna need it.
View attachment 1292417

Everyone implicitly agrees I'm right. They committed fraud. They could easily be convicted of felonies. But nobody gives a shit. That's the end of the thread.
 
Like I said. We are in agreement they have openly confessed to felonies. Now they are at the mercy of Paulson and the US government to do as they wish.
Civil suit will "Almost assuredly never happen"? You might be deluding yourself. Depends on how seriously Paulson values its reputation.
@gopherblue

What do you think "waste of resources" is code for?
Everyone implicitly agrees I'm right. They committed fraud. They could easily be convicted of felonies. But nobody gives a shit. That's the end of the thread.

Err. No. Just stop it.

121C2E60-FC27-429A-95AF-1251881D5E80.gif
 
Federal prosecutor here. I've actually prosecuted wire fraud and mail fraud and I will also say that this would probably be a low priority for most offices (I can't speak for the DOJ as a whole obviously). That being said, it would depend on the specific facts as to whether it even amounted to criminal fraud in the first place. I don't know what information was provided to GPI, but my guess is that as long as fraudulent licensing, forged documents, or bribery of an employee weren't used, it may not even amount to something criminal. It might be a civil suit, but then the question becomes, "Why would GPI want to make it public that their internal controls/security allowed this to happen?"
 
Federal prosecutor here. I've actually prosecuted wire fraud and mail fraud and I will also say that this would probably be a low priority for most offices (I can't speak for the DOJ as a whole obviously). That being said, it would depend on the specific facts as to whether it even amounted to criminal fraud in the first place. I don't know what information was provided to GPI, but my guess is that as long as fraudulent licensing, forged documents, or bribery of an employee weren't used, it may not even amount to something criminal. It might be a civil suit, but then the question becomes, "Why would GPI want to make it public that their internal controls/security allowed this to happen?"
@BarbaraBooey143 is getting lawyered so hard up in here. So hard.
 
Federal prosecutor here. I've actually prosecuted wire fraud and mail fraud and I will also say that this would probably be a low priority for most offices (I can't speak for the DOJ as a whole obviously). That being said, it would depend on the specific facts as to whether it even amounted to criminal fraud in the first place. I don't know what information was provided to GPI, but my guess is that as long as fraudulent licensing, forged documents, or bribery of an employee weren't used, it may not even amount to something criminal. It might be a civil suit, but then the question becomes, "Why would GPI want to make it public that their internal controls/security allowed this to happen?"
What are you? Some sort of lawyer or something. Psshhh...

......oh...wait....
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom