LEGAL RIGHTS OF PLAYERS WITH UNPAID ACCOUNT BALANCES A PPA INFORMATION GUIDE

The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) believes that one of the most pressing issues for American poker players at the present time is the return of player funds by the online poker sites who ceased accepting US business in response to the cases filed against them or their alleged owners on April 15, 2011. To date, only one site, PokerStars, has made available the full return of all player funds it held on behalf of their U.S. players. The failure of FullTiltPoker (FTP) and UltimateBet/AbsolutePoker (UB/AP) to return funds has caused significant hardship to poker players and the PPA will do everything and anything it can to help obtain prompt repayment to all affected players. The PPA and its legal team have spent the past several weeks examining the legal options for the PPA to directly involve itself in the return of players funds. It is a complex matter to say the least, and after careful review, there is not a viable legal option for the PPA to raise a legal claim at this juncture. We have determined that individuals whose funds are still withheld have the most valid legal claim to their money. The PPA is a grassroots organization representing the players and does not have the necessary legal standing to initiate a successful legal action. Rightly, the PPA continues to focus its resources on legislative action to establish regulated Internet poker where American consumers can play on U.S. licensed web sites and also be provided full access to the U.S. legal system, something that is painfully absent today. Nevertheless, the PPA believes that it has an obligation to empower the individual players with information on what they can do to help secure the return of their funds, since many of our members are wondering what legal options they may have. This document, prepared by legal experts for the PPA, attempts to answer those concerns. (Again, this is provided only as a resource to our members and we urge anyone who is interested in pursuing any legal action to obtain their own legal counsel.) 1) THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT PLAYERS HAVE AN ENFORCEABLE LEGAL RIGHT AGAINST ANY POKER SITE THAT FAILS TO RETURN THEIR ACCOUNT BALANCES. Generally speaking, gambling debts are not enforceable in a court of law. A player account balance, however, is not a gambling debt. When a player deposits money on a poker site, there is no "spin of the wheel" to determine whether that money remains the players or becomes the property of the house. A player deposit on a poker site is a contractual relation between the player and the site under which the site agrees to hold the player's money to facilitate its use on the site and to return the players money upon the players request (with some contractual limitations at some sites). Under standard principles of law and equity there is little dispute that a poker site which has accepted the money of a player has an obligation to return that money to the

player (unless specifically agreed otherwise: for example, some sites have had time limits specified as to how long a player had to wait after a deposit before asking for that money to be returned). Accordingly, when a poker site refuses to return a player's account balance, the poker site is acting contrary to its contractual obligations and/or its equitable duty. This is clearly a basis for a valid lawsuit. But merely having a basis for a valid lawsuit does not mean filing a lawsuit is the best course of action for each individual player. Even where it is clear that the lawsuit is likely to result in a judgment in the player's favor, there are additional concerns which must be considered: A) The cost of the lawsuit Lawyers are expensive. Lawyers having to track down defendants in foreign jurisdictions are even more expensive. There is always a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done with respect to initiating a lawsuit. Certain lawyers take cases on what is known as a contingency fee basis. In this situation, the lawyer is paid by retaining a percentage of what is collected from the lawsuit. This has the benefit of saving the client from having to spend significant out-of-pocket money, but in the long run generally results in the lawyer actually being paid more than if an hourly billing system was used. Also, usually lawyers working on a contingency fee basis still expect the client to pay fees associated with the lawsuit. And a lawsuit that crosses national borders almost always has high fees. It is quite permissible for a lawyer to represent multiple plaintiffs if all are similarly situated and there exists no conflict of interest between them. This method of retaining one lawyer for a large group of plaintiffs has the obvious benefit of reducing each plaintiff's overall costs, especially if working with a lawyer on an hourly billing basis. B) The likelihood of collecting on the judgment It is possible to file a lawsuit against a site that refuses to pay in the U.S. courts. These sites clearly have done enough business in the U.S. that a U.S. court would have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute between the player and the site. That the sites routinely state in their terms of service that disputes must be filed in their foreign courts is just as routinely ignored in most U.S. courts. But obtaining personal jurisdiction over the sites so that the lawsuit can proceed may be a very different situation. Depending on the state or Federal court in which the suit is filed, a specific sort of process and notice to the defendant site will be required. Unless the site has some asset or other physical presence in the U.S., this could require the initiation of some sort of overseas process, which while not impossible, is more difficult and more expensive.

If jurisdiction is established, a judgment for the plaintiffs in a case like this is almost certain. But a judgment is merely a piece of paper. Enforcing a judgment is another process. Unless the defendant site was willing to voluntarily pay (in which case one would assume the lawsuit was unnecessary to begin with), a plaintiff with a judgment will need to take further action in order to get paid. Such an action usually entails attempting to gain control of some asset of the defendant site, either a building, a bank account, rights to software, or other tangible thing of value. The problem here is again that the sites in question seem to have no assets in the U.S. So once again having to take action in a foreign jurisdiction where site assets are located would be required, In light of all the above, certain lawyers may conclude that simply filing the lawsuit in the foreign jurisdiction to begin is the preferred way to proceed. This will again increase expense, however, and require lawyers who are licensed to practice in the foreign jurisdiction. C) The possibility of the lawsuit creating collateral problems. Lastly, a potential plaintiff needs to be fully aware of all possible consequences of participating in a lawsuit. While lawsuits may be filed in many cases with mere allegations, ultimately lawsuits require proof. Obtaining that proof is done through a process lawyers call "discovery." Discovery can involve answering many questions, usually under oath. In this regard a potential plaintiff needs to be sure that participating in the case will not lead to the disclosure of harmful information. Lawsuits are public documents and can be viewed by anyone. Accordingly, winning players in some states may open themselves up to being sued for winning, as happened recently to a group of players in Illinois who published their winning ways online. Also, law enforcement authorities may be interested in information that clearly establishes a person as one how has wagered on online poker - in at least one state such an action is clearly illegal (WA) and in many other states the issue is very open. Of course no state has yet to actually prosecute a person for playing online poker, but the possibility cannot be ignored. And finally, tax authorities in various states may also take an interest in a lawsuit that claims substantial sums as winnings. Obviously, whether any of these concerns apply to an individual will depend on the individual, as will whether any of these potential negative consequences outweigh the interest in the return of the money. And finally on this subject, if the site is actually trying to repay players but merely having difficulty doing so, filing a lawsuit against that site will only make the voluntary process less likely to complete itself as the site seeks to insure proper legal response rather than just mere repayment. SUMMARY: Players, especially players owed substantial sums, should definitely speak with their own lawyer about whether it is in their interest to file a lawsuit either individually or as a self-defined group of similarly situated players. They must balance the costs and risks against the benefit of having an actual judgment to enforce in a foreign court or a foreign bankruptcy proceeding.

2) THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ALL OR SOME PLAYERS HAVE ANY RIGHT TO SEEK REPAYMENT FROM THE FUNDS HELD IN THE ACCOUNTS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. It has been well reported and documented that contemporaneous with the filing of the April 15, 2011, indictments against the site owners and their payment processors, the Federal Government initiated substantial forfeiture actions against site assets and specifically moved to freeze bank accounts used by the sites to hold substantial funds. Subsequently the Federal Government has taken legal proceedings to declare these funds forfeited to the Federal Government as the "proceeds" of illegal activity. Many players believe that a substantial reason they have not been paid as of yet is that these seized funds represent a significant amount of the sites assets, though exact figures are not yet public knowledge. So, players ask, how about seeking to get player money from the money seized by the Government? Answering this question is enormously complex, and whether and how to seek to do it (or not) will once again depend on the specific circumstances of the individual player. For players to determine that answer for themselves, the basic principles of Federal Forfeiture must be understood and discussed with private counsel. A) The basics of Federal Forfeiture proceedings Federal Forfeiture is a highly specialized legal process that operates under its own set of rules. The basic principle is that property used in or obtained from illegal activity becomes "illegal proceeds" and should be made the property of the government as a means of further deterring illegal activity. Property used in or obtained from activities which violate any of the various Federal antigambling laws are declared illegal proceeds subject to forfeiture by 18 U.S.C. 981 of the U.S. Code. Property used in or obtained from activities which violate bank fraud and wire fraud laws are also declared illegal proceeds subject to forfeiture by 18 U.S.C. 981 of the U.S. Code. The definition of "proceeds" is found at Title 18, section 981 and reads: (A) In cases involving illegal goods, illegal services, unlawful activities, and telemarketing and health care fraud schemes, the term proceeds means property of any kind obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of the commission of the offense giving rise to forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, and is not limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense. (B) In cases involving lawful goods or lawful services that are sold or provided in an illegal manner, the term proceeds means the amount of money acquired through the illegal transactions resulting in the forfeiture, less the direct costs incurred in providing the goods or services. The claimant shall have the burden of proof with respect to the issue of direct costs. The direct costs shall not include any part of the overhead expenses of the entity providing the goods or services, or any part of the income taxes paid by the entity."

Under this statute, if offering online poker was illegal, then pretty much every penny collected by and in the possession of the sites is "proceeds" and forfeitable. If offering online poker was legal, then the "proceeds" are only the profits made from the alleged bank fraud and any other alleged illegal money transfers. Federal Forfeiture comes in two varieties, criminal and civil. With respect to the April 15th cases and the assets seized, the government has filed both a criminal forfeiture case and a civil forfeiture case. With respect to criminal forfeiture proceedings, the rules do not allow the filing of a claim by third parties until the criminal case has ended with a finding of guilty and the court has issued an order of forfeiture with respect to the assets. At that time, and only at that time, may third parties claim and present an interest in the property to be considered by the court. These rules are found at Title 18, Section 982. With respect to civil forfeiture proceedings, third parties are allowed to file claims against the property in question at the beginning of the process and their claims must be addressed before any other order is made regarding the property. There are significant and specific limitations on this process however. Third party claims filed in civil forfeiture proceedings must be filed within 60 days of the Governments first publication of notice of its intent to seek forfeiture. With respect to the April 15th cases, the government's notice was first published on May 16, 2011, and so the deadline to file claims is July 15, 2011. A copy of the published notice is attached to this document as Appendix A. B) The important details regarding filing a claim in a pending civil forfeiture case 1. The basic procedure. The basic procedure for filing a claim in a civil forfeiture case is, thankfully, relatively straight forward. The specific requirements are spelled out in Rule G of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, section 5 of which states: (a) Filing a Claim. (i) A person who asserts an interest in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action is pending. The claim must: (A) identify the specific property claimed; (B) identify the claimant and state the claimants interest in the property; (C) be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury; and (D) be served on the government attorney designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or (b)(ii)(D) A sample claim form is attached to this document as Appendix B. The details for (A) and (D) with respect to the April 15th cases can be found in the notice that is Appendix A. Clearly, filing a claim is simple and designed to be capable of being done without an

attorney. But the process does not stop with the mere filing of a claim and so proceeding without an attorney is not advisable for the following two reasons: 1) Rule G,5 (b) requires that "A claimant must serve and file an answer to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 within 21 days after filing the claim. A claimant waives an objection to in rem jurisdiction or to venue if the objection is not made by motion or stated in the answer" and 2) Title 18, United States Code, Section 983(h)(1), permits a court to impose a civil fine on anyone asserting an interest in property which the court determines was frivolous. ANYONE CONSIDERING FILING A CLAIM SHOULD DEFINITELY CONSULT AN ATTORNEY 1) TO ADVISE THEM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEIR SPECIFIC CLAIM IS FRIVOLOUS AND, 2) PRIOR TO ATTEMPTING TO FILE THE FORMAL PLEADING CALLED THE ANSWER . 2. Specific concerns regarding player claims in the April 15th civil cases a) When is claim frivolous? A claim can be considered frivolous when there exists no legal basis for the claim even if everything the claimant says is true. The legal basis for a third party claim is set out in Title 18, Section 983 of the U.S, code. Essentially, a player can either claim to be an owner of the property and that the property is not subject to forfeiture, or a player can claim to be an innocent owner of the property who should not be harmed by the government forfeiting the property. The first step in either of these claims is establishing some form of ownership of the property. This is a significant hurdle with respect to the seized accounts. It is clear that no player had any control over any of the accounts that would normally be present with "ownership" (you could not go to the bank and ask to have "your" funds withdrawn from the account, for example). The fact that cash is fungible is also recognized in the Federal Statutes. Title 18 section 984 has specific provisions applicable to the seizure and forfeiture of cash. Here is the main one about funds in bank accounts: "(1) In any forfeiture action in rem in which the subject property is cash, monetary instruments in bearer form, funds deposited in an account in a financial institution (as defined in section 20 of this title), or precious metals (A) it shall not be necessary for the Government to identify the specific property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture; and (B) it shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an offense has been removed and replaced by identical property." The bottom line here is that a player is not an "owner" of funds held in an account owned by a poker site simply because the site is legally obligated to return the player's account balance. - It is important to note here that some players appear to have a unique situation with respect to cases other than the April 15th cases. Specifically, some e-wallets are reporting to their customers that money sent directly to them was seized by the U.S. government in transit. A seizure of a wire in transit directed to a specific player is a vastly

different situation, there is little doubt as to who is the "owner" of the funds being transferred in that situation. A check drawn on a seized account is another clear indication of an ownership interest. There is a legal way around the general problem of ownership, and that is the doctrine of "Constructive Trust." Basically, a person who uses fraud to obtain the transfer of ownership of property from another can be deemed a "constructive trustee" rather than an owner of the property. Fraud occurs when the person accepting property promises to use the property for certain purposes and in certain ways that are beneficial to the person giving the property but then fails to live up to the terms of the promise. In New York law (since the April 15th cases are in New York), a constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed to prevent unjust enrichment. (Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119 [1976]). The following elements must be established to state a claim for this type of relief: (1) a confidential or fiduciary relation; (2) a promise; (3) a transfer in reliance thereon; and (4) unjust enrichment (Id. at 121). So, if a "constructive trust" can be established, the law then declares that the property which looks like it is owned by one person is declared to actually be owned by another. In this situation, if the sites are declared constructive trustees, then the money in the seized accounts is not owned by them, but is owned by the folks who gave the sites the property: the players. The Constructive Trust has been successfully used in certain contexts. United States v. $4,224,958.57 (Boylan), 392 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Shefton, 548 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 2008). Whether a "constructive trust" can be established on the facts surrounding the April 15th cases is a difficult question. There clearly was a transfer made in reliance on a promise (you sent the site money based on the promise that the money would be returned at your request - after adjusting for wins and losses of course). But there was nothing confidential about the relationship, it was a normal business activity. Was the relationship fiduciary? That seemingly depends on the specifics of the promise that sites made to the players. A site that specifically promised to keep your account balance funds in a segregated trust account would likely fit the definition of fiduciary -- but only if the site that made that specific promise. It is also true, however, that many players, especially players at high volume or at high stakes, and some who used affiliates to sign up, had other communications with these sites. These other communications may contain promises that do rise to the level of creating a fiduciary relationship. As such, there may be many players out there with sufficient personal promises received from a site that may be sufficient to establish the required fiduciary relationship. But obviously that will vary from specific player to specific player. Assuming an ownership interest can be alleged in the claim, there are still problems and issues. The most common form of a claim in a civil forfeiture case is that of an "innocent owner." Generally an "innocent owner" is a person who had no idea that the property in question

was being used for illegal purposes, such as when you loan your car to someone not knowing that the someone intends to use the car to facilitate a drug deal. But there are some specific provisions in the law that limit the applicability of the "innocent owner" doctrine to poker players. These limitations are found in Title 18, Section 983. First, subsection (1) provides that: "With respect to a property interest in existence at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture took place, the term innocent owner means an owner who (i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or (ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property" It would be impossible for a player to say that he or she did not know that the "property in question (their transferred funds) would be used to play online poker. A claim that the player was unaware that conducting an online poker operation in the U.S. was illegal would have the obvious difficulty of overcoming the doctrine that "ignorance of the law is not an excuse." Furthermore, subsection 2 of the statute clearly codifies the need to state more in a claim as an "innocent owner" than simply that the site owes you money: "In this subsection, the term owner (A) means a person with an ownership interest in the specific property sought to be forfeited, including a leasehold, lien, mortgage, recorded security interest, or valid assignment of an ownership interest; and (B) does not include (i) a person with only a general unsecured interest in, or claim against, the property or estate of another; (ii) a bailee unless the bailor is identified and the bailee shows a colorable legitimate interest in the property seized; or (iii) a nominee who exercises no dominion or control over the property" Lastly, a player who could otherwise establish an ownership interest in the property might choose to assert that the property is not subject to forfeiture because conducting an online poker operation in the U.S. is not illegal, and therefore the money is not subject to forfeiture. As a practical matter, however, this would essentially require arguing the sites case for them. If the sites are successful in arguing such a case then the money would ultimately be returned to the sites. One would presume that in such a case the sites would then use that money to pay any money still owed to players. A player who does not trust the sites to do this in the event of a ruling that conducting an online poker operation involving U.S. players is not a violation of Federal Gambling laws might still wish to consider adopting this approach, especially if that player were owed very substantial amounts, but the cost of mounting this kind of claim would be extremely high. 3. Other concerns regarding filing a direct claim against the seized money One of the provisions of Rule G regarding forfeiture procedure allows the Government to serve a limited set of questions that must be answered under oath very shortly after the claim is

filed: (6) Special Interrogatories. (a) Time and Scope. The government may serve special interrogatories limited to the claimants identity and relationship to the defendant property without the courts leave at any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed. Certainly such interrogatories will ask for your specific account information and for an admission that you directly played online poker. There is no limitation on what the Government can or could do with these admissions once they are provided. Similar to the discussion regarding filing a suit against the sites, certain players with tax issues, state law issues or other personal issues regarding their play may not want to subject themselves to having to provide these admissions. Again, the choice has to be made by the individual player after considering all options and all personal circumstances and should be made with the benefit of an attorney's advice. Another part of Title 18, section 981 contains a provision that will most likely preclude the resolution of civil forfeiture while the criminal case is pending: "(g)(1) Upon the motion of the United States, the court shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if the court determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related criminal investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case." The government files this motion in virtually every case where there are civil and criminal proceedings pending at the same time and it is almost always granted by the Court. So even if after considering all the above a player can construct a valid claim, can withstand personal scrutiny and decides to pay the costs to move forward with the claim - that player will still have to wait a significant time before seeing his claim resolved. There is an exception that allows for a civil claim to move forward in advance of the criminal case if it appears that the criminal case will never move forward or will be delayed extensively, but even that exception would not come into play until a very lengthy time had passed. SUMMARY: the vast majority of players would have a very difficult time demonstrating a valid claim to the funds in the seized accounts; and an equally (if not more) difficult time prevailing on that claim (which certainly would not happen any time soon). Some players, however, will have unique circumstances that might make the filing of a claim a positive move. Any player who believes, after reading the above, that they wish to proceed with a claim should consult an attorney as soon as possible. 3) The possibility of an alternate remedy under Federal forfeiture law. Federal forfeiture law specifically allows for the Attorney General to engage in a process called "remission." Remission is, in its broadest sense, a discretionary relief intended to reduce the hardship that may arise from forfeiture for persons who have incurred a monetary loss from the forfeiture.. Statutory authority for remission in civil forfeiture cases is found at Title 18,

section 981(d) (which references Title 19, section 1618 where the appropriate agent - here the Attorney general - " finds the existence of such mitigating circumstances as to justify the remission or mitigation of such fine, penalty, or forfeiture, may remit or mitigate the same upon such terms and conditions as he deems reasonable and just." Statutory authority for remission in criminal cases is found in 21 U.S.C. 853(i)(1), incorporated by reference in 18 U.S.C. 982 for money laundering and other offenses where the applicable text allows the Attorney General to "take any other action to protect the rights of innocent persons which is in the interests of justice and which is not inconsistent with the provisions of [the applicable chapter or section]. The actual practice of remission is governed by regulation. The regulations are found at Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, part 9 (28 C.F.R. Part 9). The regulations continue to provide that "general creditor[s] may not be granted remission or mitigation of forfeiture unless he or she otherwise qualifies as petitioner under this part." 28 C.F.R. Part 9.6(a). To otherwise qualify as a petitioner a person must either be an owner (subject to the problems we have previously discussed), a lien holder (not applicable to poker players) or a "victim" or a "bailor." A bailor is one who gives possession or control of property to another without relinquishing their ownership rights. A bailors ability to file for remission is premised on 9.6 (c):"Voluntary bailments. A petitioner who allows another to use his or her property without cost, and who is not in the business of lending money secured by property or of leasing or renting property for profit, shall be granted remission or mitigation of forfeiture in accordance with the provisions of 9.5." Part 9.5 governs the specific procedure for seeking remission. Part 9.5 adds the further requirement that the petitioner meet one of three additional criteria, namely that "[t]he petitioner is innocent within the meaning of the innocent owner provisions of the applicable civil forfeiture statute, is a bona fide purchaser for value without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture at the time of the purchase, or is one who held a legally cognizable interest in the seized property at the time of the violation underlying the forfeiture superior to that of the defendant within the meaning of the applicable criminal forfeiture statute, and is thereby entitled to recover his or her interest in the forfeited property by statute." A "victim" has a special right to seek remission under the previously cited statutes. "Victim" is defined as "a person who has incurred a pecuniary loss as a direct result of the commission of the offense underlying a forfeiture. Part 9.2(v). In addition, a victim must show that "(1) a pecuniary loss of a specific amount has been directly caused by the criminal offense, or related offense, that was the underlying basis for the forfeiture, and the loss is supported by documentary evidence including invoices and receipts; (2) the pecuniary loss is the direct result of the illegal acts and is not the result of otherwise lawful acts that were committed in the course of the criminal offense; (3) the victim did not knowingly contribute to, participate in, benefit from, or act in a willfully blind manner towards the commission of the offense, or related offense, that was the underlying basis for the forfeiture; (4) the victim has not in fact been compensated for the wrongful loss of the property by the perpetrator or others; and (5) the victim does not have recourse reasonably available to other assets from which to obtain compensation for the wrongful loss of the property." 28 C.F.R. 9.8(a).

Part 3 of this requirement is problematic except that the position may be taken that since the actual playing of online poker violated no Federal Statute and is clearly not a criminal activity under Federal law, a player did not contribute or benefit from the illegal activity which was the alleged unlawful operation of the online poker sites. It is very helpful that a petition for remission can be submitted as a group represented by a single individual representative. This requires a very formal process under the regulations and requires every individual who will be compensated to participate at a certain level. Rule 9.9(h). Though difficult in the context of millions of poker players, the process does not appear impossible, just unwieldy. Finally, there is a time limit on petitions for remission (30 days after notice) but this provision seems to refer only to actual notice, not published notice, and the same provision states that "Petitions shall be considered any time after notice until such time as the forfeited property is placed in official use, sold, or otherwise disposed of according to law." The area of remission remains a possible area of relief, despite the difficulties noted above, primarily because in the end the ability to grant or deny remission to persons rests solely with the office of the U.S. Attorney General and is not reviewable by a court of law. The statutory authority regarding remission is clearly greater than that provided by the regulations. In such circumstances it is always easier to ask for special treatment from an executive official with discretion to take into account unusual circumstances than it is to convince a court that the set of unusual circumstances warrants an exception to a statute. Additionally, Federal Regulations, especially internal Executive Branch regulations such as 28 C.F.R. 9, are far more easily amended than statutes if it turns out that amendments need to be made to allow for the seized money to be returned to players as part of a remission process.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COURT CASE NUMBER: 11 CIV. 2564 LBS; NOTICE OF FORFEITURE ACTION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981, the United States filed a verified Complaint for Forfeiture against the following property: $231,000.00 formerly on deposit at First Republic Bank in Account numbered 80000373283, held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (09-FBI-004840) $124,178.72 formerly on deposit at Service 1st Bank of Nevada in Account numbered 2020003792 held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (09-FBI-004855) $30.27 formerly on deposit at Huntington National Bank in Account numbered 01662184444. held in the name of SNR, Inc. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000118) $1,057,797.29 formerly on deposit at Huntington National Bank in account numbered 01662184457 held in the name of SNR, Inc. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000119) $649,261.20 formerly on deposit at Huntington National Bank in Account numbered 01662191343 held in the name of SNR, Inc. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000121) $199,175.14 formerly on deposit at Bank of West in account numbered 658049382 held in the name of SNR, Inc. and all property traceable thereto; (10-FBI-000174) $4,925.00 formerly on deposit at Bank of America in account numbered 0952071585 held in the name of SNR, Inc. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000248) $25.00 formerly on deposit at Bank of America account numbered 0952071603, held in the name of SNR, Inc. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000249) $992,499.53 formerly on deposit at Citibank in Account numbered 203366638 held in the name of SNR, Inc. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000250) $2,057,620.28 formerly on deposit at Wells Fargo Bank in Account numbered 5383346862 held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000251) $410,449.93 formerly on deposit at Bank of America Account numbered 229006067857 held in the name of Viable Marketing Corp. and all property traceable thereto

(10-FBI-000262) $33,743.75 formerly on deposit at Bank of America Account numbered 003678667131 held in the name of EZO, LLC and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000263) $8,168,168.89 formerly on deposit at Fifth Third Bank in Account numbered 7431859508, held in the name of Viable Marketing Corp. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000349) $40,960.86 formerly on deposit at Fifth Third Bank in Account numbered 7432618069, held in the name of Viable Marketing Corp. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000350) $865,000.00 formerly on deposit at Bank of America in account numbered 0952071467, held in the name of SNR, Inc. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-000407) $1,035,415.44 formerly on deposit at Nevada Commerce Bank in account numbered 0021002712 held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-002096) $122,308.78 formerly on deposit at Nevada Commerce Bank in account numbered 0021002795 held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-002215) $3,055,108.21 formerly on deposit at Citibank in account numbered 203023239 held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-002453) $784,160.95 formerly on deposit at Citibank in account numbered 203118542 held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-002454) $1,000.00 formerly on deposit at Citibank in account numbered 203118559 held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-002455) $925.00 formerly on deposit at Citibank in account numbered 203118575 held in the name of G.I. Holdings and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-002456) $447,196.79 from account numbered 804815470 in the name of ASP Consultants, LLC at JPMorgan and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-005035) $12,642.44 from account numbered 804815488 in the name of ASP Consultants, LLC at JPMorgan and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-005036) $4,472.58 from account numbered 822823779 in the name of ASP Consultants, LLC at JPMorgan and all property traceable thereto(10-FBI-005037) $84.21 from account numbered 822824025 in the name of ASP Consultants, LLC at

JPMorgan and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-005038) $6,047.84 from account numbered 822824140 in the name of ASP Consultants, LLC at JPMorgan and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-005039) $17,460.95 from account numbered 1003245502 in the name of ASP Consultants, LLC at JPMorgan and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-005040) $8,018.04 from Bank Account numbered 9105709543 in the name of Autoscribe Corporation at Citibank, N.A. and all property traceable thereto (10-FBI-005324) $3,029,711.94 formerly on deposit at City National Bank in Account Number 3701177950, held in the name of G.I. and all property traceable thereto (11-FBI-001655) account numbered 27351910081015 held at Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA, Switzerland, in the name of Sphene International Limited, IBAN CH8908741014319300001, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002706) account held at Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA, Switzerland, in the name of Sphene (International) Limited, IBAN CH6208741014319300002, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002707) all accounts held at Bank Hapoalim (Suisse) SA, Luxembourg, in the name of Sphene International, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002708) account held at Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA, Switzerland, in the name of the Oldford Group Limited, IBAN CH1508741014093800001, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002709) Account numbered 1892947126 held at Comerica Bank, Dallas, Texas, in the name of Tiltware, and all funds traceacle thereto (11-FBI-002710) Account number 1892947134 held at Comerica Bank, Dallas, Texas, in the name Tiltware, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002711) Account numbered E34512308000000007283 held at Wirecard Bank AG, Germany, in the name of Kolyma Corporation, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002712) Account numbered E79512308000000007249 held at Wirecard Bank AG, Germany, in the name of Kolyma Corporation, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002713) Account held at Basler Kantonal Bank, Switzerland, in the name of Ranston Ltd. IBAN CH4900770016542263375, and all funds traceble thereto (11-FBI-002714) Account held at the Basler Kantonal Bank, Switzerland, in the name of Ranston LTD, IBAN CH7000770016542254461, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002715)

Account held at Basler Kantonal Bank, Switzerland, in the name of Mailmedia, numbered CH7300770252534932001, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002716) Account held at Banque Invik SA, Luxembourg, in the name of Vanatge Limited, IBAN LU811944013080000USD, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002717) Account held at Basler Kantonal Bank, Switzerland, in the name of Vantage Ltd. and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002718) Account held at Allied Irish Bank in the name of Filco Ltd. IBAN IE85AIBK93006727971082, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002719) Account held at WestLB AG, Germany, in the name of Filco Ltd, IBAN DE19512308000000007262 and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002720) Account numbered MT23SBMT5550500000001108 held at Sparkasse Bank Malta in the name of Blue Water Services Ltd, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002721) Account numbered MT14SBMT55505000000011451GAEURO held at Sparkasse Bank Malta in the name Tokwiro Enterprises ENRG, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002764) Account numbered 61-12-9436-6 held at Banco Pananemo De La Vivienda SA, Panama, in the name of Disora Investment, Inc. and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002765) Account numbered 0011271083 held at citibank London, England in the name of Mundial Valores, for the benefit of Disora Investments, Inc., MAM000804 and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002766) Account numbered CH4308755011432400000 held at Pictet and Co., Switzerland, in the name of Rintrade Finance SA and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002767) Account numbered 99045014801116 held at Bank of Scotland Ireland, Inc., Ireland, in the name of Pocket Kings Consulting LTD, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002777) account numbered 99022000439546 held at National Irish Bank, Ireland, in the name of Pocket Kings Ltd, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002778) Account numbered 99022000440162 held at National Irish Bank, Ireland, in the name of Pocket Kings Ltd, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002779) Account numbered IE8IPBS9906291390203 held at Irish Permanent Treasury, PLC in the name of Pocket Kings and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002780)

Account numbered IE07DABA95151340074209 held at National Irish Bank in the name of Pocket Kings limited and all funds traceable thereto Acct# IE07DABA95151340074209 (11-FBI-002783) Account numbered IE38DABA95151340025151 held at National Irish Bank in the name of Pocket Kings Limited and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002784) Account numbered IE42DABA95151340062618 held at National Irish Bank in the name Pocket Kings Limited and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002785) Account numbered IE58IPBS99062913190203 held at Irish Permanent Treasury in the name of Pocket Kings Limited and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002786) Account numbered IE67AIBK93208626257031 held at Allied Irish Bank in the name of Pocket Kings and all funds treaceable thereto (11-FBI-002787) Account numbered LU621944013130000USD held at Banque Invik, Luxemburg, held in the name of Pocket Kings Limited, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002811) Account numbered IE07DABA95151340074209 held at Danske Bank A/S, Denmark, held in the name Pocket Kings Ltd. and all funds traceable thereto Acct# IE07DABA95151340074209 (11-FBI-002812) account numbered 121015408 held at Sunfirst Bank, St. George, Utah, in the name of Triple Seven LP d/b/a Netwebfunds.com, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002814) Account numbered 121015390 held at Sunfirst Bank, St. George, Utah, in the name of Triple Seven d/b/a A Web Debit, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002815) Account numbered 27351910081015 held at Societe Generale Cyprus LTD, Ctprys, in the name of Golden Shores Properties Limited and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002816) Account numbered CY1211501001065983USDCACC002 held at FBME Bank LTD, Cyprus, in the name of Triple Seven Inc., and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002817) Account numbered 5510045221 held at Wells Fargo, N.A.. in the name of Kombi Capital, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002818) Account numbered 7478010312 held at Wells Fargo, N.A. in the name of Kombi Capital and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002819) Account numbered 12900584 held at Sunfirst Bank, St. George, Utah, formerly in the

name of Sunfirst Bank ITF Powder Money/Full Tilt, now in the name of Sunfirst Bank and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002820) Account numbered 129000576 on deposit at Sunfirst Bank, St. George, Utah. Formerly in the name of Sunfirst bank ITF Mastery Merchant/Psaars, now in the name of Sunfirst bank, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002821) Account numbered 200003291 held at All American Bank, Des Plaines, Illinois, in the name of 21 Debit LLC, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002822) Account numbered 200003317 held at All American Bank, Des Plaines, Illinois, in the name of 21 Debit LLC, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002823) Account numbered 200003325 held at All American Bank, Des Plaines, Illinois, in the name of 21 Debit LLC and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002824) Account number 200003309 held at All American Bank, Des Plaines, Illinois, in the name of 21 Debit LLC, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002825) Account number 201002907 at Barclays Bank, UK in the name of Hotwire Financial LLC, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002826) Account number GB26BARC20473563472044 at Barclays Bank, UK, in the name of Hotwire Financial LTD, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002827) Account number 953500105 at Bank One Utah, in the name of A4 A Consulting, and all funds traceable therto (11-FBI-002828) Account number 730666271, at Whitney National Bank, New Orleans, Louisiana in the name of Ndeka LLC, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002829) Account number 2919208124 at Bank of America, N.A. in the name of Credit Capital Funding, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002830) Account numbered 32433 at New City Bank in the name of 21Debit LLC dba PS Payments, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002831) Account numbered 32441 at New City Bank in the name of 21Debit LLC dba FLT Payments (11-FBI-002832) Account number 32506 at New City Bank in the name of 21Debit LLC, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002833) Account numbered 972402309 held at UMPQUA Bank, Roseburg, Oregon, in the name of "ULTRA SAFE PAY", and all property traceable thereto (11-FBI-002834)

Account numbered 004-411-346034-838 held at Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Hong Kong, in the name of Griting Investments LTD, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002854) Account numbered 1093 held at Vensure Federal Credit Union, Mesa, Arizon, in the name of Trinity Global Commerce Corp (11-FBI-002855) Account numbered 1200402039 held at Banca Privada D'Andorra, Andorra, in the name of Trinity Global Commerce Corp., and all funds traceable (11-FBI-002856) Account numbered MT54SBMT55505000000016782GAUSD0 held at Sparkasse Bank Malta PLC, Malta, in the name of Trinity Global Commerce Corp., and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002857) Account numbered 27554003786 held at Royal Bank of Canada, Canada, in the name of Terricorp Inc. d/b/a TLC Global, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002858) Account numbered 27554003760 held at Royal Bank of Canada, Canada, in the name of Terricorp Inc. d/b/a TLC Global, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002859) Account numbered 2775401038 held at Royal Bank of Canada, Canada, in the name of Terricorp Inc. d/b/a TLC Global, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002860) Account numbered 27551017789 held at Royal Bank of Canada, Canada, in the name of Terricorp Inc. d/b/a TLC Global, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002861) Account numbered 4800198399 held at Harris Bank, Palatine, Illinois, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002862) Account numbered GB81RBOS16630000368036 held at the Royal Bank of Scotland in the name of Voltrex Ltd., and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002863) Account numbered 2000059819596 held at Wachovia Bank, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the name "Eastern Expressions," and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002864) Account numbered 104773862842 held at the Bendix Foreign Exchange, Toronto, Ontario, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-002865) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity known as PokerStars (11-FBI-003343) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity known as Full Tilt Poker (11-FBI-003344) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity known as Absolute Poker (11-FBI-003345) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity known as Ultimate Bet (11-FBI-003346)

All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity known as Oldford Group Ltd. (11-FBI-003347) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity known as Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (11-FBI-003348) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity known as Pyr Software Ltd. (11-FBI-003349) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity known as Stelekram Ltd. (11-FBI-003350) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Sphene International Ltd. (11-FBI-003351) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Tiltware LLC. (11-FBI-003352) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Kolyma Corporation A.V.V. (11-FBI-003353) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Pocket Kings Ltd. (11-FBI-003354) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Pocket Kings Consulting Ltd. (11-FBI-003355) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Filco Ltd. (11-FBI-003356) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Vantage Ltd. (11-FBI-003357) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Ranston Ltd. (11-FBI-003358) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Mail Media Ltd. (11-FBI-003359) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Full Tilt Poker Ltd. (11-FBI-003360) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity SGS Systems Inc. (11-FBI-003361) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Trust Services Ltd. (11-FBI-003362) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Fiducia Exchange Ltd. (11-FBI-003363) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Blue Water Services Ltd. (11-FBI-003364) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Absolute Entertainment, S.A. (11-FBI-003365) All right, title and interest in Defendant Entity Blanca Games, Inc of Antigua

(11-FBI-003366) All right, title and interest in Defendant Internet Domain Pokerstars.com (11-FBI-003367) All right, title and interest in Defendant Internet Domain Fulltiltpoker.com (11-FBI-003368) All right, title and interest in Defendant Internet Domain Absolutepoker.com (11-FBI-003369) All right, title and interest in Defendant Internet Domain Ultimatebet.com (11-FBI-003370) All right, title and interest in Defendant Internet Domain Ub.com (11-FBI-003371) Account held at National Bank of California, in the name of Viable Processing Solutions, acct number 2547716, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-003393) Account held at National Bank of California, in the name of Viable Processing Solutions, acct number 2778815, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-003394) Account held at Four Oaks Bank and Trust, in the name of LST Financial, acct number 520055501, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-003395) Account held at Four Oaks Bank and Trust, in the name of LST Financial, acct number 520057101, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-003396) Account held at Four Oaks Bank and Trust, in the name of LST Financial, acct number 520064401, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-003397) Account held at Four Oaks Bank and Trust, in the name of LST Financial, acct number 520069501, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-003398) Account held at Hawaii National Bank, in the name of MAS Inc., acct number 12008656, and all funds traceable thereto (11-FBI-003399) All funds formerly on deposit at Four Oaks Bank and Trust Company, in account numbered 520065201, held in the name of LST Financial, and all property traceable thereto (11-FBI-003568)

Any person claiming a legal interest in the Defendant Property must file a verified Claim with the court within 60 days from the first day of publication (May 16, 2011) of this Notice on this official government internet web site and an Answer to the complaint or motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within 21 days thereafter. 18 U.S.C. 983(h)(1) permits a

court to impose a civil fine on anyone asserting an interest in property which the court determines was frivolous. The verified Claim and Answer must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, 500 Pearl Street, Room 120, New York, NY 10007, and copies of each served upon Assistant United States Attorney Michael Lockard, One St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007, or default and forfeiture will be ordered. See, 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(4)(A) and Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

___________________________________ x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - v. POKERSTARS et al., Defendants ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE ASSETS OF ...., et al. Defendants-in-rem ___________________________________ x

: : : : : : : : : : : :

11 Civ. 2564 (LBS)

NOTICE OF CLAIM Part 1 I, _____________________________, of ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________

do hereby give notice that I have a claim to the return of the following property among the subject matter of the above captioned action: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ My interest in the property is ____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Part 2 I attest and declare under penalty of perjury that my claim to this property is not frivolous and that the information provided in support of my claim is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further attest that I have this same day forwarded a copy of this Notice of Claim to Assistant United

States Attorney Michael Lockard, One St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007
______________________________________ Name of Claimant (Print) _____________ Date

______________________________________ Signature of Claimant