Poker company co-founder pleads guilty in NYC
Recent Cases
The co-founder of an Internet poker company pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy charges, admitting that he knew he was breaking the law when he arranged for U.S. banks to process gambling proceeds.
Brent Buckley, 31, entered the plea in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, saying he knew it was illegal to accept credit cards so that customers could gamble on the Internet.
"I knew that it was illegal to deceive the banks," Buckley told Magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis in a plea deal that calls for him to receive a sentence between a year and a year and a half in prison. Sentencing was set for April 19.
The charges stem from a prosecution that shut down U.S. operations of the three largest Internet companies last spring.
Buckley was a co-founder of Absolute Poker. Prosecutors said Absolute Poker, Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars tricked U.S. banks into processing billions of dollars of gambling transactions by disguising the money as payments to hundreds of non-existent online merchants purporting to sell merchandise such as jewelry and golf balls.
Buckley, who stood with his hands clasped behind his back, was described in court as the director of payments for Absolute Poker.
The U.S. in October 2006 enacted the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which makes it a crime for gambling businesses to knowingly accept most forms of payment in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling.
Related listings
-
Ind. appeals court upholds man's 60-year sentence
Recent Cases 12/19/2011The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a southern Indiana man's 60-year prison sentence for beating his girlfriend to death with a crowbar. The Princeton Daily Clarion reports the court ruled Thursday that 68-year-old Robert P. Spangler's sentence w...
-
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Announces Class Action
Recent Cases 12/18/2011The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The Cooper Companies, Inc. between March 4, 2011 and November 15, 2011, inclusive. If yo...
-
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
Recent Cases 12/15/2011Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired GLG Life Tech Corporation securities on...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.