Calvin Ayre has $24 million seized by DOJ
This is pretty scary…
Forbes story about Calvin Ayre
Here is a little bit that might scare some poker players:
The U.S. government recently seized $24 million from bank accounts linked to Bodog, the giant, illegal-under-U.S.-law Internet gaming operation founded by Canadian tycoon Calvin Ayre.
Federal filings make very clear that a serious criminal investigation of the Bodog enterprise is ongoing. At a minimum, word of the seizures is likely to rattle the confidence of U.S.-based online gamblers that they will receive their winnings, not only from Bodog but from the industry’s other remaining participants.
I don’t think anyone has to worry about receiving their funds. But I do think people have to worry about the general level of aggression on the part of the DOJ since it has been a little while since anything major like this has been announced. I am personally hoping that the DOJ is going to stick to RICO and sports-betting stuff because it’s potentially deadly if they decide to take on a poker-only case. Of course it’s also potentially great, but… that’s a pretty big gamble.
This also reminds me of something my Dad told me a few years back…
In early 2006 Ayre rocketed to international prominence–and the cover of Forbes magazine’ annual issue on the world’s billionaires–for his stewardship from Costa Rica of Bodog Entertainment Group and his open flouting of authorities in the U.S., his major market. The story headline: “Catch Me If You Can.”
That’s dumb. Does he really want to flaunt that sort of thing in front of the American public and humiliate the DOJ? That’s like putting a target squarely on your back. Unless he thought the publicity outweighed the risk somehow, doing a cover like that is really dumb. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t think the publicity comes close to the risk of a more toned-down interview/cover … or just not doing the story in the first place.
Oh, and what my Dad told me a few years back was that it’s dumb for offshore gaming people to flaunt themselves. I’m sure that it seems obvious, but the DOJ *really* doesn’t like it and I think the people in charge there take actions like Ayre’s to be an aggressive stance against their Dept and they also think that it’s something they have to fight. While I rarely talk about my family on here for good reason, at one point in time my Dad (an attorney) did work for someone doing something related to gaming — that’s about as specific as I will get on a topic like that on my blog. But anyway, I also remember him telling me that one of the guys involved was really being dumb when he did all sorts of interviews and generally let every single person possible know about his success (to that point). Lo and behold, the guy gets nailed. So basically, if that wasn’t a lesson to every online gaming exec, this should be. Keep quiet, keep a low profile and hope to avoid attention. Let someone else take the spotlight.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to get future posts delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Nice article Nat. Also, poker needs to continue preaching the good aspects like Phil Gordon’s 1% effort and work done by ppl like Lee Watkinson.
He did not have anything to do with that title “Catch me if you can” that was totally Forbes doing. He did not even know about that title until the magazine came out.
Didn’t Ayre also agree to do a 60 Minutes profile, the function of which seemed mostly to cast himself as some kind of Heffner to the gambling world and once again flaunt his billionaire outlaw status on National TV. It’s amazing how vanity-driven his business marketing plan seems to be and therefore I guess not so surprising no one was able to convince him to tone it down. I’m assuming the DOJ has been working up to this for a long time and will relish the moment to put Ayre through the ringer as thoroughly as possible.
What about all those “.net” sites that accept US players, who advertise using players at the WSOP. Is that not flaunting? Who draws these fine lines in the gray areas?