IN THE ALDERNEY GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION BETWEEN [REDACTED], ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAYER

CLAIMANTS Vs ORINIC LTD, FILCO LTD, VANTAGE LTD, OXALIC LTD, doing business as as FULLTILTPOKER.COM, FULL TILT POKER LTD., POCKET KINGS LLC., TILTWARE LLC, RAYMOND BITAR, NELSON BURTNICK, KOLYMA CORPORATION A.V.V., POCKET KINGS CONSULTING LTD., RANSTON LTD., MAIL MEDIA LTD., ORGONISE-AFRICA BIZ, BIDROYAL.COM, UNLIKE.NET, CHAMBERTEL, SIMPLYSELL,NET, AND OTHER UKNOWN ENTITIES AND THIRD PARTIES THAT HAVE PROFITED THEREFORM COLLECTIVELY KNOWN HERE IN AS FULL TILT. RESPONDENTS I. INTRODUCTION This is a Player Complaint on behalf of the Player and all others similarly situated hereafter known as The Class. Player and class members are citizens of the United States. From 2009 through June 28, 2011 Players and those similarly situated were Players registered with respondent Full Tilt. Full Tilt knowing and intentionally violated the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ("UIGEA"), making it a United States federal crime for gambling businesses to "knowingly accept" most forms of payment "in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling" Full Tilt in carrying out it unlawful conspiracy to violate the UIGEA induced Players to use their credit cards to place bets in small amount, usually $50 at a time to circumvent reporting requirements by credit card processors and anti money laundering regimes. The transactions were processed through various front entities such as Orgonise Africa, BidRoyal, Chambertel, Simplysell and Unlike. Claimants were damaged by the illegal and scandalous behavior by respondents acting under the guise of an entity licensed by the AGCC in that they incurred large debts on their credit card with interest and fees after being induced to place bets though a money laundering scheme initiated by Full Tilt. These debts are not dischargeable and the claimants have incurred annual interest charges in excess of 20%. Player Claimants seek

TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

$400 million from Full Tilt to compensate them for interest and fees incurred as a result of the organized money laundering by Full Tilt. II. JURISDICTION In the first instance the AGCC is vested with jurisdiction over both money laundering and player complaints in regards to its licensees under the Alderney eGambling Regulations 2009: Section 233 (1) An eGambling licensee, a foreign gambling associate certificate holder and, to the extent applicable, other associates shall comply with the money laundering and terrorist financing provisions set out in Schedule 16 to the extent that such provisions are therein stated to apply to such a licensee, certificate holder or associate. (2) For the purposes of section 24(5) of the Ordinance, any requirement set out in Schedule 16 is specified as a money laundering offence . Sections 238-240 deal with player complaints and the adjudicative process. This procedure provides for mediation, investigation and fact finding by the AGCC. The AGCC by revoking and/or suspending the respondents license has already accomplished and compiled much of the material needed to make a determination should the parties not be able to come to terms. Invoking this process therefore is not burdensome to the AGCC which has been paid fees over the years by the respondent and whose expertise claimants have relied upon. Without a finding by the AGCC on this matter claimants will be unduly prejudiced as unable to exhaust local remedies should commencement of a class action lawsuit in the United States against Full Tilt and third parties who have been unjustly enriched at claimants expense be necessary. While the claimants reserve all jurisdictional objections to the Courts of Alderney, claimants do recognize that the AGCC itself is vested with initial jurisdiction as an arbitrator under the Arbitration (Guernsey) Law (1982). III. REFUSAL BY CREDIT CARD COMPANY TO MITIGATE Claimant has attempted to mitigate his debt to Bank of America (See Exhibit One) and has also reported this matter to US FINCEN. Based on the premise that debt was incurred January through November 2009 through the money laundering machinations of respondents, Bank of America has refused any relief on the grounds that the anti money laundering provisions of the UIGEA did not apply to United States financial institution
Brimstone & Co. Attorneys & Solicitors 1629 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 USA Tel/Fax 1-202-318-2406 info@brimstoneandcompany.com

TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

until June 1, 2010 even though the underlying transaction were illegal under the UIGEA. Thus Claimant and those similarly situated have no remedy for credit card debts and interest incurred after the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 but prior to its provisions come into effect as to banks and credit card companies June 1, 2010. IV. FACTS Claimant is a resident of New York. In 2009 he incurred substantial debt to Full Tilt as a registered player. The UIGEA was in effect in 2009 rendering the use of credit cards by Full Tilt illegal under US law. To circumvent this law Full Tilt engaged in a pattern and practice of money laundering including the use of the cut out accounts like OrganiseAfrica, Chambertel, Simplysell, Unlike, and BidRoyal. Full Tilt set up these phony businesses to evade credit card restrictions in the United States on their activities under the UIGEA. Full Tilt also used purchases for stored value cards and e-checks to avoid detection by Visa and MasterCard The AGCC has conducted an anti money laundering investigation and a regulatory proceeding into this Full Tilt matter and is in possession of evidence that support both these allegations and others unknown to claimants but known to the Commission and therefore incorporates this investigation by reference as well as asking the AGCC to take notice of the criminal indictment of Full Tilt in the United States for money laundering. V. DAMAGES Claimants have been damaged. While the bets placed were illegal in the United States they were legal under laws of Alderney, the money laundering however itself is a crime in both jurisdictions. As a result of the AGCC licensees institutional money laundering which has been verified by the Commission, claimant and those similarly situated have incurred an estimated $1 billion in debt upon which they have paid a minimum of 20% interest and fees per annum to credit card companies. Class damages are at least $400 million. VI LEGAL ARGUMENT Claimant does not believe there is any legal precedent in Guernsey or Alderney case annals which cover this particular fact pattern of an e-gambling, money laundering, class based complaint therefore claimant refers herein to both applicable Guernsey and English law which may be deemed persuasive. See Helmot v. Simon, Guernsey Law Reports 2009-10 GLR 465:
Brimstone & Co. Attorneys & Solicitors 1629 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 USA Tel/Fax 1-202-318-2406 info@brimstoneandcompany.com

TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

13. In Guernsey, the English common law has persuasive authority in areas not governed by Guernsey statutes or Guernsey customary law. How persuasive it is will depend on whether there are local considerations, social or legal, which point in a different direction. However, Guernsey is not, in legal terms, an island. It is fair to say that with comparatively minor exceptions the law of tort and the law of damages have for many years been built up on the model of the English common law, and English authorities have generally been applied. The use of English authority on issues where the underlying conditions in the two jurisdictions are broadly comparable is highly desirable in the interests of legal certainty. The immense volume of civil and criminal litigation in England is bound to provide more nuanced answers to a wider range of legal problems than the rather smaller corpus of decisions generated within the Bailiwick Money Laundering is unlawful in Alderney. See Alderney eGambling (Money Laundering Amendments) Regulations, 2008. The Bailiwick of Guernsey is active in the prevention and prosecution of money laundering and maintains Guernseys Financial Investigation Unit. Full Tilt committed money laundering when it violated US laws infra. under license by this Commission. It has long been held that a gambler has legal recourse against a dishonest game. In Harris v. Bowden (1588) 1 Cro Eliz 90, 78 Eng Reprint 348, it was held that an action on the case would lie for playing with false dice and thereby winning the plaintiff's money. And even though some of the defendants were not actually present at the time of the play by which the money was won, it was held in Dufour v. Ackland (1830, Eng) 9 LJKB 3, that if the jury was satisfied that several persons had engaged in the foul play and shared in the fruits of it, all were liable to an action for money had and received at the suit of the loser. Further, while the placing of the bet by claimant was an improper act in the United States, claimant cannot simply disown the debt incurred to a third party for lent money The law of England for example is quite plain on the issue that if the bet was placed where it was legal, money lent may be recovered: Having regard to the cases as a whole in regard to claims for money lent for the purpose of playing a game which is unlawful in this country, one finds that the law is in this curious condition: that where the game is played in a foreign country in which it is lawful then the decisions on foreign gaming apply and the money can be sued for in the courts of this country. Carlton Hall Club v. Laurence, [1929] 2 KB 153.

Brimstone & Co. Attorneys & Solicitors 1629 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 USA Tel/Fax 1-202-318-2406 info@brimstoneandcompany.com

TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Finally, the ancient doctrines of in pari delicto and ex turpi causa non oritur actio are not applicable herein. Recent English case law does not bar adjudication of cases in which gambling contracts are involved. See Close v Wilson [2011] EWCA Civ 5 (14 January 2011). While claimants arguably placed a bet in violating the UIGEA, this conduct was not in violation of the laws of Alderney. Further the claimants conduct if only slightly blameworthy pales in comparison to the institutionalized money laundering regime involving billions of dollars by Full Tilt. It would be a gross injustice by the AGCC to leave claimants with no remedy after AGCC has already investigated this matter as well as collecting licensing fees over the years from Full Tilt which indirectly enabled it to carry out its money laundering scheme under the guise of lawful e-gambling.

VII CONCLUSION This is a Player Complaint on behalf of a class of claimants seeking $400 million from Full Tilt to reimburse the costs incurred due to the illicit money laundering by Full Tilt. Claimant requests that the complaint be filed under seal to protect his identity. Two principles of Full Tilt, Bitar and Burtnick are fugitives from the law and may have organized crime connections, claimant is fearful that if this information is widely disseminated his life may be forfeit. Further there are sensitive financial documents appended herein that if made public would subject claimant to danger. Finally, it is requested that the AGCC acknowledge receipt by fax to claimants attorney and communicate by fax or email to obviate delays in postal mail.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July, 2011,

Jonathan Levy Attorney Duncan Macdonald, Solicitor (Virgin Islands)

Brimstone & Co. Attorneys & Solicitors 1629 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 USA Tel/Fax 1-202-318-2406 info@brimstoneandcompany.com