- Joined
- Apr 15, 2025
- Messages
- 10
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
fluffywaafelz (represented by Mezimoří Law)
Plaintiff
v.
2.- ~undatheradar~ MC20masarati (a.k.a. "undatheradar")
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1.- fluffywaafelz
2.- undatheradar
II. FACTS
- The Plaintiff, known as “fluffywaafelz,” is a registered user of Discord and a participant in the online Poker Now community and the Volt currency transaction system.
- The Defendant, known as “undatheradar,” is likewise a registered user of Discord, active in the same community, and holder of a Volt account under the same name.
- On 31 May 2025, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement to play a high-stakes online poker match using Poker Now, with a buy-in of $1,000,000 each (see: Exhibit P-01, Volt Transaction Log).
- The Plaintiff sent $1,000,000 to the Defendant’s Volt account labeled “undatheradar volt” as their buy-in for the match (see: Exhibit P-02).
- The Defendant did not reciprocate the transfer prior to the match, despite agreeing to the terms.
- The game commenced at approximately 9:38 PM on 30 May 2025, as confirmed by Poker Now logs (see: Exhibit P-03).
- The Plaintiff and Defendant both posted blinds and participated in full betting rounds across the hand.
- The Plaintiff won the match with a Full House (8s over 10s), defeating the Defendant’s Ace-Queen hand (see: Exhibit P-03, Transcript).
- The Plaintiff collected 2,000,000 in-game chips, resulting in a net gain of +1,000,000 and the Defendant a net loss of -1,000,000 (see: Exhibit P-04, Poker Game Result Screenshot).
- Under §6 of the Commercial Standards Act Gambling Fraud is defined as “The act of fraudulently misrepresenting how a gambling activity is conducted”
- Following the loss, the Defendant denied the legitimacy of the game, claiming that it was a “practice” match, contrary to their prior agreement (see: Exhibit P-05, P-06 & P-07, Chat Logs).
- At no point prior to or during the game did the Defendant raise any claim that the match was practice or non-binding.
- This misrepresenting of how a gambling activity was conducted constitutes a violation of §6 of the Commercial Standards Act concurrent with fact 10.
- The Defendant subsequently refused to return the $1,000,000 buy-in or pay the owed winnings, in breach of the initial agreement.
- Under §8 of the Commercial Standards Act Embezzlement is defined as “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.”
- Instead, the Defendant announced intentions to give the money to unrelated third parties rather than return it to the Plaintiff (see: Exhibit P-08, Discord Chat Logs).
- Shortly thereafter, the Defendant did transfer away large quantities of funds. This includes, but may not be limited to, a Volt transfer of $500,000 to a user named “T04DS74” (see: Exhibit P-09, Volt Transaction Logs).
- The Plaintiff did not authorize any of these third-party transfers, which are suspected to have consisted of funds derived from the Plaintiff’s initial buy-in.
- The recipient “T04DS74,” admitted to receiving the 500k transfer unsolicited and unprompted (see: Exhibit P-10, Discord Chat).
- This withholding and redistribution of the plaintiff’s funds constitutes a violation of §8 of the Commercial Standards Act in concurrence to what is described in facts 14 & 15 through 19.
- The Defendant continued to propose additional games and refused to refund the Plaintiff even after demands were made, confirming malicious intent and continued possession of ill-gotten funds.
- The Plaintiff reached out to legal representatives immediately following the incident, requesting emergency legal remedy due to the Defendant’s actions.
- At the time of filing, the Defendant has made no restitution and has instead escalated hostilities, stating publicly they would “just give [the money] to some noob,” and mocking the Plaintiff (see: Exhibit P-07).
- On 30 May 2025 at 10:11 PM, the Defendant (“undatheradar”) explicitly admitted in a Discord message that they had the ability to pay the Plaintiff, stating: “i can pay him, just dont wanna rn” (see: Exhibit P-11, Discord Message Screenshot).
- This statement serves as clear evidence that the Defendant has the funds to pay back what is owed to the Plaintiff but made a willful decision to withhold payment, establishing intent and awareness of the debt.
- In contradiction and extenuating bad faith dealings, at 10:12 PM on the same date, the Defendant further acknowledged the obligation by promising: “i’ll pay in a few days,” in direct reference to the Plaintiff (”@fluffywaaffelz”) (see: Exhibit P-12).
- At 10:15 PM, when prompted again by the Plaintiff, the Defendant reaffirmed their commitment by saying, “lol i will,” indicating a repeated promise to fulfill the debt counter to their actions. (see: Exhibit P-13).
- On 31 May 2025 at 11:34 PM, the Plaintiff directly confronted the Defendant, citing these past admissions and asking for clarity. The Plaintiff stated, “you quite literally admitted you owed me the money and that you’d send in a couple days,” reinforcing the binding nature of the prior messages (see: Exhibit P-14).
- Rather than honoring the agreement or requesting more time, the Defendant attempted to dismiss the debt by invoking a non-legal defense: “poker is not legally liable, there is no fraud,” contradicting their earlier acknowledgments and further demonstrating bad faith conduct (see: Exhibit P-14).
- This shift in narrative, from acknowledgment of debt to legal denial, constitutes a calculated reversal meant to avoid payment, further corroborating the Plaintiff’s claim of misrepresentation and fraudulent intent post-transaction.
- This court has acknowledged that casino betting practices are enforceable debts in MegaMinerM v. Vortex [2024] FCR 90 stating “Casinos are offering a contract when they offer a chance to win money in exchange for money.” in this same manner, fluffywaafelz and undatheradar entered into a contract where they both offered a chance to win money in exchange for money.
- The Plaintiff acted in good faith throughout the transaction, providing upfront payment, playing the match under agreed-upon rules, and not violating the terms of engagement.
- The Defendant’s actions—receiving payment under false pretenses, failing to uphold the agreement, and laundering funds via unprompted transfers—constitute a pattern of deceptive and fraudulent conduct.
- The Plaintiff has suffered direct financial loss of $2,000,000 and anticipates further loss due to the Defendant’s ongoing efforts to evade repayment.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
I. Gambling Fraud
The Defendant has committed gambling fraud in violation of §6 Commercial Standards Act, defining Gambling Fraud as “The act of fraudulently misrepresenting how a gambling activity is conducted”. The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a high-stakes poker match with clearly established terms: a $1,000,000 buy-in per player, with winnings awarded to the victor. The Defendant accepted these terms, received the Plaintiff’s full buy-in prior to the game, and participated in the match without any mention of the activity being “practice.” Only upon losing did the Defendant falsely claim the match was not real—despite prior agreement, participation in full betting rounds, and accepting the transfer of real currency. This constitutes a clear, intentional misrepresentation of the nature of the gambling event and falls squarely within the definition of gambling fraud.
As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered quantifiable damages of $2,000,000—consisting of the unrecovered buy-in and the unpaid winnings—along with consequential harm from the misappropriation of funds to third parties.
II. Embezzlement
Pursuant to §8 of the Commercial Standards Act, embezzlement is defined as “withholding assets for the purpose of conversion… by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” The Plaintiff entrusted $1,000,000 to the Defendant for the limited purpose of participating in a high-stakes poker match under mutually agreed terms. Rather than returning the funds or using them per the agreement, the Defendant knowingly misappropriated the money—including redistributing it to unrelated third parties—thereby converting entrusted funds for unrelated personal or reputational gain. These actions satisfy the legal definition of embezzlement.
III. Breach of Oral Contract
The parties reached a clear oral agreement to stake $1,000,000 each in a winner-takes-all poker match. The Plaintiff honored this agreement in full. The Defendant, by refusing to pay out winnings, breached the agreement materially. This breach caused direct and quantifiable harm to the Plaintiff.
VI. Malicious Conduct and Bad-Faith Dealings:
The Defendant’s actions show a pattern of deception and mockery, including public declarations that he would give away the Plaintiff’s money to “some noob.” These statements demonstrate the Defendant’s knowledge of wrongdoing and his unwillingness to correct it.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Punitive Damages:
The Defendant’s conduct in this case was not merely negligent—it was intentional, and egregiously abusive. After receiving $1,000,000 from the Plaintiff in a mutually agreed-upon high-stakes poker match, the Defendant willfully breached the terms of the agreement, denied the legitimacy of the match without basis, and publicly mocked the Plaintiff while redistributing the Plaintiff’s funds to unrelated third parties in a deliberate effort to prevent recovery.
This was not a mistake or misunderstanding. It was a conscious scheme to embezzle a massive sum of money and obstruct restitution through third-party laundering. The Defendant ignored demands for repayment, admitted their intent to give away the Plaintiff’s money “to some noob,” and continued to flaunt their wrongdoing with impunity.
In light of the scale of the theft and the Defendant’s deliberate, malicious actions, the Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000 in punitive damages. This figure is proportionate to the amount the Defendant sought to embezzle and reflects the severity of the misconduct. The Court should send a clear message that such outrageous and intentional financial harm will be met with the full weight of punitive consequence.
Compensatory Damages for Gambling Fraud and Breach of Agreement:
The Defendant fraudulently misrepresented the nature of the poker match and failed to honor the agreed-upon buy-in and payout. The Plaintiff therefore seeks $1,000,000 in compensatory damages to cover the full amount of the stolen in unpaid winnings, as well as the financial harm suffered due to the Defendant’s breach of agreement and bad-faith conduct.
The Defendant fraudulently misrepresented the nature of a $2,000,000 high-stakes poker match and failed to uphold the agreed-upon terms, causing the Plaintiff direct financial harm. The Defendant not only retained the Plaintiff’s $1,000,000 buy-in without reciprocation, but also refused to pay the additional $1,000,000 in owed winnings after losing the match.
Furthermore, given the substantial sum wrongfully withheld, the Plaintiff has been deprived of the ability to use or invest those funds. Volt applies a monthly compounding interest rate of approximately 2.5%. At minimum, this equates to $50,000 in lost interest and missed financial opportunity since the date of the transaction.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a total of $2,050,000 in compensatory damages:
$1,000,000 for the stolen buy-in.
$1,000,000 for the unpaid winnings.
$50,000 in back interest and financial opportunity costs.
Restitution and Return of Misappropriated Funds:
The Plaintiff requests an order compelling the Defendant to return all misappropriated funds, including the $1,000,000 buy-in and any funds transferred to third parties without authorization. The Plaintiff further requests an injunction preventing the Defendant from making further transfers of these funds pending resolution.
Legal Fees:
Pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, the Plaintiff seeks legal fees in the amount of 30% of the total awarded relief, or no less than $6,000, to cover attorney costs and filing expenses associated with this action.
V. EVIDENCE
Exhibit P-01
Conversation screenshot of fluffywaafelz agree to play a poker match against undatheradar for “1mil stock game”.
Exhibit P-02
Volt transaction logs of the $1,000,000 deposit fluffywaafelz made to undatheradar prior to the game, constituted as an agreed upon wager.
Poker Now logs from the game between fluffywaafelz and undatheradar.
A screenshot of the resulting poker balances from Poker now from the game between fluffywaafelz and undatheradar.
A screenshot of conversations between fluffywaafelz and undatheradar after the game.
Exhibit P-08
A screenshot of conversations between fluffywaafelz and undatheradar after the game.
Exhibit P-09
A screenshot of transaction logs between undatheradar and T04DS74.
Exhibit P-10
A statement from T04DS74 regarding the transaction between undatheradar.
Exhibit P-11
A statement from undatheradar.
Exhibit P-12
A statement from undatheradar.
Exhibit P-13
An exchange between undatheradar and fluffywaafelz.
Exhibit P-14
An exchange between undatheradar and fluffywaafelz.
VI. WITNESS LIST
- T04DS74
- pepecuu
- RaiTheGuy07
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 2nd day of June 2025
Last edited:
