Questions about bill text

[kslghost]

On page 221, line 14, it says under Unlawful Internet Gambing,

"... the term 'unlawful Internet gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager... where such a bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law..."

What law says that online poker and what not are actually "unlawful Internet gambling?" I thought this was the reason that this bill has no bite. I can't see where in the actual bill that it talks about this being illegal.

Obviously, I do not know too much about proceedings and such, but I am unaware (at least based on what other people have been saying) that says that online interstate or inter-country poker or betting is actually "unlawful internet gaming" until they proceed to say it is specifically... And then near the end, it says they would investigate whether or not some of these companies were money laundering schemes and such.

Does anyone get what I'm pointing towards?

Also, certainly, if there is a clear cut point in this or any other law that says that "This is unlawful" then point me to it of course!

[BluffTHIS!]

Online poker is covered by their terminology, and they were prudent enough to word the subject to chance stuff appropriately so that the chance element of an otherwise mainly skill dependant game would make poker covrered. The law does allow a state to legalize online gaming within its own borders for its own citizens though. Read the other threads especially the one by Mr. K about this and it will be explained better. If there are loopholes, it isn't that poker doesn't fall under the terminology of the bill.

[kslghost]

Well, I understand that poker is included, but it doesn't actually say that any particular thing is "unlawful" within the text as far as I read it. It went so far as to define the terms of bet and wager and such, but said it was illegal to do them in "unlawful internet gaming" but to me "unlawful internet gambing" is not clearly defined nor does it explicitly say that any of the "bet or wagering" is "unlawful" itself, only when done in the context of "unlawful internet gambling."

Am i just jumping through a loop here that doesn't exist generally?

[BluffTHIS!]

You are right that most likely it's not illegal for us players to play, but it is illegal for a site to accept or facilitate an "unlawful transaction" as defined in the bill.

[kslghost]

I understand that much... so I don't get how this can apply to offshores gaming sites.

[BluffTHIS!]

Ask yourself this: can an offshore company sell you cocaine through the mail and get away with it? That is, would the US gov't not be able to extradite the owners/employees of such a company if the respective extradition treaty so allowed? Now most countries are going to be less apt to extradidte for this than drugs obviously. But still those owners/employees would have to not ever come to the US or risk arrest as has happened recently with the BetOnSports guy. That's why my "loophole/end run" thread advises sites to relocate in Costa Rica or a similarly friendly country that won't extradite for such offenses, AND doesn't have US subsidiaries whose funds can be seized.

[kslghost]

Ah I see... well I still have that contention about how unlawful internet gambling is defined and where exactly it says it. I probably find it confusing because it goes to define what a bet or wager is, but doesn't say explicitly say that "unlawful internet gambling is ANY bet or wager on a game of chance done interstate etc etc"

[BluffTHIS!]

Yes it does, read it more closely.

[kslghost]

I read through it entirely, could you point out the page #? I'm not hoping here, I'm just unable to find it. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Hock_]

This is a critical question. There is significant disagreement about the scope of the Wire Act. The only Federal Court of Appeals to have interpreted this aspect of it says poker isn't covered. The DOJ says it is. The court wins, but that may not be much consolation when you're paying tens of thousands in legal fees after getting arrested. Also, there may be laws in your state that make it illegal.

If I were a poker site I would push this issue, but maybe only if/when they're confident that if they win in court there won't be legislation that "clarifies" the Wire Act to include poker.

This (and other related issues, including enforcement vigor, etc.) is yet another reason to vote Dem. in the midterms.

[BluffTHIS!]

p. 221 where it starts with "unlawful internet gambling".

[kslghost]

Yes, the part I quoted... But it says it must be a wager that is unlawful under any Federal or State law... what Federal Laws?

As Hock_ said, the Wire Act is the most commonly quoted, but it is very unclear since different government parties have disagreed upon its meaning towards poker.

[BluffTHIS!]

ksl,

I see what you are getting at. But it still means that if a state (they all do) outlaws online gambling (they all do because they all to my knowledge outlaw any gambling not specifically made legal), then this bill means those state laws apply across the net to offshore sites and provide penalities to those site owners and mandates for banks to block such transactions. However, states can only legalize such online gambling for its own citizens and must deny access to residents of other states. Plus like Hock said, many senators probably think this gives added teeth to the wire act, even if that's not actually the case.

So bottom line is this law seeks to effectively enforce state laws regarding transactions between a state's citizens and offshore gambling sites.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, would the US gov't not be able to extradite the owners/employees of such a company if the respective extradition treaty so allowed? Now most countries are going to be less apt to extradidte for this than drugs obviously. But still those owners/employees would have to not ever come to the US or risk arrest as has happened recently with the BetOnSports guy. That's why my "loophole/end run" thread advises sites to relocate in Costa Rica or a similarly friendly country that won't extradite for such offenses, AND doesn't have US subsidiaries whose funds can be seized.

[/ QUOTE ]

The UK will not extradite to anywhere for something that is not an offence in the UK and we have just about the closest US/UK extradition treaty there is (even if your legislators have not yet implemented the treaty we have been using for years).

Here's my proposition bet - Party to announce shift of regulation to the UK by 7th October 2006. This whole bill is insane in terms of free trade agreements it cannot possibly be OK to ban banks from dealing with legitimate foreign companies offering a service that is available in the US (B&M).

[AustinDoug]

I agree with your analysis. Nothing in this bill prohibits online gambling -- the bill pre-supposes that onling gambling is already illegal.

Look first to the title, it is entitled "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement." Thus, it is merely attempting to enforce existing law.

Section 5361(b) provides that the bill does not alter, limit, or expant federal/state law on gambling.

Section 5362(10) defining "unlawful internet gambling" links such unlawful activities to existing state and federal law.

As has been previously dicussed, First and the Department of Justice have stated for years that internet gamlbing is already illegal under Federal law. Thus, there would be no reason for this bill to ban online gambling. However, many people feel the existing federal law does not ban online gambling in all forms. The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Louisiana and Texas) has previously limited the relied upon federal statute to banning sports wagering only.

From a practical standpoint, banks and ISP aren't going to want to get in to legal debate over whether internet gambling is legal or not. So, we can expect them to comply with this bill. The perception will remain that it is illegal. However, that does not appear to be the reality.

[kslghost]

[ QUOTE ]
But it still means that if a state (they all do) outlaws online gambling (they all do because they all to my knowledge outlaw any gambling not specifically made legal),

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh this clarifies it to me, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
Section 5361(b) provides that the bill does not alter, limit, or expant federal/state law on gambling.

Section 5362(10) defining "unlawful internet gambling" links such unlawful activities to existing state and federal law.

As has been previously dicussed, First and the Department of Justice have stated for years that internet gamlbing is already illegal under Federal law. Thus, there would be no reason for this bill to ban online gambling. However, many people feel the existing federal law does not ban online gambling in all forms. The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Louisiana and Texas) has previously limited the relied upon federal statute to banning sports wagering only.

From a practical standpoint, banks and ISP aren't going to want to get in to legal debate over whether internet gambling is legal or not. So, we can expect them to comply with this bill. The perception will remain that it is illegal. However, that does not appear to be the reality.


[/ QUOTE ]
Your analysis is very clear. Thanks!

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
From a practical standpoint, banks and ISP aren't going to want to get in to legal debate over whether internet gambling is legal or not. So, we can expect them to comply with this bill. The perception will remain that it is illegal. However, that does not appear to be the reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you mentioned previously, online gaming as it exists now is typically illegal under state law (conducting a for-profit gambling business without a license will always be covered somewhere in the code, even if playing games in private may be legal). Courts have apparently determined that when you conduct business on the internet, that business is taking place where you sit in front of your computer, as well as where the company servers are, so state law applies and the often seen 'but the game is offshore' defense doesn't work.

The new law makes it a federal crime for the operating sites to accept money for illegal gambling, so when it is signed, those violations start accruing if the sites keep taking deposits. I'd expect some of the major sites to suspend deposits from the US when it's signed into law, or at least after getting a warning letter from the DA.

Some sites will continue to accept deposits, as the sportsbooks do already. WPEX might finally become popular if Party and Stars both stop taking deposits, lol.

B.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From a practical standpoint, banks and ISP aren't going to want to get in to legal debate over whether internet gambling is legal or not. So, we can expect them to comply with this bill. The perception will remain that it is illegal. However, that does not appear to be the reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you mentioned previously, online gaming as it exists now is typically illegal under state law (conducting a for-profit gambling business without a license will always be covered somewhere in the code, even if playing games in private may be legal). Courts have apparently determined that when you conduct business on the internet, that business is taking place where you sit in front of your computer, as well as where the company servers are, so state law applies and the often seen 'but the game is offshore' defense doesn't work.

The new law makes it a federal crime for the operating sites to accept money for illegal gambling, so when it is signed, those violations start accruing if the sites keep taking deposits. I'd expect some of the major sites to suspend deposits from the US when it's signed into law, or at least after getting a warning letter from the DA.

Some sites will continue to accept deposits, as the sportsbooks do already. WPEX might finally become popular if Party and Stars both stop taking deposits, lol.

B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive never played or researched WPEX, but "rakeless poker" would still not be able to accept deposits under this bill. "bet or wager" is not qualified to be only those where the house has an edge or takes a fee.

[BluffTHIS!]

WPEX actually takes a rake anyway in each pot. They just (currently) give it back.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Some sites will continue to accept deposits, as the sportsbooks do already. WPEX might finally become popular if Party and Stars both stop taking deposits, lol.
B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive never played or researched WPEX, but "rakeless poker" would still not be able to accept deposits under this bill. "bet or wager" is not qualified to be only those where the house has an edge or takes a fee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I'm not claiming WPEX will be exempt from the law, their offering poker, even at no profit, is still clearly illegal in most, if not all, states.

I'm just assuming that they will continue to take US business in defiance of the law. One of their founder/owner/executives has already done prison time for Wire Act violations, but they continue to offer sports booking online to US customers.

B.