Anyone understand the law (laymans terms)?

[iceman5]

Can someone who understands this mumbo jumbo answer these questions in laymans terms? When this bill becomes law.....

1) Is it illegal for US players to play poker online?

2) Is it illegal to withdraw funds from Neteller to bank?
I assume its not really illegal but will the transaction be processed?

3) Is it illegal to deposit from bank to Neteller?

4) Will a bank cash a check from Neteller when it doesnt even say "Neteller" on it

5) What about a check from PokerStars? It doesnt say "PokerStars" either does it?

6) Are ISPs mandated to block access to gambling sites?

Please dont guess. Ive seen enough of that already. Can you site the passage from the bill that applies to each question?

And lastly, if #2 and #4 are "yes", how the hell do we get our money out of Neteller after the next 10 days or so have passed? And if we take it out now just in case...how do we get it back in later?

[MiltonFriedman]

Can someone who understands this mumbo jumbo answer these questions in laymans terms? When this bill becomes law.....

1) Is it illegal for US players to play poker online?

No, except in a couple of states under state law. There is nothing in the BIll that covers playing poker itself, unless it is already illegal under some other law.

2) Is it illegal to withdraw funds from Neteller to bank?
I assume its not really illegal but will the transaction be processed?

Withdrawals are not covered anywhere in the bill

3) Is it illegal to deposit from bank to Neteller?

Probably, the banks will see it that way, and not wait for regs.

4) Will a bank cash a check from Neteller when it doesnt even say "Neteller" on it

Sure, that would be a withdrawal and not covered. However, if they turn you down, they face no liability.

5) What about a check from PokerStars? It doesnt say "PokerStars" either does it?

Sure, again, legally ... that would be a withdrawal and not covered. However, if they turn you down, they face no liability.

6) Are ISPs mandated to block access to gambling sites?

Don't know if the bill has that effect.

Please dont guess. Ive seen enough of that already. Can you site the passage from the bill that applies to each question?

And lastly, if #2 and #4 are "yes", how the hell do we get our money out of Neteller after the next 10 days or so have passed? And if we take it out now just in case...how do we get it back in later?

[iceman5]

Milton, can you point me towards..or directly quote the section that says that withdrawals arent covered?

Some people have said that the bill outlaws electronic transactions between bank and gambling site so if this is true and Neteller is considered a gambling site, how is a withdrawal allowed?

[MiltonFriedman]

The ONLY thing that is covered is money flowing TO a site:

Section 5363 simply forbids persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" to "knowingly accept" ... (credit cards, checks, efts) "in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling"

That is it for the money flow portion, it is entirely aimed at accepting money by a site, nothing at all about paying money from a site ...

(To be clear, it is questionable to assume that poker sites fall under the Act at all.)

Neteller is not a gambling site, the issue there is its inability to forward your money TO a gambling site.

[iceman5]

If the only thing that covers money flow is that it forbids persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering...."...then how are banks affected at all?

They arent in the business of betting or wagering. So the law doesnt mention or affect them. According to that quoted section, we should be able to do transfer both ways from NT to bank and from bank to NT)

I read that section to mean that the poker sites cant accept money. The poker sites arent in the US so if they accept our money there is nothing that can be done to them unless the executives come to the US right?

So nothing in the new law makes poker illegal and nothing stops banks from doing transactions both ways (this is not what I understood but its what you just said).

So all the law does is make criminals out of the poker site executives if they continue to take our money?

Not too mention that it only covers deposits in connection with "unlawful internet gambling" which I dont believe is ever defined in detail anywhere.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Milton, can you point me towards..or directly quote the section that says that withdrawals arent covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. The short answer is that laws aren't written that way. If you look at Sec. 5353 and 5363 of the conference report (~pg. 230), you'll see language targeting acceptance of certain transactions. The bill does not appear to cover receipt of funds from a gambling site -- it only covers sending them.

But I'd like to make a bigger point here if I could. I know a lot of people are genuinely interested in how this will unfold, and they care a lot about poker. But the truth is, most of the people posting all these new threads have no idea how to read legislation. Reading bill language is a complex task, and not one easily learned or explained.

For all you guys trying to interpret the conference report, just don't try it if you don't know what you're doing. Please. I know you mean well, but please stop. Amateur and off-base commentary continues to sew unnecessary confusion here in the forum, and at this point confusion has the potential to be a major enemy of online poker. I really don't want to be a jerk about the way I say this, but it needs to be said.

You guys are all pretty smart. Sometimes being smart means realizing that you know enough to understand that you know nothing. Asking questions when you are curious is a productive thing, answering them when you are curious, however, isn't. Have a good night everyone, and sorry if I came off wrong in my comments above. I mean them in the best way possible.

[iceman5]

I hope thats not directed at me because I openly admit that I cant understand a word of it which is why I asked for it to be explaned in laymans terms.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope thats not directed at me because I openly admit that I cant understand a word of it which is why I asked for it to be explaned in laymans terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, not directed at you man. You asked an honest series of questions. Answers to some of them are available in the posts Berge linked to in his sticky, while others have not been definitively answered yet, and may not be for at least a few more days or weeks.

The uncertainty hanging over us will not be resolved as quickly as people want, and we're just gonna have to accept that and move on.

[MiltonFriedman]

"nothing stops banks from doing transactions both ways .... its what you just said"

That is NOT what I said all.

I simply answered your specific questions. Withdrawals are not covered. (You asked what the Bill said about it)

I'll try this again .... Sending money TO a gambling site covered by the Act IS restricted. A Bank cannot process a Restricted Transaction. So a Bank IS affected to the extent it is faced with a Restricted Transaction.

Assume the US Banks are faced with a transaction to send money TO a gambling site, they cannot do so.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Reading bill language is a complex task, and not one easily learned or explained."

After years of doing it for a living, I could not agree more. I would go further and say that the rules of statutory construction are often contradictory, fall in and out of fashion, and depend often on the Judge you draw.

However, it would take a truly tortured construction of this Act to apply it to withdrawals.

Some of the questions in this thread have pretty clear answers, and some are confusing Neteller with a "gambling site". However, in the vacuum here, I thought it wise to answer those which could be answered. This is NOT an issue which should fester. The OP deserved an answer to the extent it was available.

Similarly, the thread about the ADA for example had a pretty clear answer ... A subsequent Act of Congress is going to override a prior Act, if at all possible to construe it that way. I do not think that Congress is a party subject to ADA review when it passes a Bill.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
The ONLY thing that is covered is money flowing TO a site:

Section 5363 simply forbids persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" to "knowingly accept" ... (credit cards, checks, efts) "in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling"


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah - but isn't EVERYONE along the chain in some form or fashion "engaged in the business of betting or wagering...etc"? The person placing the bet, the person or institution facilitating that act (banks, Neteller, Poker site)?

---Leavenfish

[iceman5]

How is Neteller covered? Its not in the business of accepting bets and wagers. Its in the business of money transferring.

it seems to me that transferring from your bank to NT would not be restricted so your bank shouldnt be involved unless you tried to do a electronic check transfer directly to the poker site.

Now Neteller, if considered a financial institution would be covered by the law and would be prohibited from transferring money to the poker site......if they choose to abide by the law.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
How is Neteller covered? Its not in the business of accepting bets and wagers. Its in the business of money transferring.

it seems to me that transferring from your bank to NT would not be restricted so your bank shouldnt be involved unless you tried to do a electronic check transfer directly to the poker site.

Now Neteller, if considered a financial institution would be covered by the law and would be prohibited from transferring money to the poker site......if they choose to abide by the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

they will abide by their interpretation of the law or challenge the law, they wont act in any fashon that counsel advises is a clear violation.

Their announcement tomorrow will be very interesting, and key to how the sites will proceed.

[JPFisher55]

I agree that Neteller and Firepay will not be affected by this law. They do not do business in the US. Through their banks, they complete EFT's with the US banking system. These companies are merely the payee or payor of the EFT, not the bank completing the EFT.
For the US govt. to their EFT's, they have to ban EFT's from foreign banks doing business with these two companies. Doing so would probably violate other international banking treaties and protocols.
In fact, it will be difficult to prevent deposit into a poker website by check or withdrawal by check. Currently, US banks do not have any person examine a check when processing it. I recently had an unsigned check go all the way through the system. When I asked my bank about this, they told me that no one in the depositing bank or disbursing bank reads the check. To have someone review each check to be sure that an Internet Gambling Website is not involved would probably be prohibitively expensive. In addition, banks have to meet deadlines when processing checks. Such examination of each check cannot be done within these deadlines.
In my opinion, this bill will only ban wire transfers, cashiers checks, credit and debit card transfers involving Internet Gambling Websites. Who uses such methods now? So I do not think that the normal online player will be greatly affected, except by his or her fear.
It will affect those persons employed or associated with all the Poker Websites. I anticipate lots litigation from those parties.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that Neteller and Firepay will not be affected by this law. They do not do business in the US. Through their banks, they complete EFT's with the US banking system. These companies are merely the payee or payor of the EFT, not the bank completing the EFT.
For the US govt. to their EFT's, they have to ban EFT's from foreign banks doing business with these two companies. Doing so would probably violate other international banking treaties and protocols.
In fact, it will be difficult to prevent deposit into a poker website by check or withdrawal by check. Currently, US banks do not have any person examine a check when processing it. I recently had an unsigned check go all the way through the system. When I asked my bank about this, they told me that no one in the depositing bank or disbursing bank reads the check. To have someone review each check to be sure that an Internet Gambling Website is not involved would probably be prohibitively expensive. In addition, banks have to meet deadlines when processing checks. Such examination of each check cannot be done within these deadlines.
In my opinion, this bill will only ban wire transfers, cashiers checks, credit and debit card transfers involving Internet Gambling Websites. Who uses such methods now? So I do not think that the normal online player will be greatly affected, except by his or her fear.
It will affect those persons employed or associated with all the Poker Websites. I anticipate lots litigation from those parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be no jusrisdiction for the US to ban an offshore intermediary like Neteller, but that is clearly their intent. The definition of financial institution on page 220 would absolutely prohibit a US based clone of Neteller.

Neteller is clearly a "payment network utilzed to effect a credit transaction, EFT.....or a participant in that network, or other participant in a designated payment system'

[JPFisher55]

Intent and ability are two different things. Yes, Neteller and Firepay will be violating this law by assisting in EFT's with Internet Gambling Sites. So their employees will not be able to live or travel in US. But US cannot enforce this law against these two companies.

[samsonite2100]

OMG, IS THIS BILL GOING TO PASS? SOMEONE TELL ME WHATS GOING ON? AM I GO TO JAIL FOR PALYING SIT AND GOES?

[Copernicus]

Im not sure what your point is re intent vs ability. Your second sentence seems to agree with what I said, without reference to intent vs ability.

The law rarely (if ever) considers intent in determining whether a crime has taken place. It may consider intent in assessing penalties once the person has been convicted.

For a Neteller type intermediary to claim that passing funds to an offshore bank that deals with gambling sites and other legal purchases didnt "intend" to be part of a network that accomplishes the end of getting money into a site wouldnt hold water.

[Cubicle]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG, IS THIS BILL GOING TO PASS? SOMEONE TELL ME WHATS GOING ON? AM I GO TO JAIL FOR PALYING SIT AND GOES?

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL

[schroedy]

Milton:

I do not think that it is a tortured interpretation to think that B of A is prohibited from "knowingly accept"ing a withdrawal from a payment processing site typically used by internet gamblers to process payments to and from online gambling sites.

The "in connection with" language is not, IMO, limited to deposits.

I am taking an especially careful view because in addition to being an online poker player, I have been an open and vocal critic of the adminsitration (mainly for Iraq, secondarily for tax policy and other stuff), and I do not want to be vulnerable to harassing enforcement based mainly on a desire to accomplish some other end than enforcing the legislation.