maybe this won't be enforced

[mikeh1975]

maybe frist and republicans did this to score brownie points with the religious base.after the elections are done they will have to then contend with the banks being irritated with this and deal with it accordingly.

[The_Wreck]

I heard that the banks opinion was that they do not have the resources to deal with the requiremnets of this bill, and would not be happy about it being passed. Can't the big OP sites and the US governemnt just get togeather and come to some sort of an arrangement. Intersting to see what happens on monday.

[BluffTHIS!]

The Indpendant Bankers Assoc. (small banks) already tried to block this because of the potential burden on them of changing the coding of transactions and checking each individual one against a master list of banned sites. And even for big banks it will be a big headache and cost lots of money. But while it is true that the law says the AG and the Fed can let banks off the hook if some transactions can't reasonably be blocked, it is highly unlikely they are totally going to let them off the hook.

The bottom line is we don't care about enforcement measures if they aren't effective. But the sites still have to be willing to take the risk of criminal action against their owners/employees even if they find us ways to get money in and out. That is the larger question, and one that Mr. K has hammered on, i.e. that the sites or even neteller may take "cover your ass" measures in excess of what is actually required or could be worked around, so as to avoid any risk (which means they dump US players).

Again, we are just going to have to wait. The online poker landscape will change, and the big sites a year from now might not even have been started yet. My bet is we are gong to be playing with sports sites in Costa Rica who already were clearly breaking the law, and thus dont' give a rat's ass about the new one, and who also have the biggest incentive to find us workarounds (basically they don't add any fixed overhead in the form of risk, because they're already taking maximal risk).

[mikeh1975]

another interesting thing to realize about the bill is that it does not include language that upgrades the 1961 Wire Act to include online gambling, which the House passed bill did include when it passed in July of this year.

This means that the state of online gambling is exactly the way it was before for players - still in a grey area. It is no more illegal now than it was before the bill passed.

[BluffTHIS!]

Not true. It may be no more illegal for you or I to play online *if* we can continue to get our money on and off, but it is definately illegal for poker sites to accept our money and let us wager with it. And while it is true the DoJ has always maintained the Wire Act made such online gambling illegal anyway, contrary legal opinions notwithstanding, this new law removes all doubt as to the sites accepting funds and allowing a US player to bet with them.

[The_Wreck]

what do you mean when you say, 'the the big sites a year from now might not even have been started yet'. You really think PartyGaming and pokerstars etc will completely ditch the US and just concentrate on Europe and Asia. Surely they will want to cover all possible options and not leave the US entirely?

[BluffTHIS!]

As long as the owners and employees of party/stars etc. don't care about never being able to visit or change planes in the US, nor have a US subsidiary whose assests could be seized, then they might not dump US players. It just depends on what risks they are willing to take. Personally if I owned a poker site and were rich, I wouldn't care if I could come back here. But all of them might not feel like that, and some smaller sites already ditched US players before the bill even passed, although of course as a smaller site they didn't have as much to lose by so doing.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The Indpendant Bankers Assoc. (small banks) already tried to block this because of the potential burden on them of changing the coding of transactions and checking each individual one against a master list of banned sites. And even for big banks it will be a big headache and cost lots of money. But while it is true that the law says the AG and the Fed can let banks off the hook if some transactions can't reasonably be blocked, it is highly unlikely they are totally going to let them off the hook.

The bottom line is we don't care about enforcement measures if they aren't effective. But the sites still have to be willing to take the risk of criminal action against their owners/employees even if they find us ways to get money in and out. That is the larger question, and one that Mr. K has hammered on, i.e. that the sites or even neteller may take "cover your ass" measures in excess of what is actually required or could be worked around, so as to avoid any risk (which means they dump US players).

Again, we are just going to have to wait. The online poker landscape will change, and the big sites a year from now might not even have been started yet. My bet is we are gong to be playing with sports sites in Costa Rica who already were clearly breaking the law, and thus dont' give a rat's ass about the new one, and who also have the biggest incentive to find us workarounds (basically they don't add any fixed overhead in the form of risk, because they're already taking maximal risk).

[/ QUOTE ]

They are letting US players play now. This law does nothing (in the eyes of the Feds) with regard to the legal status of sites...ie there is no additional risk. They will not abandon the US market if money can get in and out.

[The_Wreck]

ok I understand what you mean now, I'm sure someone will be prepared to take any risk if it means getting Party's/Stars customers (if they pull out of the US). Looks like the whole bill could change the OP landscape, but people will still be able to play if their is no risk upon themselves and these possible new sites allow them to transfer funds easily.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
They are letting US players play now.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sure, I'm playing on party right now. But it's the weekend and their lawyers aren't all over this yet. That might change. Or they might just say they don't care. A small existing site with a mix of like 80% euro/ 20% american, might be the one to be more likely to just dump americans because they are currently a smaller portion of their customer base. Of course they will also be forfeiting tapping into the largest market. But nonetheless, they are doing something illegal right now letting me play, even if I'm not.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Not true. It may be no more illegal for you or I to play online *if* we can continue to get our money on and off, but it is definately illegal for poker sites to accept our money and let us wager with it. And while it is true the DoJ has always maintained the Wire Act made such online gambling illegal anyway, contrary legal opinions notwithstanding, this new law removes all doubt as to the sites accepting funds and allowing a US player to bet with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the way money gets in and out violates the new law, you are correct. Any work around will be a loophole (eg not involving any financial institution as defined in the law) that makes getting the money into the account legal. Once its there the use of it to play poker has not greater risk.

[BluffTHIS!]

Of course right this very minute the law hasn't even taken effect, because the president hasn't signed it yet. But your point about "workarounds" is wrong. What is illegal isn't just for a site to accept funds from us directly or otherwise, but also to let us bet money. Thus if you or I never deposit another dime on party (and I haven't for years) as winning players, they still will be in violation of the law by letting us play. There is really no dispute about that. But since on our parts, we aren't doing something illegal by playing, we don't care, *as long as we get our money out*.

[checkmate36]

Did you guys see 60 mins, I think it was last week after the late NFL game.

They had the idiot on (Frist) and he said they know they can't stop it.

Then the online poker person (forget who he was, Paradise poker rep maybe??) he said...

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't make sence to enable a law that you have no way to enforce.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought his comments were on the money but the rest of the piece was full of [censored].

[BluffTHIS!]

It's for sure that if Frist actually were assured the bill couldn't be effectively enforced, then he still would have pushed it, provided that wasn't known to his anti-gambling constituency. But they are going to try, and for us to continue to play, we will have to jump through a couple extra hoops.

[Poker_Hoar]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe frist and republicans did this to score brownie points with the religious base.after the elections are done they will have to then contend with the banks being irritated with this and deal with it accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU ARE RIGHT. IT'S JUST A BLUFF. CALL.

[chicagoY]

they ran it from the perspective of, "why isn't the government doing something?" F*** the media.

[chicagoY]

"that the sites or even neteller may take "cover your ass" measures in excess of what is actually required or could be worked around"

that's my whole concern in a nutshell. 100 more William Hills.

[peritonlogon]

England has a law specifically permitting UK online poker/gambling sites to accept US customers. Has anyone looked into whether the status of this law will change and whether the US law would actually have jurisdiction over the UK? I imagine that an incredible international legal battle would take place if an executive of a large reputable British casino who is following his countries law, gets arested and charged in the US.

[chicagoY]

the government doesn't care if they break and destroy our finest corporations--they think money drops from the heavens to DC.

[Canard]

[ QUOTE ]
England has a law specifically permitting UK online poker/gambling sites to accept US customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which law is that then?

[Poker_Hoar]

[ QUOTE ]
England has a law specifically permitting UK online poker/gambling sites to accept US customers. Has anyone looked into whether the status of this law will change and whether the US law would actually have jurisdiction over the UK? I imagine that an incredible international legal battle would take place if an executive of a large reputable British casino who is following his countries law, gets arested and charged in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read this and see if you still believe what you said?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/enron/story/0,,1491605,00.html

[wolson]

My guess is that enforcement will be spotty at best. The DOJ will probably look for a big splash to scare us little folk. Therefore, if you are on the pp5 top ten list, you might have some concerns. But I think they will look for someone like a Doyle Brunson or a David Sklansky that they can have "perp walk" to have a big effect on the internet poker world. Most of us little fish are just too small and too much trouble to deal with for the effect they will get unless they can throw a big net and maybe convict a thousand or so of us simulataneously.

[SwedishMedusah]

There are no british poker sites per se anyway since that isn't allowed by the UK Gambling Comission. They all run their business from Netherlands Antilles, Antigua & Barbados and such.

Will be allowed with the new gambling act though, to be implemented in 2007.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
It's for sure that if Frist actually were assured the bill couldn't be effectively enforced, then he still would have pushed it, provided that wasn't known to his anti-gambling constituency. But they are going to try, and for us to continue to play, we will have to jump through a couple extra hoops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Along these lines, I found the phrasing of this statement from Frist's website interesting (bold is mine):

September 29th, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., (R-Tenn.) made the following statement after the Senate passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act:


“Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society. Congress has grappled with this issue for 10 years, and during that time we’ve watched this shadow industry explode. For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can’t monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.”

The optimist in me thinks this is someone who understands the enforcement difficulties already hedging to cover his political ass, kind of like the coach who talks up the other team's defense all week.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that enforcement will be spotty at best. The DOJ will probably look for a big splash to scare us little folk. Therefore, if you are on the pp5 top ten list, you might have some concerns. But I think they will look for someone like a Doyle Brunson or a David Sklansky that they can have "perp walk" to have a big effect on the internet poker world. Most of us little fish are just too small and too much trouble to deal with for the effect they will get unless they can throw a big net and maybe convict a thousand or so of us simulataneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comments like this are frustrating because they perpetuate the idea that "it's banned!", or "a law was passed that means we can be arrested for playing online poker." This simply is not the case, the law is not directed at individuals, and there is zero chance of individual poker players being prosecuted. The law is directed at the operators of the sites and the banks. It is a problem because it will make playing more difficult, not because you are going to be arrested.

(Although my opinion is not authoritative, I at least have that my wife is an attorney, and like many other attorneys who have read the bill and posted here, the very first thing she said to me after reading it was "they aren't going after you, it's the sites and the banks.")

[Phil123]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no british poker sites per se anyway since that isn't allowed by the UK Gambling Comission. They all run their business from Netherlands Antilles, Antigua & Barbados and such.

Will be allowed with the new gambling act though, to be implemented in 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]Roll on 2007 then! I noticed Paypal are going to be allowing gaming transactions again but only for UK licenced sites. Betfair(betting exchange) who also have poker room is already taking Paypal payments.
Just looking on Betfair's site and they have been given an award from the Queen after being highly recoomended by the UK prime minister the award was for enterprise and innovation, Funny how different country's think, one is banning online gambling in the other Her Majasty The Queen and the Prime Minister are aranging for online gaming sites to receive awards and display the Royal crest.

[wolson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that enforcement will be spotty at best. The DOJ will probably look for a big splash to scare us little folk. Therefore, if you are on the pp5 top ten list, you might have some concerns. But I think they will look for someone like a Doyle Brunson or a David Sklansky that they can have "perp walk" to have a big effect on the internet poker world. Most of us little fish are just too small and too much trouble to deal with for the effect they will get unless they can throw a big net and maybe convict a thousand or so of us simulataneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comments like this are frustrating because they perpetuate the idea that "it's banned!", or "a law was passed that means we can be arrested for playing online poker." This simply is not the case, the law is not directed at individuals, and there is zero chance of individual poker players being prosecuted. The law is directed at the operators of the sites and the banks. It is a problem because it will make playing more difficult, not because you are going to be arrested.

(Although my opinion is not authoritative, I at least have that my wife is an attorney, and like many other attorneys who have read the bill and posted here, the very first thing she said to me after reading it was "they aren't going after you, it's the sites and the banks.")

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with you in principle, and I believe the major focus is on banks and internet sites, there is disturbing language in the bill that clearly can be construed to include the individual poker player. Specifically, the the title and phrase

" Sec. 5363. Prohibiton on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet Gambling "No <font color="red">person </font> engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in the connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling--" [Lines 1-6, page 230, of Title VIII Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement]

Clearly any poker player that plays poker for money is in a business ( as defined as "1) an occupation, trade or profession," Webster's College Dictionary) and the bill is explicit in stating "person" which to me means an individual.

How this will be interpreted or redefined by regulation can not be known at this time. But the opportunity is certainly there to include the individual poker player.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course right this very minute the law hasn't even taken effect, because the president hasn't signed it yet. But your point about "workarounds" is wrong. What is illegal isn't just for a site to accept funds from us directly or otherwise, but also to let us bet money . Thus if you or I never deposit another dime on party (and I haven't for years) as winning players, they still will be in violation of the law by letting us play. There is really no dispute about that. But since on our parts, we aren't doing something illegal by playing, we don't care, *as long as we get our money out*.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that has ALWAYS been the US position. I didnt say there isnt risk in accepting those wagers, I said there is no greater risk.

For example, the US claimed before and through this bill remakes thae claim that it has legal jurisdiction over an offshore site, merely because the player's computer is based in the US. If there was no juridiction before there is none now.

There is also a jurisdiction issue surrounding the use of the Commerce Clause to override state law in an area where Federal law already clearly relegates responsibility to the States, such as gambling.

Sites took the risk, they face no greater risk, if there is a workaround to deposits.

[Copernicus]

"Person" under the law is any legal entity engaged in a business transaction, not just a human being, and includes Corp, LLC, partnership, sole proprietership etc.

It would be difficult for the US to claim that a player who doesnt file taxes as a professional gambler
(and it is therefore a hobby, not a business) is "engaged in the business of" betting/wagering, whether or not its profitable. To make that claim would undercut the IRS treatment of gambling wins and losses for those not filing as pros.

[wolson]

[ QUOTE ]

"Person" under the law is any legal entity engaged in a business transaction, not just a human being, and includes Corp, LLC, partnership, sole proprietership etc.

It would be difficult for the US to claim that a player who doesnt file taxes as a professional gambler
(and it is therefore a hobby, not a business) is "engaged in the business of" betting/wagering, whether or not its profitable. To make that claim would undercut the IRS treatment of gambling wins and losses for those not filing as pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you have state is true as far as it goes: the problem is that it does not go far enough. For poeple not filing taxes on their poker playing, they are in fact violating the tax law if they make substantial money. There is some gray area here that is subject to interpretation. This past year I filed taxes on my poker earnings. It is not fun but it had to be done. But if you only lose money, then you are probably OK.

Point 2: A legal defination of person can mean all of what you said but also includes the individual.

from [Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage, West Publishing Co. 1992:


1. a human being - without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3).

2. the physical, biological human being. This is the person who is injured or killed, the person of "injury to the person" and of firearms "concealed upon the person." This sense overlaps the sense of the person with rights (sense 1), e.g., "No person shall be excluded on the basis of sex." Overlaps again on the question of when one becomes a person:

existing person: a child unborn, en ventre sa mème (see), a person for purposes of inheritance, but not a person in the criminal law generally. As of this writing, in the abortion controversy, "'a person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn." (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158, 1973).

3. an artificial person: an abstraction of convenience regarded by the law as a distinct being, having an existence independent of those who create or own it. The classic example of this person is the corporation (see, under corporate), a being distinct from its shareholders; in its own name owning property, contracting, suing and being sued, taxed, and regulated, with rights and duties often spelled out in statutes and constitutional decision. A labor union and a business trust (see trust) have also been described as artificial persons. The expressions juristic person and legal entity (see, below, this entry) are frequently used as synonyms of artificial person.

4. a legal entity, often described as a person, is itself expression without uniform meaning:

a. frequently, a synonym of artificial person (see, above, in this entry).

b. most commonly, a "some kind of a" person other than a human being, distinguished by the fact that it can sue and be sued in its own name, i.e., be a party (see) to litigation, whether or not also classified as an artificial person. Under this criterion, the "some kind of a" person varies widely by decision, by jurisdiction, and special definition: a sovereign (see sovereignty) is a legal entity and a person; a partnership (see), not an artificial person (the partners own the property), is usually a legal entity; a labor union, whether or not regarded as an artificial person, is usually a legal entity; an ordinary trust (see) and an estate (see) consisting of property under administration may or may not be legal entities; an unincorporated association is usually not.

5. a catchall person, avoiding repetition, clarity, and precision, according to the needs of the legal writer. E.g., "'Person' includes a natural person, partnership, limited partnership (domestic or foreign), trust, estate, association or corporation. . ." (Uniform Partnership Act, Ga.Ann.Code, § 75-102(6), 1984, italics added). E.g., "'Person' means an individual, a corporation, an organization, or other legal entity" (Uniform Probate Code, § 1201(29)), a definition that incorporates the open-ended language "Organization includes a corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, or association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal entity." (Uniform Probate Code, § 1201(27), italics added).

6. the essence of in propria persona. (see appear).

7. person, as a substitute for sex (see).

8. person in loco parentis (see in loco parentis).

9. a third person: a third party; (see, under party).

[Copernicus]

uhhhhh...point 1. I didnt say they dont pay their taxes, I said that dont file as a professional. The default position of the IRS is that gambling is a hobby. You declare the income and you declare the losses up to the income. It is not a "business" and therefore cant deduct expenses, and cannot pay taxes on net wins only. To prosecute a non-professional player under this law would require that they are a business, which currently requires a bunch of hoops to jump through to enjoy the privileges of a business.

point 2. I said a "person" is not "JUST a human being, it includes", that obviously includes human beings. Nice cut and paste, but it is exactly what I said.

[wolson]

[ QUOTE ]
uhhhhh...point 1. I didnt say they dont pay their taxes, I said that dont file as a professional. The default position of the IRS is that gambling is a hobby. You declare the income and you declare the losses up to the income. It is not a "business" and therefore cant deduct expenses, and cannot pay taxes on net wins only. To prosecute a non-professional player under this law would require that they are a business, which currently requires a bunch of hoops to jump through to enjoy the privileges of a business.

point 2. I said a "person" is not "JUST a human being, it includes", that obviously includes human beings. Nice cut and paste, but it is exactly what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than argue ad infinitum over the same points, let me say this: I hope your viewpoint is the one taken.

But just do not dismiss the other possibility: consider it and be ready to rebut this in the hearings that will occur on the implementing regualtions. Part of the reason this law got passed is because many people did not think it would pass and did not take effective action when it was needed.

[wolson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" Sec. 5363. Prohibiton on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet Gambling "No <font color="red">person </font> engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in the connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling--" [Lines 1-6, page 230, of Title VIII Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement]

Clearly any poker player that plays poker for money is in a business ( as defined as "1) an occupation, trade or profession," Webster's College Dictionary) and the bill is explicit in stating "person" which to me means an individual.

How this will be interpreted or redefined by regulation can not be known at this time. But the opportunity is certainly there to include the individual poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]
IANAL, but I'm not sure the key word here is "person." I do notice that they were careful to say "accepts a wager" rather than "places a wager." It really looks to me like the intent is to go after the sites, not individual gamblers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not include the rest of the act that follows: it references the receipt of moneys in various forms as the result of betting much of which requires a financial institution or intermediary for most people. I do believe the intent is to focus on the financial system and the internet media but can not dismiss the possibility that it will be interpreted to include the indivdiual player.

Please understand this:

When you go into a contentious debate, whether it be a hearing, your bosses office, your subordinate's performance review or whatever, you should allows focus your discussion on the most obvious arguments but always be prepared to understand and address potential contrapositions. I am certain that you do this at a poker table... continue this into your thinking about how this bill could be interpreted by positions less sanguine about poker than ours.

[JOHNY CA$H]

It said "Sorry, We can't find the page you requested".

Gotta admit, I haven't been swayed just yet.

[sergsz]

[ QUOTE ]

"Person" under the law is any legal entity engaged in a business transaction, not just a human being, and includes Corp, LLC, partnership, sole proprietership etc.

It would be difficult for the US to claim that a player who doesnt file taxes as a professional gambler
(and it is therefore a hobby, not a business) is "engaged in the business of" betting/wagering, whether or not its profitable. To make that claim would undercut the IRS treatment of gambling wins and losses for those not filing as pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying that the the government CAN go after those that file as professional gamblers? That would seem to go against most reasonable interepretation that I've read on this site, and would be very worrysome were it to be true.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Person" under the law is any legal entity engaged in a business transaction, not just a human being, and includes Corp, LLC, partnership, sole proprietership etc.

It would be difficult for the US to claim that a player who doesnt file taxes as a professional gambler
(and it is therefore a hobby, not a business) is "engaged in the business of" betting/wagering, whether or not its profitable. To make that claim would undercut the IRS treatment of gambling wins and losses for those not filing as pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying that the the government CAN go after those that file as professional gamblers? That would seem to go against most reasonable interepretation that I've read on this site, and would be very worrysome were it to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Im saying that if they tried to take action against players who DONT file as pros, theyve created a major problem for the IRS, not only for online winnings but all gambling winnings. I dont believe they would risk a conflict with the IRS stance, which is obviously a revenue raiser.

I didnt say anything about those who file as pro gamblers. It is certainly possible the way the law is written...they are "persons" and they are "in the business of wagering". I havent seen the legislative history and dont know if it gives any indication of intent to go after them. Absent that clear intent the AG and the writers of the regulations will define "persons" more closely. If they include pro gamblers then there could still be legal challenges by a pro that it wasnt the intent of the law, although the plain language would probably prevail.

[mikeh1975]

i do think there are plenty of loopholes in this and there are ways around it.time will tell......

[TenFourOff]

I am also a bit concerned about this. The one thing that makes me think that it is unlikely that they will go after individual players is, ironically, the wire act. The following is taken from www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htm. (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htm.)

Basically, the wire act also talks about persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering. Per the article, the act was not to go after casual bettors. I would love to hear any lawyer's, or other people who know more than me, thoughts about this.

[mikeh1975]

i also wonder about this too.there are loopholes.....

[thetruest]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe frist and republicans did this to score brownie points with the religious base.after the elections are done they will have to then contend with the banks being irritated with this and deal with it accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, but the best chance of not having this be enforced is if the Democrats take back a branch of government.

If the republicans maintain monopoly of ALL branches of government, you can be sure they will continue to EXPLOIT this issue for every penny for their fanatical religious base.