THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD

[breaktwister]

I'm a lawyer in the UK and find this situation completely laughable. It seems to me that there is no need for panic as the US law as it is written does not seem to be capable to achieving its goal (to ban internet gambling). Lets look at it in more detail:

Frisk himself said
<font color="green">
"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".
<font color="black">
Ok - lets examine this statement and the law in USA. Frisk is refering to the Wire Act 1961 when he says "internet gambling is illegal". However, The Wire Act DOES NOT MAKE INTERNET GAMBLING ILLEGAL. The Wire Act refers to penalties unpon betting <u>businesses</u> that operate within the USA.
<font color="blue">
EXTRACT FROM WIRE ACT
"Whoever being <u>engaged in the business</u> of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"

<font color="black">
So the Wire Act makes it illegal to run an Internet betting operation in the USA but it DOES NOT PROHIBIT any free citizen from making bets or gaming on the internet with foreign based betting companies.

Now onto the new regulations which, as Frisk declares himself, are designed to regulate financial institutions by getting them to block gaming tranactions. First of all this method is fundamentally flawed AS IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO US BASED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time or space here to go into every flaw with the regulations but there are a number which in my view a good lawyer should be able to completely rubbish.

<u>FLAWS</u>
For example, the definition of a <font color="blue"> "restricted tranaction" </font> refers to a tranaction which <font color="blue"> "the recipient is prohibited from accepting". </font>
Now, following common sense logic, if the receipiant of a transction is not based in the USA, how can the USA prohibit that party from accepting any tranactions?

IT CANNOT.

It therefore follows that the definition of a "restricted transaction" cannot be applied where the receipiant of a transaction is based outside the USA.

Therefore, if your USA based bank or credit card company refuses to make a foreign transction due to this new legislation then they are in breach of contract as this terrible piece of law (both in objective and drafting) clearly does not prohibit any such thing.

The new law refers to <font color="blue"> "unlawful internet gambling" </font> which it defines as <font color="blue"> "any bet which involves the use of the internet and which is unlawful by any applicable Federal or State law". </font>

WHAT A LOAD OF GUFF!!!

This new law does not even define what "unlawful internet gambling" is! It simply refers to whatever existing law exists (if any) that purportedly already makes internet betting illegal. As above - the Wire Act does not apply to citizens not acting in the course of a business.

I could go on but in short I will say

1) The new legislation creates no "new law" to prohibit US citizens who wish to gamble on the internet.

2) The wording and definitions - particularly in the important areas of what exactly consitues "unlawful internet gambling" and in the definition of a "restricted tranaction" are not clear or succinct enough to be legally sound.

3) The law cannot apply to foreign based operations either of a financial nature eg Neteller or gaming nature.

4) The law specifically does not prohibit any money tranaction to a company like Neteller.

5) The law cannot stop US citizens making financial deposits to a non-US based institution. Any attempts to do so would be blocked by the World Trade Organisation.

Quite why some non-US based companies are afraid of accepting business from US citizens is baffling. Have these big businesses not got any good lawyers?????

I am left with one main unanswered question; if anyone knows of any State or Federal law which prohibits using the internet to place a wager please advise me so I can look into the matter further. In the absence of such existing State or Federal law then there is actually no such thing as "unlawful Internet gambling".

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Frisk himself said

[/ QUOTE ]

His name is Frist, and you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anders]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frisk himself said

[/ QUOTE ]

His name is Frist, and YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY WONT WORK...PERIOD

[/ QUOTE ]

[poker1O1]

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT A LOAD OF GUFF!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
well we can agree on this

[mpslg]

Good luck convincing Neteller and all of the online sites.

[breaktwister]

OK lawman - you claim that I dont know what Im talking about? Why do you disagree? I have read the legislation and it is woeful - it simply doesnt do what it is purported to do.

What an ignoramous you are with a comment like "you dont know what your talking about" but you can provide no evidence or even an argument to back yourself up.

What exactly do you disagree with and why?

[Lawman007]

Try reading some of my jillion posts from the past two days and learn something about American law, you British twit. I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

[CrazyIrishman]

Unfortunately bush appointed the Supreme Court who won't shoot down anything he passes...bye bye overturning this bill.

[bobhalford]

why the hell are people flaming this guy for his post?

[cking]

because every single post by lawman has just been a flame stating his grand knowledge of law as he is the lawman (similar but not quite as good as the more famous, Walker Texas Ranger)

[Semtex]

because even in this trying time they are being callous wiseasses and trying to prove they are smarter and more knowledgable than everybody else.

[breaktwister]

Hey lawman - Im not British you fucing moron. And you could have directed me to your posts in the first place rather than just being the idiot that you are.

[ski]

I am about read to start taking bets that lawman is not a lawyer and is &lt;22 yrs old.

[Lawman007]

British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[cking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you fucing moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out a "k", idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a joke right? right????

[epiLog]

[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

Good post breaktwister.

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
I am about read to start taking bets that lawman is not a lawyer and is &lt;22 yrs old.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take +2 on how many years he did in law school before he got kicked for incompetence and a bad attitude.

[breaktwister]

Lawman - I have searched for your posts and can find nothing of value whatsoever. Please feel free to copy and paste here if you have already covered some arguments as to why I apparantly "dont know what Im talking about".

If you dont - then just [censored] off from these forums.

[Dustin M.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

Good post breaktwister.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Shaddux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

Good post breaktwister.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Lawman - I have searched for your posts and can find nothing of value whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that you didn't even know the name of the man who did all this, that is hardly surprising.

[erastank]

Hi breaktwister. Don't listen to lawman he is a US Govt shill trying to incite fear and panic in the online poker community.

From reading the bill I don't understand how neteller would not be covered, but I hope your right.

[JPFisher55]

Breaktwister, I practice law in St. Louis, MO, but not in litigation or the areas of law affected by this law. US credit cards do not accept transactions with gambling websites because of the Federal Consumer Fair Credit Act. This law allows consumers to challenge charges on credit cards when they feel that the merchant cheated them. The credit card companies got so many requests to investigate charges related to Internet gambling sites that they voluntarily stopped accepting transactions with any company related to the business including Neteller.
However, I completely agree with your post and have written some posts on this forum attempting to explain this view.

[breaktwister]

I got his name wrong knobend - one letter out - big deal.

Just [censored] off, because you are annoying everybody. What kind of lawman are you that can't give a simple argument on a forum?

LOL - you're just an idiot.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
knobend

[/ QUOTE ]

Knobend?!!!!!!!! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Now you've gone too far, Rumpole! If we ever meet up, I'm going to knock that powdered wig right off your head.

[schroedy]

[ QUOTE ]
I got his name wrong knobend - one letter out - big deal.

Just [censored] off, because you are annoying everybody. What kind of lawman are you that can't give a simple argument on a forum?

LOL - you're just an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The unfortunate thing about Lawman007 is that 2+2 does not have an "ignore" feature. You have to implement it manually.

DO NOT RESPOND TO HIM AND HE WILL GO SOME PLACE ELSE FOR THE ATTENTION THAT HE CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT.

Simple.

[Berge20]

The premise of your argument relies entirely on the determination that internet gambling is not legal.

I am not convinced that issue has been effectively decided by the courts one way or the other. The Department of Justice believes it is illegal, while certain lower court rulings come down on the other side.

[Lost_My_Stink]

Breaktwister:

Thank you for this interesting post. I hope that the negative responses will not prevent you from offering your opinions in the future.

A suggestion: it might be advisable to write a headline that is not so inflamatory and absolute. You opened yourself up to attacks from the reactionaries of this forum (who probably didn't read your whole post).

Like yourself, I challenge Lawman and company to provide a thoughtful, analytical argument for their positions. It's a shame they don't understand that personal attacks and rank speculation have no business in this forum as they are unhelpful and defeatist.

I will say, while I defend the right for Lawman and CO. to say whatever they want regardless of how stupid or childish it might be, I hope they learn to argue their points without being abusive. It's a lot easier to attack a person than to attack their arguments.

[breaktwister]

Thanks JP - I did not know about that Federal Consumer Credit Act. I also didnt know that US based banks/cc companies were refusing to lodge into Neteller. Surely, the Consumer Credit Act would not apply if the funds were moved from cc to Neteller first?

The logic being that once Neteller has the deposit its as good as a cash transaction and no recourse could be sought against the cc company for anything which happens after this "cash advance"?

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
The premise of your argument relies entirely on the determination that internet gambling is not legal.

I am not convinced that issue has been effectively decided by the courts one way or the other. The Department of Justice believes it is illegal, while certain lower court rulings come down on the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge, his argument is that whatever US law is one this issue, it cannot be directly enforced against a foreign company unless they have assets in US. Of course, any employee or associate can be subject to US law if in the US.
So, any employee or associate (maybe including professional endorsing website) might have a problem.

[daedalus]

Flame me but I agree with the OP's analysis except I think Neteller could very well go down. I read the law the same way as the OP.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]

I am left with one main unanswered question; if anyone knows of any State or Federal law which prohibits using the internet to place a wager please advise me so I can look into the matter further. In the absence of such existing State or Federal law then there is actually no such thing as "unlawful Internet gambling".

[/ QUOTE ]

Oregon Statute (http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/167.html)

See 167.117, it defines "unlawful" as anything not specifically authorized by law. Internet gambling is not specifically authorized and therefore unlawful. Then 167.122 says if you participate in unlawful gambling as a player you commit the act of unlawful gambling in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor.

Seems basic however I would like to hear how you think that Oregon's laws or other State's laws don't apply.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Try reading some of my jillion posts from the past two days and learn something about American law, you British twit. I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important subject and it is getting to the point where Lawman is becoming a huge distraction and could cause newcomers with some expertise to stay away.

This attack deserves a suspension or outright ban.

[breaktwister]

Berge - it was one of the reasons why I wanted to make the post - to ask if anyone knows of the specific US legislation that prohibits US citizens from placing bets/playing poker using the internet?

This new legislation certainly doesnt prohibit it as I have argued. It refers to some "unlawful internet gambling" which it then kindly doesnt define other than refer to "any existing Federal and State law"

What exactly are these Federal or State laws (if any) that purport to make internet gambling illegal? If there are not any in existance then the maker of this bill (Frist) has produced a null law - completely ineffectual.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
If there are not any in existance then the maker of this bill (Frist) has produced a null law - completely ineffectual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! You really are a genius. The entire United States Congress and all of it's staff members just didn't know what the hell they were doing, and it took some yahoo from across the pond to figure it out. Quick, call a press conference!

You really need to notify the folks at Pacific Poker ASAP before they shut down most of their business for nothing.

[breaktwister]

wow - permafrost - I am amazed!!!!!!!!

Your state prohibts anything as "unlawful" unless a law specifically authorizes it?

I cant believe that! Totally opposite to UK law where any act is deemed to be lawful unless specifically prohibited by law.

Let me have a quick look at your link and Ill post back.

[nation]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

Good post breaktwister.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Berge20]

I also read the "Restricted Transactions" definition differently than you do.

My take is that it covers financial transactions initiated by US financial institutions that have an end at sites accepting illegal internet gambling.

[JPFisher55]

The Federal Consumer Fair (forgot the word fair) Credit Act applies to all consumer users of credit cards, but not debit cards. I once used it to challenge a motel that overbilled me and got the overcharge reversed. I have sister whose husband lost some money at an Internet Gambling Site (casino I think) and got the charges to his credit card reversed. Once a consumer complains by a form, the credit card company must investigate. Remember a cash transfer to Neteller by credit card is the same as a charge for groceries. So many complaints leading to investigations came from the Internet Gambling Industry that US credit cards companies just stopped accepting transactions with any company related to the industry.
Fortunately, EFT's are not covered by this law.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try reading some of my jillion posts from the past two days and learn something about American law, you British twit. I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important subject and it is getting to the point where Lawman is becoming a huge distraction and could cause newcomers with some expertise to stay away.

This attack deserves a suspension or outright ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your idea has been thought of (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7415802&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post 7415802)

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Berge - it was one of the reasons why I wanted to make the post - to ask if anyone knows of the specific US legislation that prohibits US citizens from placing bets/playing poker using the internet?

This new legislation certainly doesnt prohibit it as I have argued. It refers to some "unlawful internet gambling" which it then kindly doesnt define other than refer to "any existing Federal and State law"

What exactly are these Federal or State laws (if any) that purport to make internet gambling illegal? If there are not any in existance then the maker of this bill (Frist) has produced a null law - completely ineffectual.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this new language does not add any additional statute that covers exactly what Internet gambling is or is not, which may ultimately be its undoing.

However, I'm still not sure about the legal successes that could come from saying Internet gambling falls (or does not) under the wire act. That may be a court battle that has to cruise through the ranks if DoJ pursues this new law with any vigor.

Plus, as we are seeing...the actual statute may be less damaging to poker than what sites and banks will do on their own.

[adanthar]

Breaktwister,

I am a US lawyer as well. Although I do not practice in this field, I've done my research lately.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok - lets examine this statement and the law in USA. Frisk is refering to the Wire Act 1961 when he says "internet gambling is illegal". However, The Wire Act DOES NOT MAKE INTERNET GAMBLING ILLEGAL. The Wire Act refers to penalties unpon betting <u>businesses</u> that operate within the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are correct thus far. US citizens, as such, are still not prohibited from playing poker (but good luck finding a news outlet that will explain the difference.)

[ QUOTE ]
Now onto the new regulations which, as Frisk declares himself, are designed to regulate financial institutions by getting them to block gaming tranactions. First of all this method is fundamentally flawed AS IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO US BASED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. It applies to any financial institution with any sort of physical presence, or possibly a substantial business presence (not necessarily the same thing) in the US. For example, the Royal Bank of Scotland's US branches cannot break this law in any way, *and* are potentially at risk even if only the English branches accept these bets, depending on the exact structure of their corporate firewall.

[ QUOTE ]
<u>FLAWS</u>
For example, the definition of a <font color="blue"> "restricted tranaction" </font> refers to a tranaction which <font color="blue"> "the recipient is prohibited from accepting". </font>
Now, following common sense logic, if the receipiant of a transction is not based in the USA, how can the USA prohibit that party from accepting any tranactions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily. First, today's banks are interrelated to the point where most of them have some kind of US presence. Second, even if they do not, because the US will claim jurisdiction over these executives whenever a US citizen places such a bet, they are subject to arrest for violating US law whenever they touch US soil (see SportingBet).

[ QUOTE ]
It therefore follows that the definition of a "restricted transaction" cannot be applied where the receipiant of a transaction is based outside the USA.

Therefore, if your USA based bank or credit card company refuses to make a foreign transction due to this new legislation then they are in breach of contract as this terrible piece of law (both in objective and drafting) clearly does not prohibit any such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

A)is much too broad of a statement. For example, the US certainly can, and does, prohibit Hamas from receiving transactions from US soil, and punishes anyone that it finds doing this with prison time. (This is a very imperfect example, but nonetheless, what you are actually talking about is a jurisdictional question - and the US takes a very broad view of jurisdiction.)

B)is simply wrong. The primary (but not the only) reason is that the text of the bill itself clearly states that you cannot sue for refusal of service.

[ QUOTE ]
The new law refers to <font color="blue"> "unlawful internet gambling" </font> which it defines as <font color="blue"> "any bet which involves the use of the internet and which is unlawful by any applicable Federal or State law". </font>

WHAT A LOAD OF GUFF!!!

This new law does not even define what "unlawful internet gambling" is! It simply refers to whatever existing law exists (if any) that purportedly already makes internet betting illegal. As above - the Wire Act does not apply to citizens not acting in the course of a business.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)Most states prohibit Internet gambling to one degree or another;

2)Federal law prohibits any sort of sports betting.

There *is* a viable challenge to this bill on the grounds that poker is a game of skill. Although legislative history refers to poker as covered by this bill, a judge could potentially disregard it (and many routinely do), so it is *possible* for a given court to find that playing poker does not count as either a sport or a game of chance. There is even some case law supporting this interpretation. However, I would not bet on this holding much water, because the judges that do not look on legislative history as important are exactly the social conservatives that would uphold the bill anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
4) The law specifically does not prohibit any money tranaction to a company like Neteller.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sole question on this subject is whether Neteller facilitates interstate gambling. Arguing that it does not is just silly. Admittedly, if Neteller execs are fine with never setting foot on US soil again, they'll just go on as normal since they are pretty much unreachable, but if the soon to be drafted regulations wind up encompassing Neteller, no US bank will ever touch them.

[ QUOTE ]
5) The law cannot stop US citizens making financial deposits to a non-US based institution. Any attempts to do so would be blocked by the World Trade Organisation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Antigua already won that case. Guess what the US did?

[ QUOTE ]
Quite why some non-US based companies are afraid of accepting business from US citizens is baffling. Have these big businesses not got any good lawyers?????

[/ QUOTE ]

They do. But most of them also have US contacts.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
I also read the "Restricted Transactions" definition differently than you do.

My take is that it covers financial transactions initiated by US financial institutions that have an end at sites accepting illegal internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Neteller and Firepay do not accept illegal internet wagers or bets. So how does this provision affect them. And they are not US financial institutions.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also read the "Restricted Transactions" definition differently than you do.

My take is that it covers financial transactions initiated by US financial institutions that have an end at sites accepting illegal internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Neteller and Firepay do not accept illegal internet wagers or bets. So how does this provision affect them. And they are not US financial institutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree with that, however if the regulations determine that those sorts of intermediaries facilitate an end run around the law then it may be upon the US insitutions not to deal with them.

[schroedy]

Andathar:

I think that the WTO case with Antigua is not parallel to a possible case involving the EU.

Otherwise, I mostly agree.

[breaktwister]

reply to berge

re: restricted transactions

The key point here is that the legislation defines a "restricted transaction" as one where <font color="blue"> "the recipient is prohibited from accepting under section 5363". </font>

If PartyPoker was the receipient of a potential transaction from your credit card company - would this be a "restricted transaction" according to the legislation? NO.

WHY?
Because PartyPoker (or any non-US company) is not under the US legal jurisdiction and cannot therefore be <font color="blue"> "prohibited from accepting under s5363" </font> as is required in order to produce a "restricted transaction!

[JPFisher55]

"I tend to agree with that, however if the regulations determine that those sorts of intermediaries facilitate an end run around the law then it may be upon the US insitutions not to deal with them."

US banks do not deal with Neteller or Firepay. They process EFT's with the banks servicing these two companies. No person actually sees the EFT. Banning an EFT from a foreign bank would likely violate international banking transactions. I just don't believe that will happen.
In fact banning the processing of checks to and from Internet Gambling Sites is not reasonable. It is cost prohibitive and would prevent banks from meeting regulations requiring check processing to occur within certain time periods. When you deposit a check, no person examines it. I recently had an unsigned check go right through the US banking system.

[catalyst]

I'm pretty sure I will be able to get my money into poker sites once this bill is enforced. It seems like the work-arounds won't be unbearable or anything. I think the main problem is that the fish, many of whom are in the US, won't bother to run through hoops so they can blowoff money at these tables. Let's face it, most winning poker players rarely even make deposits, the fish are the ones frequently depositing, and it will be them running through these hoops each time.

[Berge20]

I suppose it depends where you read the "or" in the definition.

Edit - I'm off to get some other work done. Good discussion though.

[adanthar]

Part of what you're missing in your OP/response is found in Nate's thread on extradition, who phrased it better than I did. The other part of what you're missing is that while Party execs are offshore/untouchable, credit card companies almost all refuse to perform gambling deposits in the first place (this has to do with a longstanding US common law tradition that gambling debts are unenforceable in contract) and are now super duper immune to lawsuits anyway.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
"I tend to agree with that, however if the regulations determine that those sorts of intermediaries facilitate an end run around the law then it may be upon the US insitutions not to deal with them."

US banks do not deal with Neteller or Firepay. They process EFT's with the banks servicing these two companies. No person actually sees the EFT. Banning an EFT from a foreign bank would likely violate international banking transactions. I just don't believe that will happen.
In fact banning the processing of checks to and from Internet Gambling Sites is not reasonable. It is cost prohibitive and would prevent banks from meeting regulations requiring check processing to occur within certain time periods. When you deposit a check, no person examines it. I recently had an unsigned check go right through the US banking system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I did not realize this. I was under the impression they delt directly with these companies and not a third-party bank.

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately bush appointed the Supreme Court who won't shoot down anything he passes...bye bye overturning this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong on both points.

1. Current President Bush has appointed one of the current nine members of the Supreme Court. The rest were appointed by prior Presidents and confirmed by prior Senate bodies.

2. The current Supreme Court has been willing to make rulings that President Bush does not favor.

[j555]

Not that it's that important, but didn't Renquist pass away and O'Conner retire and President Bush nominated Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court? And I think a couple of the other Justices were appointed by George W. Bush's dad so it's certainly a conservative majority especially when O'Conner retired.

[spatne]

He appointed two: Roberts and Alito.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
wow - permafrost - I am amazed!!!!!!!!

Your state prohibts anything as "unlawful" unless a law specifically authorizes it?

I cant believe that! Totally opposite to UK law where any act is deemed to be lawful unless specifically prohibited by law.

Let me have a quick look at your link and Ill post back.

[/ QUOTE ]


I did not say it was my state and I did not say that "anything" was unlawful unless authorized. The subject was gambling and yes gambling (167.117(7)) is unlawful in Oregon unless specifically authorized (167.117(24)); internet gambling is not authorized. This would be one of those times I would like to be wrong, so go for it.

[breaktwister]

Sorry perma, you are right - I realised only after reading your link what you meant about the "unlawful until authorized".

It sounds like internet gambling was illegal in Oregon prior to this new piece of legislation. In fact I noticed large parts of the new legislation to be quite similar to parts of your link!

Given that it was illegal before but no action was taken against players; do you think action will be taken against players now? Will the US gov make the banks give them details of anyone making gambling transactions?

We shall all have to wait and see - maybe the banks will say its unworkable and tell the gov to think again?

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]
I also read the "Restricted Transactions" definition differently than you do.

My take is that it covers financial transactions initiated by US financial institutions that have an end at sites accepting illegal internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

But dont the transactions, as far as US banks are concerned end at Neteller? whatever the individual does once it hits neteller is really a sepereate transaction, be it from neteller to individual or neteller to merchant. If the only end the banks can "see" the transaction ending is to Neteller, and they have absolutely no hand past that, hence ending the transaction at Bank/Neteller...how is it the same transaction from Neteller to Merchant. granted its the same money being moved, but it seems that its a seperate transaction.

[beeny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure I will be able to get my money into poker sites once this bill is enforced. It seems like the work-arounds won't be unbearable or anything. I think the main problem is that the fish, many of whom are in the US, won't bother to run through hoops so they can blowoff money at these tables. Let's face it, most winning poker players rarely even make deposits, the fish are the ones frequently depositing, and it will be them running through these hoops each time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't the sites set it up so that when fish wanted to deposit money that all the hurdles are already knocked down for them? They could make it so that the fish are still making one click to put their money in but the site would be doing some extra work behind the scenes to make it work.

When I first deposited on Party I tried using my debit card and it didn't work. Within 2 minutes an Indian lady had called me and was directing me, step-by-step, on how to deposit money by buying a phone card.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also read the "Restricted Transactions" definition differently than you do.

My take is that it covers financial transactions initiated by US financial institutions that have an end at sites accepting illegal internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

But dont the transactions, as far as US banks are concerned end at Neteller? whatever the individual does once it hits neteller is really a sepereate transaction, be it from neteller to individual or neteller to merchant. If the only end the banks can "see" the transaction ending is to Neteller, and they have absolutely no hand past that, hence ending the transaction at Bank/Neteller...how is it the same transaction from Neteller to Merchant. granted its the same money being moved, but it seems that its a seperate transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for US money laundering laws:

"One of the three prongs of the money laundering law deals purely with the international transportation, transmissions or transfers, from or to the United States, of illicit proceeds if done with the intent to "promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity" or if, with knowledge that the funds are from "some form of unlawful activity," to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the funds or avoid a federal or state transaction reporting requirement."

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry perma, you are right - I realised only after reading your link what you meant about the "unlawful until authorized".

It sounds like internet gambling was illegal in Oregon prior to this new piece of legislation. In fact I noticed large parts of the new legislation to be quite similar to parts of your link!

Given that it was illegal before but no action was taken against players; do you think action will be taken against players now? Will the US gov make the banks give them details of anyone making gambling transactions?

We shall all have to wait and see - maybe the banks will say its unworkable and tell the gov to think again?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, individual player enforcement of existing illegal online gambling is hard. Hence the new bill to make funding more diffucult which may or may not be effective.


Not saying I agree with unauthorized poker being unlawful, but I believe that most of the different States have for years had laws that indicate such.


Yes, banks might be a hope, but I'm depressed and doubtful about a happy ending.

[Lawman007]

This thread is pretty much moot now. The bill is already working, and it hasn't even become law yet.

[shighley3205]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is pretty much moot now. The bill is already working, and it hasn't even become law yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go suck a railroad spike

[advilandy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is pretty much moot now. The bill is already working, and it hasn't even become law yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go suck a railroad spike

[/ QUOTE ]

That's helpful...did you see party pulled out, or were you too busy with your railroad spikes?

[thetruest]

[ QUOTE ]
British, Irish, Scottish, whatever. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you know what from all i've seen of you on these boards all you are is a [censored] idiot continuously commenting on whatever supposed "grim" happenings in almost a cheerleader like way. GET A LIFE.

[oday28]

This is from Neteller

At last, someone is taking a rational approach to the situation in the US:


The Isle of Man-based e-cash processor Neteller issued a calming message to Neteller members late Sunday, pointing out that
a period of up to 9 months has been allowed for the US enforcement and federal banking entities to prescribe regulations for the new anti-online gambling funding bill.

These regulations will be necessary in order to require each designated payment system and all participants therein to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions, the statement says.

"It is currently unclear how NETELLER, a European company, with no assets, presence or employees in the US, would be affected by this bill. Once the regulations have been written, NETELLER will have a clearer view of which companies are affected, how those companies will be expected to comply, and any possible resulting impact on NETELLER and its US facing business.

"NETELLER continues to operate its business as normal.

Hopefully this will ease many minds.
Cheryl

[ginko]

ez

[Berge20]

Not needed

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
He appointed two: Roberts and Alito.

[/ QUOTE ]

My (stupid) mistake, thanks for the catch.

[Red_Diamond]

http://stackedqueens.com/guests/red_diamond/propaganda/stalin.png