my very basic of UIGEA

[schwza]

this is old news but i want to make sure i know the basics of what the bill does. i'm terrified of getting cornered by a law student or something and knowing less than him.

- it says that it's illegal for a company to facilitate the financial transaction from a US player to an online site for the purposes of unlawful gambling
- it does not change what is and is not unlawful gambling
- the justice department has maintained for a while that the wire act applies to online poker
- the courts have generally ruled that it does not, but not in such an overwhelming/precedent-setting way that it's clear that that's the law.

[Skallagrim]

Generally correct schwza, but some technical mistakes:

- the SITE (only the site can be "in the business of betting and wagering") breaks the criminal law if it takes US money for "unlawful" internet gambling (up to 5yrs in jail).

- "Financial Service Providers" must follow the upcoming (maybe) regulations when transferring money. Only Financial Srvice Providers that knowingly fail to follow the regs can get in trouble. Only companies that qualify as FSPs are subject to this rule.

- The DOJ has been pretty quiet about the wire act covering poker since the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that it covers only sportsbetting. That is BINDING precedent for all states that are part of the 5th circuit, and persuasive precedent everywhere else. Although other circuit courts could rule differently, the only court that can overrule the 5th Cir. is the US Supreme Court. My professional legal opinion is that this is a done argument, although I have to admit of the theoretical possiblity of the Supremes ruling differently. The DOJ has been consistent of late in avoiding making this argument part of any legal case.

Skallagrim

[schwza]

thanks for the response.

[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ has been consistent of late in avoiding making this argument part of any legal case.

[/ QUOTE ]

but doesn't the DOJ have to show the wagering in question is unlawful wagering before they can do anything to a site or US financial institution? and isn't the only mechanism for showing that a wager is unlawful the wire act?

it seems to me that if the wire act does not apply to poker then there isn't anything that says poker is unlawful wagering and therefore the UIGEA would not apply to poker.

[Skallagrim]

The UIGEA also seeks to enforce state law, thus if playing online poker is illegal under a state law it is "unlawful gambling" under the UIGEA for anyone playing poker from that state.

If you search my name you will find numerous posts by me where I have explained that this is exactly what the UIGEA does: since there is no Federal law against online poker, poker is only covered by the UIGEA where state law makes playing online poker illegal. You will also find discussions about the various state laws. Without repeating myself, I believe that online poker is not illegal in about 35 of the states, mostly because it is a game of skill.