What's the legality of being an AFFILIATE now?

[teddyFBI]

I've done a fair amount of reading, and there are a lot of opinions out there, but no one really supporting their claims with any reference to the UIGEA or other law.

But, I'm sorry to say, there seem to be more people on the side of "being a poker affiliate is now illegal", than on the other side. Anyone here have an informed perspective on this question?

[teddyFBI]

i am dumb and could have used the search function to find this thread before posting:

affiliates legal? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=law&Number=10053135&Searc hpage=1&Main=7811501&Words=affiliate&topic=&Search =true#Post10053135)

But i didn't. Oh well - you can reply to this thread if you still feel like it.

[teddyFBI]

Follow-up Q as I try to internalize some of this, though. If we assume for the sake of argument that being an affiliate IS illegal, does it apply with equal force to international websites?

Imagine, for a moment, than a citizen and resident of Australia set up a low-budget affiliate site that has banner ads to all the big poker sites, including some that still accept US players. Has he broken US law, because his affiliate site is ACCESSIBLE from within the US? Does he put himself at risk of being prosecuted?

p.s. right after the UIGEA passed, a lot of affiliates quickly moved their servers offshore, and touted the fact that they were now based internationally, not domestically -- I wonder, though, whether that has any impact on the legality of their operation...

[Reef]

I guess Karina Jett should've read this thread before signing up people for fulltilt poker at the pendleton Oregon tournaments. (Which the casino itself was announcing, so they probably got paid off)

[Skallagrim]

I have said it before, but I will do so again: an affiliate is almost (this is still a developing area of law) surely an "accomplice" to BOTH the site and the player. If either the site or the player is found to be breaking a law (by playing poker, not any law), an affiliate is just as guilty.

Of course the authorities have to both have the desire to prosecute you and the means to get their hands on you. At least with respect to poker, except in WA and LA, the authorities have shown little interest (yet), somewhat because this is still a grey area.

Skallagrim

[teddyFBI]

I just thought of a follow-up Q that I think merits discussion:

Is being an affiliate any MORE illegal after the UIGEA? Alright, that wasn't the most elegant way to phrase that question, but what I'm getting at is that while there are a flurry of posts in the last month or two about how being an affiliate is illegal, it seems that it would have been JUST as illegal BEFORE the UIGEA as it is now, right? E.g. if the UIGEA only address the transactions of US financial institutions, I can't see how this impacts the legality of an affiliate's operation (e.g. it may be illegal, but surely it was illegal before the UIGEA too then, right?)

Or do you think that it's simply the case that the attention surrounding online gambling in general that has brought it to the forefront of the US media's attention, and that's why all of a sudden there's a spotlight on the operation of affiliates, even though nothing has fundamentally changed regarding the legal status of their operation?

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Is being an affiliate any MORE illegal after the UIGEA?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some common affiliate activities might be direct violations:

1. Helping someone deposit by accepting money from them and then transferring a like amount of money into their online player account.

2. Entering into a rakeback agreement (aka contract) with a player and then paying rakeback money owed by transferring it into their player account.

3. Making a $50 (or whatever) initial deposit if a player signs up through you.