More prosection of e-wallets?

[Grasshopp3r]

Is this like Neteller? This concerns e-gold, which is another type of e-wallet.

http://www.e-gold.com/letter3.html

[MiltonFriedman]

To my knowledge, e-gold did not handle a significant amount of gaming business.

They kept their e-gold and assets in the US ???

[GittyUP]

Do you guys think epassporte is next? If not why? Seems inevitable...

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys think epassporte is next? If not why? Seems inevitable...

[/ QUOTE ]

With the current US Justice Dept. under the control of the right wing religious Republican bible thumping nuts ANYTHING is possible.

They could very easily take out epassporte any day now.

The only hope we have is that the time will pass by before they do this and the Republicans will lose control of the White House like they did the congress in the last election. If the Republicans keep control of the White House in the next election they will have enough time to totally wipe out online gaming and internet freedom as well. Remember, Republicans have also said they want to block ADULTS from accessing sites like Playboy.com and other even 'mainstream' adult sites. It will be a very very scary world if the Republicans keep control of the white hous in next years election.

[StellarWind]

e-gold is accused of knowingly being the Neteller of the child pornography industry. Supposedly they would surreptitiously help customers create new accounts after their old ones got exposed. I'm not saying that any of this is true, but if the accusations are correct then I completely support what the Government is doing.

AFAIK they are not in the online gaming transaction business.

[lala]

e-gold also is widely used in the autosurf and hyip (aka ponzi schemes) industry. After the 12dailypro and the stormpay debacle, these ponzis have relied on e-gold for funding.

[JPFisher55]

Epassporte only serves online poker sites. It does not serve online casinos or sports betting sites. This policy makes it a much harder target than Neteller.
If the DOJ indicts Epassporte and loses, then online poker would gain the exemption that we seek by legislation. I don't think that DOJ will take this gamble. I agree that online gaming in US and WTO will benefit from a new administration. However, I doubt that Guiliani, McCain or Romney would continue this campaign against online gaming or so blatanly disregard the WTO.

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
Epassporte only serves online poker sites. It does not serve online casinos or sports betting sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many if not most of the poker sites ePass serves does offer blackjack, so the argument that it does not serve online casinos is bogus.

[Sniper]

e-gold has always had a sketchy reputation...

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Epassporte only serves online poker sites. It does not serve online casinos or sports betting sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many if not most of the poker sites ePass serves does offer blackjack, so the argument that it does not serve online casinos is bogus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he meant was they dont deal with sites whose sole purpose are casino games or sports betting.

[JPFisher55]

Actually, I play at Vegas Poker 247. When it started Blackjack for money, it separated it into a separate account from your poker account. You can use Epassporte to fund your poker account, but not your blackjack account. I think that Epassporte demands this procedure for every poker site that they service that has blackjack.
Also, Epassporte does not service poker sites with sports betting or casino.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
If the DOJ indicts Epassporte and loses, then online poker would gain the exemption that we seek by legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]
The inference that "a lost case = poker exemption" is not necessarily true. Congress can close any loophole(s) a lost case may reveal, and can do so quickly if it chooses.

As it stands today, I don't think the DOJ is sersiously interested in prosecuting any online gaming cases. The DOJ has three real weapons in its arsenal: arrests, fines and imprisonment. They can do the first two -- arrest and fine -- and achieve 50%+ of the impact, whenever they feel like it, without having to do 90%+ of the actual hardwork (prosecuting AND winning a case).

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I play at Vegas Poker 247. When it started Blackjack for money, it separated it into a separate account from your poker account. You can use Epassporte to fund your poker account, but not your blackjack account. I think that Epassporte demands this procedure for every poker site that they service that has blackjack.
Also, Epassporte does not service poker sites with sports betting or casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

ePass services Ultimate Bet, which does have blackjack, a casino game, that is not played on a separate account from poker.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the DOJ indicts Epassporte and loses, then online poker would gain the exemption that we seek by legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]
The inference that "a lost case = poker exemption" is not necessarily true. Congress can close any loophole(s) a lost case may reveal, and can do so quickly if it chooses.

As it stands today, I don't think the DOJ is sersiously interested in prosecuting any online gaming cases. The DOJ has three real weapons in its arsenal: arrests, fines and imprisonment. They can do the first two -- arrest and fine -- and achieve 50%+ of the impact, whenever they feel like it, without having to do 90%+ of the actual hardwork (prosecuting AND winning a case).

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the DOJ's most deadly weapon... the "threat" of arrest, fine, or imprisonment...

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
ePass services Ultimate Bet, which does have blackjack, a casino game, that is not played on a separate account from poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you but perhaps it doesn't matter very much.

Legally speaking casino games such as blackjack and raked poker games seem to be virtually the same thing. Sports betting is a different thing because only sports betting is covered by the Wire Act.

Does anyone know of a sports betting site that uses ePassporte?

[JPFisher55]

According to compatiblepoker.com, Epassporte only allows US citizens to deposit into poker only sites.

[Skallagrim]

Sorry StellarWind, gotta respnd to this statement: "Legally speaking casino games such as blackjack and raked poker games seem to be virtually the same thing."

This is NOT CORRECT, at least not yet. There is no question casino games like blackjack are "gambling" under the law of every state. There is, at the very least, substantial question about Poker because it has been classified in 2 states as a game of skill. Also, a blackjack game against the house clearly puts the house in the "business of betting and wagering" whereas the "house" in poker does absolutely no betting or wagering.

There are some other distinctions...but they have been discussed before, the 2 above are the biggest.

It seems to me epassporte has deliberately set themselves up to be the most difficult e-wallet for the DOJ to screw with, and if that screwing does take place, I suspect epassporte will defend rather than capitulate. And if they win in Court, IT IS LEGAL POKER MY FRIENDS!

Yes, the Congress could then try to change the laws...lets see, it only took them 10 years to pass the UIGEA, and even then they had to use a trick. I aint that worried about that.

Skallagirm

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I doubt that ... Romney would continue this campaign against online gaming or so blatanly disregard the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are completely wrong.

[yahboohoo]

Here is an excerpt from one of the top results when searching Google for "poker" "game of skill" "state of California" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=poker+"game+of+skill"+"state+of+california"&btnG=Google+Search):

"There is an abiding misconception in the gambling community about the legal history of games like poker in the State of California. It is improperly assumed that poker is permitted because it is a game of skill, as opposed to a game of chance. Misstatements abound that California courts have so held." — from "California: Lotteries vs. Gambling," www.gambling-law-us.com (http://www.gambling-law-us.com)

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an excerpt from one of the top results when searching Google for "poker" "game of skill" "state of California" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=poker+"game+of+skill"+"state+of+california"&btnG=Google+Search):

"There is an abiding misconception in the gambling community about the legal history of games like poker in the State of California. It is improperly assumed that poker is permitted because it is a game of skill, as opposed to a game of chance. Misstatements abound that California courts have so held." — from "California: Lotteries vs. Gambling," www.gambling-law-us.com (http://www.gambling-law-us.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

A lottery in California is anything that involves "mainly chance" to determine the outcome. Same in Missouri. Lotteries are UNCONSITUTIONAL in both states. Both state Courts have ruled poker is not a lottery. Hence poker isnt mainly chance.

I could write a detailed rebuttal of the Chuck Humphrey article you site (or look up links to where I have done it before), but last time I checked Chuck Humphrey wasnt God and could be wrong.

Finally, if you read his whole article it is clear he does not understand poker that well (he does not claim to be a poker expert), admits that he could be wrong about poker actually being a game of skill, and acknowledges a California case finding rubber-style bridge (not duplicate) to be a game of skill where the reasoning behind the decision is 100% applicable to poker.

Besides, the point for this thread is that the "poker:skill or chance" argument is a viable argument and that does weigh in on DOJ tactical considerations.

Skallagrim

[MiltonFriedman]

I have been told that epasporte only handles poker deposits, not sportsbetting site deposits. That may be well and good for post UIGE Act, but misses the point:

1. The Steve Lawrence indictment and the BetonSports indictments were for largely PRE - UIGE Act activity.

2. Can you say that epassporte pre-UIGEA never took sportsbetting deposits ? If so, then they may be in the clear. If they EVER took sportsbetting deposits, then they are NOT in the clear any more than Neteller AND

their owner likes to run with the "Hollywood" crowd according to Variety .... they certainly have a presence within the US.

[JPFisher55]

I think, but don't know, that Epassporte has never serviced the online sports betting industry. Its owner is involved in the adult pornography business. So he has experience in fighting the DOJ in court. I agree with Skall that if the DOJ indicts him or Epassporte or interferes with its banking relationships, Epassporte will fight in court.

[yahboohoo]

I merely quoted it. Never said he was God. Just posting info I found, without bias one way or the other.

[Skallagrim]

Not trying to pick on you yahboohoo, but others who read this thread need to know the details.

And from what I can see, with no inside knowledge, JP is right: epass was first primarily a porn funding wallet. When Neteller bailed, it moved to step in, but only to poker sites. I suspect epass has a pretty sharp legal team, balanced the risks v. rewards, and chose its current path accordingly.