Party Gaming is talking to DOJ, seeks an indulgence?

[MiltonFriedman]

From egaming review ... "NEWS: PartyGaming is in the process of voluntarily responding to a request for information from the US attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, it announced this morning. News of the discussions between Party and the US authorities comes after months of speculation about further actions by the Department of Justice towards those involved in the online gaming sector. More on this later.'

Possible topics?

1. Uncoded credit card transactions ?
2. WSOP Seat for Alberto Gonzales ?
3. Confession that "poker is illegal" as quid pro quo for getting an indulgence ?

[Soulman]

This has exciting implications indeed, although 2. is probably the most likely.

[Uglyowl]

Did Party ever offer sports betting in the United States? I don't remember. I know they offered poker and casino games.

I'd be interested to know if the DOJ is questioning a non-sports betting gambling company.

[Wynton]

I would expect the basic outline of an agreement to be the following:

In exchange for no prosecution (or no prosecution resulting in any jail), Party and its execs:

1. Pay a substantial fine/restitution.
2. Agree never to offer services in US via a consent decree.
3. Cooperate in investigations against others in the industry.

[MiltonFriedman]

I do not believe they ever offered sports gaming in the US. They did offer both poker and casino gaming.

They also reportedly processed millions of dollars in uncoded credit card transactions, the basis for the indictments recently in Utah.

I thinl this will be an interesting area to watch, primarily because I think Party will be more than willing to throw as much dirt as possible on PStars, FTP and other US facing poker operations.

The reports indicate that the approach came from DOJ from NY, same as the approaches to Firepay .... likely it is related to player deposits in some manner.

[MiltonFriedman]

"2. Agree never to offer services in US via a consent decree."

I am totally in disagreement with you on this point. This is not a Wire Act case. I think it is unlikely that Party will admit to any federal law violations, except perhaps on the uncoded transaction area. ...

Put this into perspective,

1. Party DID almost certainly accept uncoded credit card transactions,
2. DOJ wants to close off uncoded credit card transactions for the US sports bettors (and poker players),

3.the Regs are due out, and WILL cover credit card transactions

4. the likelihood has been floated that paper checks or EFTs will get a pass under the regs, DOJ will need "cover" to placate the Kyl Krew,

5. Bonus: Party is a virgin under UIGE and can "confess" that poker is covered, without liability, and throw PStars under the bus.

The payoff for Party, they get to re-enter if/when poker receives a blessing.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
"2. Agree never to offer services in US via a consent decree."

I am totally in disagreement with you on this point. This is not a Wire Act case. I think it is unlikely that Party will admit to any federal law violations, except perhaps on the uncoded transaction area. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Milt, this is a cost-benefit analysis. Even if this is not a Wire Act case, and even if Party could prevail in a prosecution, that does not mean the risk is worth it to them. And it's possible to enter into an agreement WITHOUT admitting to criminal liability.

You asked, I thought, what the parties would be discussing. And I would be quite surprised if this was not a topic under discussion.

[Grasshopp3r]

I see this as a precursor to a sale in order to clarify their exposure to their purchaser. I don't know if this is a bad or a good thing for the industry or our goals.

[Legislurker]

Well, whatever is going on the PPA knows about it since the PPA is their(Party's) creature. You would think they would drop their crop of 542k members a crumb of knowledge about what is going on. I agree its to clear up a buyout by a private equity firm. The IRS can levy large fines or "settle" for small ones. Imagine say they clear up all liability with the IRS/Justice, then are sold quickly to a private equity group owned in large part by a country such as China(they own part of several large funds), and China sues for compensation under GATS with the value of Party to bargain with before an arbitration panel.

[Grasshopp3r]

There are plenty of private equity groups that would love to get into Party, with the potential future upside of the business. There are also plenty of countries that would have an interest in pursuing GATS claims through the WTO, whether it was through Antigua or separately.

[counthomer]

As much as this disgusts me as a US player, this is a quite brilliant strategic business move by Party, and possibly one of the most significant things to happen this month (although it probably doesn't appear so to the people outside of the industry).

For those who think this is positive, Party has, and always has been, interested in its own position. People in the industry have been fearing this type of play for a while, the only question is why it has taken so long.

Party is simply looking to come out of this with a clean slate, and in the process it hopes to deal a crippling blow to all the current US rooms. All it may need is some sort of joint agreement with the DoJ stating exactly what Milton theorised - that poker is illegal etc etc.

The US rooms won't agree with any statement, but it puts them in a terrible position - if the DoJ openly comes out against them (whether this is legally correct or not) they face the prospect of many of the payment providers taking an extremely risk averse attitude and pulling the plug.

In many respects this is possibly a terrible bit of news for us US players, but you have to admire how Party is playing their hand.

If you want to look at this on an even deeper level, it says a lot about the fragmentation of aims within the industry, how Party possibly sees the WTO issue and the challenges we face getting everyone pushing in the right direction.

[oldbookguy]

OK,

1. Prior to signing the UIGEA, poker / casinos were NOT against the law in the U.S.
Two federal court ruling specifically ruled that in a
MasterCard case.

2. Even after signing the UIGEA there is no clear set of rules, it simply states 'games of chance'. SINCE there are many SKILL games allowed (even U.S. companies via AOL & MSN) that include card games, we have no way of knowing if poker is even covered since common sense tells us there is no LESS skill in poker than playing Solitaire for cash in competitions.

What is a fact.
Legal or illegal ALL companies that pay out winning are required to send you, your state and the IRS a 1099 form.
For those who never had one of these, they are a 1040 with no taxes.

There are federal laws concerning this.

This law they have broken and it carries a fine at the most I would guess.

NOW, if they are talking to the USAO / DoJ, it can be safely guessed if you were paid more than 600 dollars TOTAL by Party poker in any given year the IRS / DoJ is gonna know.

600 is the thresh hold amount.

The 'legal' skill game sites even tell you that they will send the form 1099 as required by law if you request a payout during the year and it exceeds (cumulative or at once) the 600.

Speculation on my part but this is a fact concerning the 1099 forms.

Additionally, there are 14 states where even skill wagering is illegal.

The above is my contention that concerning poker is as far as the UIGEA reaches other than games that are pure chance played against a computer and not against a real person.

obg

[Coy_Roy]

I think this is just about clarifying their status with the DOJ, probably so they can better prep for this year' WSOP in which they are a major sponsor.

Just guessing though.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Good article from Forbes linked below.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/06/04...4markets11.html (http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/06/04/partygaming-doj-update-markets-equity-cx_po_0604markets11.html)

At this stage, this is more something to watch than something to worry about.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
As much as this disgusts me as a US player, this is a quite brilliant strategic business move by Party, and possibly one of the most significant things to happen this month (although it probably doesn't appear so to the people outside of the industry).

For those who think this is positive, Party has, and always has been, interested in its own position. People in the industry have been fearing this type of play for a while, the only question is why it has taken so long.

Party is simply looking to come out of this with a clean slate, and in the process it hopes to deal a crippling blow to all the current US rooms. All it may need is some sort of joint agreement with the DoJ stating exactly what Milton theorised - that poker is illegal etc etc.

The US rooms won't agree with any statement, but it puts them in a terrible position - if the DoJ openly comes out against them (whether this is legally correct or not) they face the prospect of many of the payment providers taking an extremely risk averse attitude and pulling the plug.

In many respects this is possibly a terrible bit of news for us US players, but you have to admire how Party is playing their hand.

If you want to look at this on an even deeper level, it says a lot about the fragmentation of aims within the industry, how Party possibly sees the WTO issue and the challenges we face getting everyone pushing in the right direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever deal Party makes with the DOJ does not affect the legality of online poker in court.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever deal Party makes with the DOJ does not affect the legality of online poker in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

The legal position is irrelevant in this case. All Party has to achieve is to scare a majority of the remaining payment processors out of the market.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever deal Party makes with the DOJ does not affect the legality of online poker in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

The legal position is irrelevant in this case. All Party has to achieve is to scare a majority of the remaining payment processors out of the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only remaining ewallet for US customers is Epassporte. I don't think that they will easily scare. Unlike all these sissy online poker rooms, Epassporte is part of the online pornagraphy industry which is not scared of the DOJ and has won in court against the DOJ.

[Skallagrim]

Whatever party is up to, it will only affect them.

The DOJ could get them to swear upon a stack of stock certificates that poker is "bad" and "illegal" and it will have no legal effect whatsoever.

[tangled]

Mmmm…

Party is a major sponsor of the WSOP and they are moving towards a legal clean slate.

Harrah’s, the owner of the WSOP, is moving towards online gaming capability.

These two companies have a cozy business relationship and a common goal: to legally offer online gaming in the US.

Perhaps the plan is to launch a two-pronged attack on Washington with Party, through the cover of the PPA, and Harrah’s working symbiotically to achieve their common goal. A major carrot in this assault (besides massive campaign contributions) might be the offer of massive taxation which would be absorbed by ridiculous rakes. We know Party already makes their appeal to fish, and fish don’t care about rake.

The stick might be (idea from Lurker’s post) that Party could be taken private and used in the WTO case, which would increase the headache of idiots like Kyl.

I know I’m not the first person to see this kind of thing happening --if it is happening, but it all does seem to be lining up that way.


The irony of it all is that when the smoke clears it could very well be that Party et al. is able to operate in the US and PS et al. is effectively left out as they are unlikely to receive legal absolution which will kill them in a legal market.

Of course this is all speculation.