Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The Act exempts activities that we all know are gambling, but are, by statute, declared not to be gambling. These include securities and commodities, ...that are traded on U.S. exchanges.

---

This guy is an idiot if he really thinks this.

---

having spent several years as a member of a national securities exchange making markets in equity derivatives, I'd be very interested for you to explain how what I did is any different from what a sports book in vegas, or an online book, does--aside from legal categorizations. you can bet up, or down, we give a two-sided market, and then move the line.

---

The real difference is that capital markets (allegedly) allocate capital efficiently, thus driving the economy, while gambling does nothing more than allocate capital (very) efficiently to casino owners.

TBH the reality is that the financial markets are more of a gamble than casinos, since in the short-term for most small investors the markets involve more variance than a crap shoot while in a casino or similar you should know that you are expected to lose your shirt if you play for long enough.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I was kind of disappointed not to see a constitutional analysis on the Commerce Clause, which, I am assuming, is the legal authority for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

In reading the Act, it appears Neteller is a "Financial Transaction Provider" (section 5362(4)) and not "a person engaged in the business of betting or wagering" (section 5362(2)). If so, the Act does not apply to monetary transfers to or from Neteller from a U.S. bank or credit card company (it only applies to monetary transfers to a person engaged in the business of betting or wagering per section 5363). This would make Neteller a non-U.S. based Financial Transaction Provider.

Poker sites are persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering, but are also non-U.S. based.

A transaction between Neteller and a poker site is between two non-U.S. based entities.

The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, or U.S. commerce with a foreign nation, but not commerce between two non-U.S. based entities.

If the Commerce Clause is the authority for the Act, it does not give Congress the authority to regulate transactions between Neteller and poker sites.

I have thought of various other defenses to the Act, but this one seems the most obvious.

Disclaimer: I'm a pokemon, use the information in this email at your own risk.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

This guy is arguably THE leading authority on internet gambling law.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If so, the Act does not apply to monetary transfers to or from Neteller from a U.S. bank or credit card company (it only applies to monetary transfers to a person engaged in the business of betting or wagering per section 5363). This would make Neteller a non-U.S. based Financial Transaction Provider.

---

I think a serious point is being overlooked: The applicability argument is well and good and Neteller may not be classified as "in the business of betting or wagering" under the legislation BUT ------

The legislation seems to give every U.S. bank or financial institution an individual choice of how a "transaction provider" will be treated. It exempts them (the U.S. banks) from liability if they block/refuse any transaction from any -transaction provider- where they reasonably believe the transaction might be used for illegal Internet gambling.

To put it in a nutshell - it appears, does it not, that banks or financial institutions will have complete discretionary powers to reject ANY transaction under the auspices of it being related to illegal internet gambling.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

What Doc just said has a TON of merit. I'm a lawyer, and used to work for a large law firm, which would get issues such as this. And Doc's proposed solution is the one I would have been most likely to bring to the partner, if I thought after talking to the client it was workable. If I'm the General Counsel of Chase or Bank of America, (or their lawyers) I'm looking for the exits on this issue-- how can I keep myself out of jail and my company out of BIG trouble. And Doc outlines one possible solution.

---

Post Extras: