[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, there is some shifting in the interpetation of the Act by one expert.

In today's LA Times, Nelson Rose is quoted as follows:

That's a major weakness" of the new measure, said I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law at Whittier Law School.

"It left out expanding the reach of the Wire Act, so poker sites can say, 'We're not covered by that.' "

This failure to amend the Wire Act to include poker is the first step of two positive analytic threads:

First thread: Playing online poker is itself not "unlawful Internet Gambling" under Federal Law (leaving aside State law for now), so deposits for online poker are not in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".

1. The UIGE Act only related to deposits in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".

2. Poker is not unlawful Internet gambling (under the Wire Act, leaving aside State laws for this discussion.)

3. Therefore, deposits in connection with online poker are not retricted by the UIGE Act.

The second thread, which was my initial thought,:

1. Even assuming that online poker were construed to be "unlawful Internet gambling", the UIGE Act only applies to acceptance of deposits by persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering".

2. Poker site business models do not involve any risk of the site dependent upon the outcome of play; poker sites do not "bet or wager".

3. The poker-only business model is not a person covered by the restrictions of the UIGE Act.

4. (Where poker is regulated as "gambling" in State laws, it is specifically named ???)

TruePoker CEO

[/ QUOTE ]

TPCEO...has Tony Cabot weighed in on the bill yet?