Pokerstars allowing U.S. based company to transfer money to them - Page 6

mays24 · #51 02-12-2007, 03:47 PM

Thanks for the info on Moneygram

10 bucks on 200 - that's what - 5%, right? lol

Back in biz

Skallagrim · #52 02-12-2007, 04:47 PM

You have to read the details of the UIGEA, permafrost. The UIGEA instantly made it a crime for A SITE to accept money for gambling unlawful under state law. The sites are overseas, however, and there is very little the DOJ can do to them (unless their execs visit the US). Transferring money for unlawful gambling was not made an instant crime, it will become a crime when the regulations are out if a company knowingly violates the regulations.

permafrost · #53 02-12-2007, 05:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA instantly made it a crime for A SITE to accept money for gambling unlawful under state law.

[/ QUOTE ] I basically agree.

[ QUOTE ]
The sites are overseas, however, and there is very little the DOJ can do to them (unless their execs visit the US).

[/ QUOTE ] I basically agree accept this thread is about one based here if I remember correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
Transferring money for unlawful gambling was not made an instant crime,

[/ QUOTE ] Then why make your sportsbetting comment in a paragraph about UIGEA?

[ QUOTE ]
it will become a crime when the regulations are out

[/ QUOTE ] What crime will it become?

Skallagrim · #54 02-12-2007, 06:01 PM

You just goading me?
1) Sportsbetting actvity violates the federal wire act.
2) It will bcome a violation of the UIGEA.

permafrost · #55 02-12-2007, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You just goading me?
1) Sportsbetting actvity violates the federal wire act.
2) It will bcome a violation of the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just trying to understand how Moneygram can take this risk, as others have said. If they have decided online poker is legal and their sending funds is legal now, I want to understand the decision's logic in these strange days(and would applaud them if they prevail over the many laws that could apply).

I still don't see how given online poker legality, you can think UIGEA regs would somehow change the Moneygram decision. The regs won't give lawful gambling restrictions to my knowledge. (and if their decision was wrong, the regs will be low on the list of their problems).

Finally, you indicated that funding of (the wire act's) unlawful sportsbetting sites was illegal then later seemed to retract that ('transferring money for unlawful gambling was not made an instant crime')and said it will be illegal by the forthcoming UIGEA regs, seems contradictory, but I give up on that.

Skallagrim · #56 02-13-2007, 02:57 PM

Sorry premafrost, it does get hyper technical - because of the wire act, knowingly transferring money for sportsbetting can be considered aiding and abetting sportsbetting - this is exactly what the neteller execs are charged with (PRE UIGEA activity).

POST UIGEA, when the regs do come out, they may say ANYTHING, they may say that giving money to a poker site is not allowed, they may even say (we can hope) Poker is exempt, and they may make no mention of what is or is not unlawful gambling at all (in which case funding poker from some states should be allowed). Whatever they say, money transfer services (subject to US jurisdiction) will have to comply or risk being prosecuted.

permafrost · #57 02-14-2007, 01:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry premafrost, it does get hyper technical - because of the wire act, knowingly transferring money for sportsbetting can be considered aiding and abetting sportsbetting - this is exactly what the neteller execs are charged with (PRE UIGEA activity).

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I read, they were charged with conspiring to launder money. Is the aiding and abetting new?

[ QUOTE ]
money transfer services (subject to US jurisdiction) will have to comply or risk being prosecuted.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? Do you mean charged with a crime or fined by the new (or current) regulations or thrown off the system or what?

Skallagrim · #58 02-14-2007, 02:51 PM

You ask a lotta questions, permafrost, but you are polite [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
The money laundering/aiding and abetting violations of the wire act are all part of the same case against them; its common to charge different possible crimes for the same acts.
The UIGEA provdes specific penalties for financial institutions that dont follow the regs, I THINK its just fines, but it may also be jail time -that id have to look up and its time for lunch [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].