Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sites that continue to accept US players ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if they were already BREAKING THE LAW. Thus, the UIGEA does not update the Wire Act. It does not criminalize any gambling activity at all. (It criminalizes money transfers in connection with gambling activity, but only to the extent that such gambling activity was already illegal under other state or federal laws. The Act explicitly states in several places that it does not narrow or expand the scope of any other anti-gambling laws.)

If you're saying that the Act gives some federal teeth to previously ineffectual state anti-gambling laws, yes, it may do that.

But it does not update the Wire Act.

Updating the Wire Act is next on Leach's to-do list, but he hasn't done it yet.

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be really, really, clear on this...the act of two people playing poker against each other constitutes an unlawful bet or wager.

[/ QUOTE ]
In some states it does. Not in all states. And not under any federal law (including the UIGEA).

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
Only if they were already BREAKING THE LAW. Thus, the UIGEA does not update the Wire Act. It does not criminalize any gambling activity at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um yes. Reread what I wrote, that's exactly what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
it doesn't make gambling itself illegal, only breaking other laws related to internet gambling (i.e. state laws or the wire act). It effectively gives them the power to prosecute under federal law, if a current law has been broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also note the definition of a bet or wager. This will have an effect on the interpretation of the Wire Act by the courts ( as Stellar pointed out)

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

Missed S5367, because I thought that was meant to preempt a gambling site starting a financial service company that is a direct portal to their gambling facility. Still though, you did not bold the "if such person has actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers", and True Poker does not.

It's thin, don't get me wrong, but I still see how a poker-only site could think they could sweat this law.

Also I agree with you that a site like Party (if they continued to accept US customers) are clearly breaking the law whereas it was not clear with the Wire Act (and certainly this is why only sports book CEOs have been arrested to this point).

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

Control is not defined, but I think operating the software that allows for betting comes right under this definition. They also control whether someone can bet, and how much, as well as providing direct funding for your bets and wagers (i.e. your account/balance with the poker site), which is explicitly covered under another section. There's no wiggle room here. It's specifically designed to target online poker, and is very clear.

The term "control", in my opinion, is simply there to narrow it down from people who have just "knowledge" of the activity (which can't be illegal in itself).

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

If a site accepts our money and our bets and wagering though and is as you say breaking the law we (individual players in the U.S.) are still not breaking the law. Am I correct in this? So as long as sites decide to stick around and break the law we might as well continue to play poker since we will be doing nothing illegal. Correct?

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
So as long as sites decide to stick around and break the law we might as well continue to play poker since we will be doing nothing illegal. Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on what state you're in. In many states, playing poker for money is illegal. (This is not affected one way or the other by the new federal legislation.)

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

Don't dismiss the OP's point too quickly. Although the House-passed amendment to the Wire Act was discarded, the Act which did pass both bodies does create a new federal crime.

His analysis is accurate that playing internet poker appears to be clearly illegal in some States. However, the Act still does require that a site be engaged in the "business of betting or wagering" to fall within its Section 5363 purview. This is a similar issue to the Wire Act not covering "poker'. A potential prosecution would have to cover why the legislation mentions sportsbooks and casinos specifically, but not poker, and adopts a "business model" criteria for coverage which does not cover purely poker sites.

Interestingly, the Act limits a State to seeking civil injunctive relief against restricted transactions. However, enforcement against Financial Institutions seems to require the promulgation of Regulations under Section 5364 and enforcement against regulated payment systems is a Federal regulatory matter. ... hence the up to 270 day window Neteller and others are looking at currently.

I am interested in what PStars decides of course, but the difference between Party acting immediately and PStars weighing options may be due to the lesser level of scrutiny afforded private companies.

Seems likely that some litigation will follow the Regs being promulgated in any event.

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

Doesn't really matter which side of your Hobson's Choice I pick, I am either incompetent or a liar.

Except, Phil .... Could you explain how a poker site is somehow involved in the EXEMPTION provided by Section 5362(2). I kind of thought that exemption only applied to financial institutions, interactive computer services, or telecomunications services.... which of these is a poker site?

The section 5367 Non-circumvention language you cite is there to prevent one of these three types of businesses, otherwise expressly exempted, from also having 'actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers". It means that a sportsbook or online casino, which would otherwise be engaged in the business of betting or wagering cannot, by calling itself an interactive computer service, escape Section 5363 by reason of an express exemption. A purely-poker site does not have to avail itself of a Section 5362(2) exemption, because it is not covered in the first place.

There are no guarantees in statutory construction, but there is such a thing as strict construction of criminal statutes. Congress could have amended the Wire Act, but they did not.

It is getting tiresome to be called a liar by you .... I'll settle for "incompetent", I guess.

(I practiced law for almost 20 years, and have tried cases and argued statutory interpretations in appellate courts at the state and federal level, variously for the government, gaming clients, and other people facing regulatory issues, but I did NOT win every argument, so call me "incompetent" if it makes you feel better.)

Re: Few seem to have noticed how the new law \"fixes\" the Wire Act
 

[ QUOTE ]
By facilitating the placing of bets and wagers, they are guilty under this act and the applicable state or federal law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is not really accurate. They are guilty under this act only if there is an applicable state or federal law. You are assuming that the courts will hold that the Wire Act applies to poker, but in the past they have held that it only applies to sports betting. You may be right, the courts may change their ruling, but no one knows what the courts are going to say.