Re: \"since checks seem to be exempt, .... \" ? No. checks are covered
[ QUOTE ]
Even if its a pro accepting the transfer, thats not what "in the business" means here, it means accepting the money to place a bet for the person sending it as a primary source of income.
[/ QUOTE ]
Walters analysis linked in the OP seems to disagree about what "in the business" means and there are no exemptions in the law for someone that derives income from gambling. I think most judges could interpret "in the business" to mean a professional gambler.
[ QUOTE ]
Again assuming poker is covered by the UIGEA at all....
[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty fair assumption. All the publicly traded sites are gone. Overly cautions? Maybe. According to the statue, if the gambling is restricted by state or federal law it is covered under the UIEGA, which covers TT's statement:
[ QUOTE ]
Its is not illegal to run a state-side online poker room provided it is licensed and regulated by the authorizing state. It is illegal for said poker room to conduct business across state lines.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, since there are no state licensed online poker rooms then all online poker rooms must be illegal businesses. The DOJ would fire off letters in protest/challenge to any state that were to try - like they've done before - they've already shown a propensity to do this and claim online poker is illegal under the wire act. They just got a judge in the BOS case to agree the Wire Act covers more than sports betting.
Basically, poker has become like sports. No federal law against placing a sports bet. No federal law against playing poker.
But there are now 2 federal laws covering Bookmaking and Online Poker room ownership: the Wire act for bookmaking and the UIEGA for online poker.
Is it illegal in each state to place a bet or play poker online? Depends. As long as you lose, probably not.
To dismiss this issue so casually does not do it justice but clearly no one thinks its a big deal.
Give it time, the DOJ will get "creative" with this sooner or later. No doubt about it.
|