Re: \"since checks seem to be exempt, .... \" ? No. checks are covered
Sorry fleeceme, this is still bordering on paranoia.
As far as your casual dismissal of my comment, if the "UIGEA applies to poker," perhaps you would have thought to read some of threads already discussing that point. It is actually a VERY complex issue, as is made clear in the master sticky for this forum.
I can come up with a creative interpretation of the law to cover a P2P transaction, that does not mean a court would adopt it as a correct interpretation of the law. This one would be highly questionable for the reasons I have stated, and, at the very least, would be the last prosecution on the list of DOJ gambling prosecution priorities.
Skallagrim
|