Department of Justice cracking down on money laundering!

[riverspecialist]

I just found this article on yahoo news. The temporary setup allowing people to make deposits through western union seems to be in bad shape. What does this mean? Whats next?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/131766

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
I just found this article on yahoo news. The temporary setup allowing people to make deposits through western union seems to be in bad shape. What does this mean? Whats next?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/131766

[/ QUOTE ]

Cripes this looks bad. Can you call your congressman and complain about the actions of the DOJ? Or is their someone else to complain to? Anyone know? Flood the DOJ director with calls?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just found this article on yahoo news. The temporary setup allowing people to make deposits through western union seems to be in bad shape. What does this mean? Whats next?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/131766

[/ QUOTE ]

Cripes this looks bad. Can you call your congressman and complain about the actions of the DOJ? Or is their someone else to complain to? Anyone know? Flood the DOJ director with calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this looks bad. This is what we're up against!! You see now why we want to take the initiative right now, before the UGIEA regs are in place, and before this is seen as established law?

Yes, we can flood Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales with calls, but I imagine we won't top his list on concerns right now. It is one of my Weekly Action Item items, so we should.

[Skallagrim]

It will do no good to send letters to Gonzales. These defendants almost for certain facilitated sports betting so the DOJ is on solid legal ground here.

But this should be an ominous sign for the complacent out there. The DOJ is clearly committed to prosecution in this area. It is only a matter of time before they reach the point where they will take on the poker sites and the funding methods for poker sites.

The only thing that willl stop them is a change in the law:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
It will do no good to send letters to Gonzales. These defendants almost for certain facilitated sports betting so the DOJ is on solid legal ground here.

But this should be an ominous sign for the complacent out there. The DOJ is clearly committed to prosecution in this area. It is only a matter of time before they reach the point where they will take on the poker sites and the funding methods for poker sites.

The only thing that willl stop them is a change in the law:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't send a note to Gonzales on this issue. I guess I should have been specific when I referenced by Action Item item. I was thinking more in terms of his hesitancy to offer up tough regs to Kyl during the Senate hearing last month. It may a good idea to send him a letter and remind him that many Americans think he shouldn't exceed UIGEA's minumum requirements (not much else we can ask....it's his job to enforce the law, and UIGEA is that).

I haven't written my letter to him yet, primarily because I haven't figured out exactly what to ask. I may get to it this weekend.

Kyl sucks.

I agree 100% on the vigilance of the DOJ. They aren't playing. I can't believe people are actually encouraging us to sit back until we get a legalization bill that satisfies everyone's ideological opinions and concerns over what COULD potentially happen in some kind of worst-case scenario.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
It will do no good to send letters to Gonzales. These defendants almost for certain facilitated sports betting so the DOJ is on solid legal ground here.

But this should be an ominous sign for the complacent out there. The DOJ is clearly committed to prosecution in this area. It is only a matter of time before they reach the point where they will take on the poker sites and the funding methods for poker sites.

The only thing that willl stop them is a change in the law:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]
Skall, if they do then at least we have a chance for a favorable court ruling on poker. I think that is the best chance for a poker exemption and improvement on the current situation.

[Skallagrim]

If it comes to that, I hope and pray you are right JP.

The arguments are lined up, with a little help from me and the other regular posters here, and I am optomistic.

But we are both lawyers JP, I dont have to tell you things are far from certain. Being right isnt a guarantee of victory in Court, unfortunately, but it does help [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Skall, I agree with you about uncertainty of any court victory. Actually, I would predict that we lose at the District Court level unless it is located in a state like California. I like our chances at the Court of Appeals level. But who knows.
FWIW. according to a video on APCW.org, the trial judge in the Carruthers case in St. Louis ruled that the Wire Act applies to all online gambling despite the present appellate rulings that it only applies to sports betting. The man on the video did not provide any details.
My only point is that a court victory at some level of federal court is more likely than any legislative victory for online poker.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I just found this article on yahoo news. The temporary setup allowing people to make deposits through western union seems to be in bad shape. What does this mean? Whats next?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/131766

[/ QUOTE ]


This just follows up what the Treasury SAID they were going to be doing at the beginning of the month.

XXwww.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp386.htm

[permafrost]

indictment

appears to all related to illegal sports betting businesses