Does Barring U.S. Players Eliminate Poker Sites Legal Liability?

[adios]

If this is in the wrong forum apologies. It's not clear to me why sites like Party apparently believe that barring U.S. accounts removes the liability or perhaps mitigates their liability risk of violating U.S. law subtantially. Bear with me on this please and if this has been brought up previously I would appreciate links to threads on discussion of it. With that said I'm going to construct an If-Then-Else type argument. If the premise proposed in the if segment is true then feel free to comment on the then portion. If the premise is false feel free to comment on the else portion.

IF

With the new law if sites like Party take wagers (include poker for sake of argument) from U.S. locations, they're violating the "wire act."

THEN

Wagers placed by foreign based players via the internet from U.S. locations are in violation of the wire act.

Wager placed by U.S. players from non U.S. locations are not in violation of the wire act.

Question how does barring U.S. accounts reduce the liability for places like Party of violating the law? It's obvious that if you bar U.S. players then the risk of breaking the law is reduced. However, it seems fairly clear to me that the U.S. government will hardly be mollified in pursuing these sites for illegal activity. Put another way with the new changes for U.S. accounts if the U.S. can make a case that Party is accepting wagers from within the U.S., the U.S. will seek to arrest Party execs when they set foot in the U.S. irregardless. Therefore it seems like Party will have to also block access from U.S. locations.

If U.S. citizens somehow circumvent Party like restrictions on U.S. account via fake addresses or whatever and are able to deceive Party Poker by making it look like the bets are not coming from the U.S. via the internet when they actually are, it still seems to me like Party is liable for breaking the law i.e. the wire act. If the U.S. government can a make a case for this happening then see above, the U.S. government won't hesitate to arrest Party execs when they set foot on U.S. soil. It seems to me that Party will have to spend a ton of money to police their accounts and activity on their site. I'm pretty sure they're fighting a losing battle but we'll see.

ELSE

What law is being violated if not the wire act?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
IF

With the new law if sites like Party take wagers (include poker for sake of argument) from U.S. locations, they're violating the "wire act."


[/ QUOTE ]

This is iffy. The pending UIGE, your 'new law', does not somehow make the Wire Act definitely apply now to online gambling.


[ QUOTE ]
ELSE

What law is being violated if not the wire act?

[/ QUOTE ]

A good place to search would be the laws of your state.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF

With the new law if sites like Party take wagers (include poker for sake of argument) from U.S. locations, they're violating the "wire act."


[/ QUOTE ]

This is iffy. The pending UIGE, your 'new law', does not somehow make the Wire Act definitely apply now to online gambling.


[ QUOTE ]
ELSE

What law is being violated if not the wire act?

[/ QUOTE ]

A good place to search would be the laws of your state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting I thought that the basis for prosecuting the sites was the wire act which the new law added teeth to but obviously I'm no lawyer. Looks like a court challenge is inevitable but could be convinced otherwise.

[Hock_]

I think what you say is technically orrect, but the reason behind Party's decision appears to be that if it blocks US accounts the chances that it will be prosecuted for violating the act will be significantly reduced. It's probably right.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what you say is technically orrect, but the reason behind Party's decision appears to be that if it blocks US accounts the chances that it will be prosecuted for violating the act will be significantly reduced. It's probably right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I disagree. Believe me I'm not a bleeding heart lib but my take is that DOJ won't give a rats ass. If they can make a case, they'll proceed with it as vigorously as possible irregardless of what a foreign entity has done to deter people from violating the act. They don't want to see these sites in business. True they can't shut down foreign sites easily but they can make their life as miserable as possible. As I've stated in other posts even if players from U.S. locations circumvent the Party restrictions by playing from the U.S. and Party has done much to block players from U.S. locations in playing then that won't matter to the current DOJ in the least. For instance if such a Party exec sets foot on U.S. soil and the DOJ can make a case they'll arrest that exec irregardless what Party has done to stop play from the U.S.

[LotsOfOuts69]

You are right. Technically, there is no way Party can block every single bet placed from within the US. There will still be wagers placed, they will still be in violation of the law.

But, taking these measures, may be all the *can* do. The US cant impose unenforcable laws on companies that operate outside the borders. By elimintaing all US players, it does reduce the chance they will be prosecuted.

Who would they go after first, the company that stopped taking American wagers, and may have a few hundred people circumventing their rules, or the site that still has 40,000 people placing bets from the US.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right. Technically, there is no way Party can block every single bet placed from within the US. There will still be wagers placed, they will still be in violation of the law.

But, taking these measures, may be all the *can* do. The US cant impose unenforcable laws on companies that operate outside the borders. By elimintaing all US players, it does reduce the chance they will be prosecuted.

Who would they go after first, the company that stopped taking American wagers, and may have a few hundred people circumventing their rules, or the site that still has 40,000 people placing bets from the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

My take FWIW is that the U.S. DOJ will go after anyone they can make a case against. If a Party official fell in their lap so to speak by being in the U.S. then they'd have no qualms about arresting the exec if they feel they can make a case. Why would the DOJ cut anyone any slack?

[dwd]

It seems like you are arguing just to argue. The DOJ would cut them some slack because Party made an attempt to comply with the law, thereby, losing 75% of their business. A judge/jury would be sympathetic to a company who cut off 75/80% of their business and would not be sympathetic to the DOJ trying to prosecute them.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
With the new law if sites like Party take wagers (include poker for sake of argument) from U.S. locations, they're violating the "wire act."

[/ QUOTE ]
The new law does not update the Wire Act. If poker sites are violating the Wire Act after the new law passes, then they've been violating the Wire Act since 1961.

It seems pretty clear to everyone but the DOJ, however, that poker sites are not violating the Wire Act.

They are, however, violating a number of state laws -- and by virtue of the UIGEA, they will soon be violating this federal law which piggy-backs on state laws.

[ QUOTE ]
Question how does barring U.S. accounts reduce the liability for places like Party of violating the law?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have the text of the new law open in another tab right now (like I have for much of the past few days), but I'm fairly certain it bars persons from knowingly accepting unlawful wagers. If the site reasonably believes that a particular wager is originating from outside the U.S., I don't think it is knowingly accepting an unlawful wager. (This would depend on statutory interpretation, however, as well as general legal principles distinguishing between mistakes of law and mistakes of fact.)

[Panzer IV]

Withdrawing from US market virtually assures DOJ will not pursue Party. Party will likely amend its terms and conditions to that require account holders not play from US based IP addresses. Party's decision to leave is almost certainly based on its status as public company. As public company, it faces additional civil and criminal risks by continuing its operations in US and those risks could easily extend to management.