Questions about bill text - Page 2

BluffTHIS! · #11 09-30-2006, 08:23 AM

p. 221 where it starts with "unlawful internet gambling".

kslghost · #12 09-30-2006, 08:27 AM

Yes, the part I quoted... But it says it must be a wager that is unlawful under any Federal or State law... what Federal Laws?

As Hock_ said, the Wire Act is the most commonly quoted, but it is very unclear since different government parties have disagreed upon its meaning towards poker.

BluffTHIS! · #13 09-30-2006, 08:32 AM

ksl,

I see what you are getting at. But it still means that if a state (they all do) outlaws online gambling (they all do because they all to my knowledge outlaw any gambling not specifically made legal), then this bill means those state laws apply across the net to offshore sites and provide penalities to those site owners and mandates for banks to block such transactions. However, states can only legalize such online gambling for its own citizens and must deny access to residents of other states. Plus like Hock said, many senators probably think this gives added teeth to the wire act, even if that's not actually the case.

So bottom line is this law seeks to effectively enforce state laws regarding transactions between a state's citizens and offshore gambling sites.

Richas · #14 09-30-2006, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That is, would the US gov't not be able to extradite the owners/employees of such a company if the respective extradition treaty so allowed? Now most countries are going to be less apt to extradidte for this than drugs obviously. But still those owners/employees would have to not ever come to the US or risk arrest as has happened recently with the BetOnSports guy. That's why my "loophole/end run" thread advises sites to relocate in Costa Rica or a similarly friendly country that won't extradite for such offenses, AND doesn't have US subsidiaries whose funds can be seized.

[/ QUOTE ]

The UK will not extradite to anywhere for something that is not an offence in the UK and we have just about the closest US/UK extradition treaty there is (even if your legislators have not yet implemented the treaty we have been using for years).

Here's my proposition bet - Party to announce shift of regulation to the UK by 7th October 2006. This whole bill is insane in terms of free trade agreements it cannot possibly be OK to ban banks from dealing with legitimate foreign companies offering a service that is available in the US (B&M).

AustinDoug · #15 09-30-2006, 10:09 AM

I agree with your analysis. Nothing in this bill prohibits online gambling -- the bill pre-supposes that onling gambling is already illegal.

Look first to the title, it is entitled "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement." Thus, it is merely attempting to enforce existing law.

Section 5361(b) provides that the bill does not alter, limit, or expant federal/state law on gambling.

Section 5362(10) defining "unlawful internet gambling" links such unlawful activities to existing state and federal law.

As has been previously dicussed, First and the Department of Justice have stated for years that internet gamlbing is already illegal under Federal law. Thus, there would be no reason for this bill to ban online gambling. However, many people feel the existing federal law does not ban online gambling in all forms. The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Louisiana and Texas) has previously limited the relied upon federal statute to banning sports wagering only.

From a practical standpoint, banks and ISP aren't going to want to get in to legal debate over whether internet gambling is legal or not. So, we can expect them to comply with this bill. The perception will remain that it is illegal. However, that does not appear to be the reality.

kslghost · #16 09-30-2006, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But it still means that if a state (they all do) outlaws online gambling (they all do because they all to my knowledge outlaw any gambling not specifically made legal),

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh this clarifies it to me, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
Section 5361(b) provides that the bill does not alter, limit, or expant federal/state law on gambling.

Section 5362(10) defining "unlawful internet gambling" links such unlawful activities to existing state and federal law.

As has been previously dicussed, First and the Department of Justice have stated for years that internet gamlbing is already illegal under Federal law. Thus, there would be no reason for this bill to ban online gambling. However, many people feel the existing federal law does not ban online gambling in all forms. The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Louisiana and Texas) has previously limited the relied upon federal statute to banning sports wagering only.

From a practical standpoint, banks and ISP aren't going to want to get in to legal debate over whether internet gambling is legal or not. So, we can expect them to comply with this bill. The perception will remain that it is illegal. However, that does not appear to be the reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your analysis is very clear. Thanks!

Benjamin · #17 10-01-2006, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
From a practical standpoint, banks and ISP aren't going to want to get in to legal debate over whether internet gambling is legal or not. So, we can expect them to comply with this bill. The perception will remain that it is illegal. However, that does not appear to be the reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you mentioned previously, online gaming as it exists now is typically illegal under state law (conducting a for-profit gambling business without a license will always be covered somewhere in the code, even if playing games in private may be legal). Courts have apparently determined that when you conduct business on the internet, that business is taking place where you sit in front of your computer, as well as where the company servers are, so state law applies and the often seen 'but the game is offshore' defense doesn't work.

The new law makes it a federal crime for the operating sites to accept money for illegal gambling, so when it is signed, those violations start accruing if the sites keep taking deposits. I'd expect some of the major sites to suspend deposits from the US when it's signed into law, or at least after getting a warning letter from the DA.

Some sites will continue to accept deposits, as the sportsbooks do already. WPEX might finally become popular if Party and Stars both stop taking deposits, lol.

B.

Copernicus · #18 10-01-2006, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From a practical standpoint, banks and ISP aren't going to want to get in to legal debate over whether internet gambling is legal or not. So, we can expect them to comply with this bill. The perception will remain that it is illegal. However, that does not appear to be the reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you mentioned previously, online gaming as it exists now is typically illegal under state law (conducting a for-profit gambling business without a license will always be covered somewhere in the code, even if playing games in private may be legal). Courts have apparently determined that when you conduct business on the internet, that business is taking place where you sit in front of your computer, as well as where the company servers are, so state law applies and the often seen 'but the game is offshore' defense doesn't work.

The new law makes it a federal crime for the operating sites to accept money for illegal gambling, so when it is signed, those violations start accruing if the sites keep taking deposits. I'd expect some of the major sites to suspend deposits from the US when it's signed into law, or at least after getting a warning letter from the DA.

Some sites will continue to accept deposits, as the sportsbooks do already. WPEX might finally become popular if Party and Stars both stop taking deposits, lol.

B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive never played or researched WPEX, but "rakeless poker" would still not be able to accept deposits under this bill. "bet or wager" is not qualified to be only those where the house has an edge or takes a fee.

BluffTHIS! · #19 10-01-2006, 11:19 AM

WPEX actually takes a rake anyway in each pot. They just (currently) give it back.

Benjamin · #20 10-01-2006, 01:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Some sites will continue to accept deposits, as the sportsbooks do already. WPEX might finally become popular if Party and Stars both stop taking deposits, lol.
B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive never played or researched WPEX, but "rakeless poker" would still not be able to accept deposits under this bill. "bet or wager" is not qualified to be only those where the house has an edge or takes a fee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I'm not claiming WPEX will be exempt from the law, their offering poker, even at no profit, is still clearly illegal in most, if not all, states.

I'm just assuming that they will continue to take US business in defiance of the law. One of their founder/owner/executives has already done prison time for Wire Act violations, but they continue to offer sports booking online to US customers.

B.