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

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you are arguing just to argue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope not true. I'm trying to point out that a DOJ that has zero tolerance for these activities would operate.

[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ would cut them some slack because Party made an attempt to comply with the law, thereby, losing 75% of their business.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this? You're making an assumption.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO you're assuming that the DOJ couldn't make a case that would convince a jury. I'm not willing to go that far. Really I think alot of people are making assumptions about the DOJ that aren't necessarily warranted. How many people thought non U.S. citizen execs would be arrested (before this law was passed btw)? If I was a Party exec I wouldn't feel all that comfy when I came to the States.

The problem is that these laws are make it virtually impossible for places like Party to comply.

[blueodum]

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.

There is no way the DoJ will be this strict. It would be like blaming policemen because they couldn't stop all crime.

They will ban US IP addresses, so foreigners visiting the US won't be able to access their accounts.

[blueodum]

adios,

You're being obtuse. You critise someone for making assumptions, but this:

My take FWIW is that the U.S. DOJ will go after anyone they can make a case against.

Is by far the most unreasonable assumption made in this thread.

[BufordD]

I wonder if Party is responsible for its skins? If they licensed a skin in Antugua, for example, and the skin allowed US players (backed by the WTO decision), could Party be held responsible?

[adios]

As I've pointed out, this is a move by Party to reduce liability risk. However, it doesn't eliminate liability for Party. Can you see why? It seems that there's an assumption that somehow the DOJ will be "reasonable" and from my point of view we haven't seen it yet. If so can you indicate how the DOJ has been reasonable to this point? Again my take is that DOJ has zero tolerance for these activities. For instance it's inevitable that some people will circumvent the efforts by Party to block such activity. Therefore Party will be in violation of the laws when this happens. How much is too much for the DOJ? We can all make guesses but my take is that the U.S. basically has a zero tolerance policy.

[adios]

I haven't criticized anyone for making assumptions that I know of.

[ QUOTE ]
My take FWIW is that the U.S. DOJ will go after anyone they can make a case against.

Is by far the most unreasonable assumption made in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why??????????

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

There is no way the DoJ will be this strict. It would be like blaming policemen because they couldn't stop all crime.

They will ban US IP addresses, so foreigners visiting the US won't be able to access their accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree with you that it's like blaming policeman because they couldn't stop all crime. The law seems to state that a site like Party that accepts the action from the U.S. is in violation of the law.

Gambling online faces collapse in US after Senate ban

Senator Frist quoted:

However, Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the Senate, got the measure through by attaching it to an unrelated Bill that enhances port security.

“Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams and frays the fabric of society,” Dr Frist said. “The bottom line is simple: internet gambling is illegal. Although we can’t monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.”

Does this seem like someone that will be tolerant of just a little bit of illegal activity? I doubt it.

[blueodum]

Because it's dumb to make a law, have people DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN to comply with it, and arrest them because they've only had a 99.999% success rate.

I'm sorry but this scenario is pie in the sky. If there were a reasonable chance of this happening, it would amount to declaring the US government to be a psychotic, fascist regime. I don't think it's come to that - do you?

Okay, in some warped version of the future this can happen, but you have a better chance of being killed while crossing the street.

I feel sorry for you if you think this is a realistic possibility.

Good day!

[blueodum]

Does this seem like someone that will be tolerant of just a little bit of illegal activity? I doubt it.


So are you saying that if a US bank, able to stop 99.9% of transfers to online gaming companies, misses (through error; i.e. not intentionally) 0.1% that get through, that the DoJ is going to waltz in and arrest its executives?

Get a grip on reality.

[blueodum]

Although we can’t monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.”

A: Party is not a financial institution
B: Party is not disregarding the laws; it's attempting to enforce them
C: Bill Frist is not the DoJ