Regulations are out

[1p0kerboy]

Looking forward to thorough reviews from knowledgeable posters when you guys get done reading and interpreting the thing.

[meleader2]

"The Act directs the Agencies to exempt certain restricted transactions or
designated payment systems from any requirements imposed under the regulations if the
Agencies find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise
prevent or prohibit the acceptance of, such transactions. Section 4 of the proposed rule
provides such an exemption for certain participants in ACH systems, check collection
systems, and wire transfer systems. The proposed regulation is structured to impose
requirements on participants in designated payments systems with respect to the
segments of particular transactions that those participants handle. Therefore, rather than
exempting entire categories of restricted transactions or entire payment systems, the
Agencies have structured the exemptions to apply to particular participants in particular
payment systems as described in greater detail below. The Agencies believe that this
limited application of their exemption authority better serves the Act’s purposes of
preventing the processing of restricted transactions."

[Grasshopp3r]

The initial reaction for Party stock is neutral. That is the more relevant indicator to these regs.

[Warteen]

[ QUOTE ]
The initial reaction for Party stock is neutral. That is the more relevant indicator to these regs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Party stock be affected by US legislation?

[jeff329]

"The Agencies do not enforce the gambling laws, and interpretations by the
Agencies in these areas may not be determinative in defining the Act’s legal coverage.
As noted above, the Act does not comprehensively or clearly define which activities are
lawful and which are unlawful, but rather relies on underlying substantive law.21 In order
to compile a list of businesses engaged in unlawful Internet gambling under the Act, the
Agencies would have to formally interpret the various Federal and State gambling laws in
order to determine whether the activities of each business that appears to conduct some
type of gambling-related function are unlawful under those statutes."

This seems to make it clear that this law changes nothing in terms of the legal ambiguity of online poker. Could a Party re-renter because now it has been established that it isn't established? I mean now that poker is not clearly illegal, what stops them from joining the US market until it is?

[Grasshopp3r]

If the regs are sufficiently toothless, then Party may re-enter the US market. The US market was over 3/4 of their business. If the traders don't pounce on this event, that is meaningful.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
If the regs are sufficiently toothless, then Party may re-enter the US market. The US market was over 3/4 of their business.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true if party wants to be a non-public company, however they're risking a ridiculous amount of negative exposure if they do it, and potential extradition.

also i thought they paid the US gov't fines, y would they risk going back into the us market again?


i think a more relevant conclusion would be that if the UIGEA doesn't state the POKER is illegal they can make software that COMPLIES with the UIGEA and only offer poker, reenter the us market after consulting with numerous lawyers.

[cowboy.up]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Act directs the Agencies to exempt certain restricted transactions or
designated payment systems from any requirements imposed under the regulations if the
Agencies find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise
prevent or prohibit the acceptance of, such transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the money line? If it's too hard to do, then don't bother with it?

[Berge20]

Swamped at the moment, but will try and read today and get a summary up if you haven't already gotten the highlights down.