U.S. Justice Dept. doesn't understand UIGEA either

[oldbookguy]

The E-Pass is a good example, however, a better one will be AOL & World Winner and skill games if THESE are blocked in an effort to stop, say, Poker then World Winner and AOL have grounds as they would be harmed since these games ARE legal and even funded by PayPal and we all know how PP feels about gambling.

obg

[Legislurker]

Paypal does not have the same ownership as when they exited the gaming market. I would hazard a guess they are drooling over what Neteller made with no brand name recognition outside the gaming world. Im just wondering at what point corporate America pulls out the big lobby stick for remote gaming.

[oldbookguy]

PayPal lobbied HARD for a more stringent Bill, H.R. 4777, it would have made criminals of citizens for playing Poker online in a letter they sent to Goodlatte last summer (June 2006).

Read it here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198610,00.html

Remember though, PP (eBay) still funds Skill Gaming in the U.S. and some Poker / Sports Betting in the E.U., NO U.S. though for this.

As to Neteller, yes, eBay was peeved they were doing so well after eBay (after purchasing) paid the 10 million dollar fine.

Somehow, we may even be able to find eBays fingers behind the NT case.

obg

[Uglyowl]

Fixed link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198610,00.html

Anyhow, I made it a point never to use Ebay again. Speaking of which, I should call them again come Monday to voice my displeasure:

1-866-696-eBay (3229)

[Legislurker]

Heh, another thing with paypal is that they probably wouldnt make it in a regulated environment. A scrupulous regulator can see easy abuses for underage players via Paypal. I know at 14 or 15 I could have easily funneled a poker bankroll thru Paypal, if it had existed.

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]
In South Carolina, however, it is against the law to play ANY card game for money? Does this law, which way predates the internet, apply to the internet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true or are you being hypothetical? If true, do you have a source?

BTW: This was the part of the article I found most interesting -

In a recent letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker, who was seeking clarification about the status of online horse betting, the department said its long-held view – that interstate betting (within the US) on horses online was illegal – had not been affected by last year’s passage of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Myth: UIGEA has “carve-outs” for lotteries, horseracing, and fantasy sports.
Fact: UIGEA explicitly applies to lotteries. It does not change the law for horseracing. And it does not allow gambling on fantasy sports.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

What part of this actual UIGEA text (among others) is not a carve-out for horseracing? The bastards crafting the law devoted more area to a horseracing carveout then they did to the actual law.


‘‘(D) INTERSTATE HORSERACING.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘unlawful Internet gambling’ shall not include any activity that is allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.).

[/ QUOTE ]

these are both true. there is a carveout for horseracing and it says that nothing about the 1978 act is changed. i.e., the law has not been changed. well, now that i look at it again their "myth" is not a myth but their "fact" is true, at least about horseracing.

[kidpokeher]

Did I call it? Straight from the proposed UIGEA regulations (pg. 4)
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...oposedrule.pdf
- - - -

The Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that the interstate transmission of bets and
wagers, including bets and wagers on horse races, violates Federal law and that the Interstate Horseracing
Act (the "IHA") did not alter or amend the Federal criminal statutes prohibiting such transmission of bets
and wagers. The horse racing industry disagrees with this position. While the Act provides that the
definition of “unlawful Internet gambling” does not include “activity that is allowed under the Interstate
Horseracing Act of 1978,” 31 U.S.C. 5362(10)(D)(i), Congress expressly recognized the disagreement over
the interplay between the IHA and the Federal criminal laws relating to gambling and determined that the
Act would not take a position on this issue. Rather, the Sense of Congress provision, codified at 31 U.S.C.
5362(10)(D)(iii), states as follows:
It is the sense of Congress that this subchapter shall not change which activities related to horse
racing may or may not be allowed under Federal law. This subparagraph is intended to address
concerns that this subchapter could have the effect of changing the existing relationship between
the Interstate Horseracing Act and other Federal statutes in effect on the date of enactment of this
subchapter. This subchapter is not intended to resolve any existing disagreements over how to
interpret the relationship between the Interstate Horseracing Act and other Federal statutes.

- - - -

Perhaps the UIGEA regs may end up getting the horseracing industry on our side. Good? Bad?

Then again... (pg. 5)

- - - -
The Act also directs the Agencies to
ensure that transactions in connection with any activity excluded from the Act’s
definition of “unlawful Internet gambling,” such as qualifying intrastate transactions,
intratribal transactions, or interstate horseracing transactions, are not blocked or
otherwise prevented or prohibited by the prescribed regulations.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In South Carolina, however, it is against the law to play ANY card game for money? Does this law, which way predates the internet, apply to the internet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true or are you being hypothetical? If true, do you have a source?

[/ QUOTE ]

I beleive this is a common misconception.

The statue makes it illegal to use physical cards for even games of entertainmnet (no betting) without having paid a stamp tax first, as well as properly displaying the stamp among other things.

There may be other statutes but this was the main one I saw cited when I looked at SC law.


D$D

[Skallagrim]

This absolutely illustrates the difficulties of determining what is illegal gambling under state law. There at least used to be such a statute in South Carolina. I know because I have it noted from research a while back. While looking for it to answer this question, it appears to have disappeared. I think there may have been a change/cleanup in the statutes when SC got a state lottery. I am not sure. I would have to go to a library or online research ALL SC statutes to be sure. I am not gonna do that for this forum, sorry. But imagine how difficult it is for a "bank" to answer this question if I cant without significant research.

SC people, maybe your bank will let your poker transactions go through, maybe not.... at least SC law says nothing about the internet.

Skallagrim