So, are online gamblers criminals now? - Page 2

permafrost · #11 10-20-2006, 02:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
OK Milton - let me give you an example. Lets say I run a business in the UK legally selling X (insert any other legal commodity of your choice). The USA decides it doesnt like X and wants to ban it by placing a prohibition on businesses accepting money or financial instruments in exchange for X.

Does that mean that I, running a legal business in the UK, have to stop selling X in and from the UK? No - of course it doesnt. The law simply wouldnt apply to me. USA laws have no jurisdiction over businesses based elsewhere. Very simple.

If they wanted to ban online gambling they simply could have worded the legislation to say that financial tranactions to "all or any" gaming/gambling sites are prohibited. The fact is that they havent done this.

They have tried to define a "restricted" transaction as one where the recipient is prohibited as accepting under s5363.

Now - from my argument above - s5363 cannot and does not apply to non-US based businesses, therefore no transactions are actually restricted by this law to non-US based businesses.

Its wierd but true - this law does not do what it is set out to do because of poor wording and definition.

And yes - I am a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a UK business can come into the US to sell their prohibited product as long as they don't break UK law?

Phil153 · #12 10-20-2006, 02:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a thread on here somewhere from a few weeks ago with the CEO of TruePoker. He was of the view that his company was not involved in the business of betting or wagering as they do not actually get involved in the bets or wagers, in contrast to an online casino where you are betting against the house.

I agree with him. The poker sites are acting only as a money holding agent between two parties who wish to place bets on the cards. The sites obviously need to be paid for this service and they take a rake. It is akin to an escrow service where a third party holds the money until the transaction (or in this case bet or wager) is complete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's why he BANNED CERTAIN STATES WHEN THE BILL WAS SIGNED, and hasn't said a word on the issue since.

blueodum · #13 10-20-2006, 06:46 AM

But if you sell that product to a US resident (in the US), which happens to be illegal in the US, the US will claim that your business activities are, insofar as they involve US residents, subject to US jurisdiction. If you happen to find yourself on US soil, they might take that opportunity to arrest you.

APT · #14 10-20-2006, 12:43 PM

Selling that product to US resident is not illegal.Trafficing that product to US may be illegal.

breaktwister · #15 10-20-2006, 03:44 PM

There is one simple fact - s5363 does not apply to non-US based businesses. End of story. Please read the section and ask yourself how it could possibly apply to a company not based in the US and not subject to US laws.

blueodum - online poker is not illegal in the US, some types of "unauthorised" gambling are illegal in certain states.

permafrost - no, dont be silly, if my business operates within the US then that part of the business is subject to US laws. However, this is entirely different from simply having US customers with business operations entirely outside US.

The definition of a "restricted tranaction" in accordance with s5363 carrys no weight with regards to non-US based businesses.

Let me give you another example :
I sell T-shirts on the net from a UK based business; lets say the US makes a law saying "no businesses can sell SMALL t-shirts"
Does that mean that I have to stop selling SMALL t-shirts? -

NO of course not- because the law doesnt apply to me. I can sell SMALL t-shirts even to US-based customers as the law is directed towards businesses THAT ARE SUBJECT TO US LAW.

The law-writers have [censored] up here in my opinion. s5363 tries to prohibit businesses accepting finanical deposits for betting or wagering purposes. Does this section apply to a UK based business - NO, of course it doesnt. It is irrelevant whether that UK business has any US customers or not. The section simply doesnt apply - no legal jurisdiction.

If the US law-makers wanted to make a law banning their financial institutions from deposits into gaming sites they should have explicitly worded it in this way. They have not done so and the law IMO has no teeth whatsoever with regards deposits into non-US based businesses.

breaktwister · #16 10-20-2006, 03:48 PM

However, unless there is a legal challenge brought in the US, the regulations will come in and US banks and credit card companies will follow those regulations which will, in effect, illegally block deposits into offshore gaming companies.

permafrost · #17 10-21-2006, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
permafrost - no, dont be silly, if my business operates within the US then that part of the business is subject to US laws. However, this is entirely different from simply having US customers with business operations entirely outside US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your argument that you can have US customers and not be doing business in the US?

If your UK based business is selling prohibited things in the US to Internet customers, you have buying, selling, accounts, advertising, customer service, delivery, etc., occurring in the US. Is this not a large part of "operations", if not what does "operations" mean?

-Nemesis- · #18 10-21-2006, 10:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In fact the wording of the s5263 definition "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" could turn out to be vital.

There is a thread on here somewhere from a few weeks ago with the CEO of TruePoker. He was of the view that his company was not involved in the business of betting or wagering as they do not actually get involved in the bets or wagers, in contrast to an online casino where you are betting against the house.

I agree with him. The poker sites are acting only as a money holding agent between two parties who wish to place bets on the cards. The sites obviously need to be paid for this service and they take a rake. It is akin to an escrow service where a third party holds the money until the transaction (or in this case bet or wager) is complete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am with you on that 100%.

The bill targets the financial services companies, and basically is forcing them to be licensed elsewhere if they plan to continue doing business with the internet Casinos.

Poker is excluded.

breaktwister · #19 10-22-2006, 07:45 PM

So permafrost - you think that just because you have a website available to the world that equates to having "operations" in every country; then every company that has a website is subject to every law of every country in the world?

Dont be daft.

permafrost · #20 10-22-2006, 10:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So permafrost - you think that just because you have a website available to the world that equates to having "operations" in every country; then every company that has a website is subject to every law of every country in the world?

Dont be daft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't change the subject. You said you can have US customers (buying your t-shirts within the US by accessing the net, to use your example) AND have no US business operations. Makes no sense. Please explain.