Are Player to Player Transfers illegal under the UIEGA?

[Skallagrim]

fleece, criminal law is my specialty... I dont suggest anyone think everything is fine, I do suggest that the fact that the DOJ has yet to bring a single poker-specific prosecution (especially against a US company that openly funds poker: ePassporte) means that the DOJ is reluctant to test poker in the courts, and that when they get over this reluctance (which they will eventually, unless the law changes or a new administration sets a different agenda), they will not start by prosecuting player to player transfers - they have far better (though still debatable) arguments elsewhere.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
fleece, criminal law is my specialty... I dont suggest anyone think everything is fine, I do sugest that the fact that the DOJ has yet to bring a single poker-specific prosecution (especially against a US company that openly funds poker: ePassporte) means that the DOJ is reluctant to test poker in the courts, and that when they get over this reluctance (which they will eventually, unless the law changes or a new administration sets a different agenda), they will not start by prosecuting player to player transfers - they have far better (though still debatable) arguments elsewhere.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall,

The UIGEA gives the banks liability against over blocking and some under blocking provided reasonable procedures are implementated by the bank or instution. However isn't the main trust of the law against financal instutions for faciliting the transfers of funds, rather than directly at poker sites?

It seems to me the gov't just wants the flow of funds stopped or severly crippled and doesn't really want a legal test.

Or did I miss something?


D$D

[Skallagrim]

D$D, I generally agree with your opinion that the Feds are far more likely to use the UIGEA as a tool to intimidate banks than as an actual vehicle to prosecute poker sites and close down e-wallets.

But the UIGEA did have a criminal provision: up to 5 years for the person "in the business of betting and wagering" accepting a transfer of money for the purpose of engaging in "unlawful internet gambling."

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D, I generally agree with your opinion that the Feds are far more likely to use the UIGEA as a tool to intimidate banks than as an actual vehicle to prosecute poker sites and close down e-wallets.

But the UIGEA did have a criminal provision: up to 5 years for the person "in the business of betting and wagering" accepting a transfer of money for the purpose of engaging in "unlawful internet gambling."

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

So a bank or finacial instution who isn't in the business of waggering doesn't face criminal penalities? Or both sides?

D$D

[Skallagrim]

Part of the UIGEA specifically excludes "financial institutions" from the category "in the business of betting and wagering." So a bank cannot be criminally liable for a UIG transaction, and cant be held civilly liable for blocking a transaction it thinks is UIG but isnt.

Nice lobby the banks have, dont you think?

Skallagrim

[MiltonFriedman]

The enemy of your enemy can be your friend, "Nice lobby the banks have, dont you think?"

Skall, if you want to thank someone that the proposed regs were not much worse, thank the banking lobbyists. If they do not HAVE to, Banks WILL NOT screen check transactions or ACH transactions. Let's lobby/comment hard to support our "friends".

Also, save your time. A criminal lawyer, whether at DOJ or for a possible defendant, is better equiped than a casual poster to read a statute, understand that the elements of a crime must be stated therein, and that a conviction requires proof. My hypothetical about a poker site which has a "Team" concept inviting you to play the pros, addresses the increased risk of prosecution for such a US facing site, not that a prosecution of an individual player in a P2P transfer was remotely likely.

Milton "Judd for the Defense" Friedman

[rando]

Regarding the OP and P2P transfers, tax-free gifts of up to $12,000 are legal in the US. I always accept cash for P2P transfers; the compensation is untraceable, and you can always say it was a gift. How many people need to transfer more than that? Should I be paranoid about this kind of activity? Fleece? Skall?

[Skallagrim]

Well, you should be paranoid about claiming it was a gift if you are somehow being investigated and it was a transfer, not a gift. It would be a mutual gift if no one made any money on it - if one party made money, its a transfer and saying its a gift would be lying. Lying to government authorities is very bad - we have a 5th Amendment privilege against potential self-incrimination when being questioned by authorities, USE IT!

These transfers are pretty much untraceable, and would never be a priority prosecution anyway, unless you became like the new neteller or epassporte, and even then the legal theory behind a potential prosecution, as I have said, is pretty shaky.

Oh, and that "compensation" you got is taxable income.

Keep it small and friendly and worry very little; let it grow into a real business and they may come after you, if they find out about you, after and if they ever decide to go after epassporte or the affiliates.

Skallagrim