|
|
#31
03-06-2007, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
[ QUOTE ]
I really dont know how to phrase this better for you folks who are not lawyers: to be guilty under an aiding and abetting theory you must do the helpful act WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC CRIME BE COMMITTED. In other words, you would have had to develop the software with the specific intent that it be used to do ILLEGAL gambling. If you dont have that intent (if you have a different intent like, for example, making money by selling the software for others to do what they want with it including offering it in jurisdictions where its legal), you are not guilty of aiding and abetting. [/ QUOTE ] thanks for your thoughts on this thread. just one more question wrt to this statements "WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC CRIME BE COMMITTED." 1) are you saying that they could be committing a crime if a judge ruled that they very well knew that the software would be used to accept US wagers? 2)are you saying that they could be committing a crime if a judge ruled that they very well knew that the software is currently being used to accept US wagers, and they were accepting money for it? or, is knowing that the software being used for illegal purposes different than intending it be used for those illegal purposes? 
|
|
#32
03-06-2007, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
[ QUOTE ]
I give up trying to explain. You guys can say I told you so when 2+2, Cardplayer, and other forums are shut down, Brunson, Negreanu, Ferguson and Phil Ivey (etc.) arrested, and all the TV networks who showed .net advertising sued and fined. [/ QUOTE ] you should spend more time researching and less time explaining.
|
|
#33
03-06-2007, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
OK, for you Kneel:
First, its a jury that would decide your questions. 1) This is not enough, the jury would have to find they designed the software with the specific intent that it be used to accept illegal US wagers (it is true that they would not have to know the wagers were illegal, but the wagers would have to be illegal in fact). 2) If they are accepting a cut of the "illegal" wagers (as opposed to just being paid a flat fee for their work), then they are in trouble. And yes, "knowing" is legally different from "intending" - though its often a close call in reality: you give a drug dealer a ride to his deal location knowing thats what he is going to do. Guilty or not of aiding and abetting? Guilty if you intended to help him make the deal; not guilty if you just drove him there intending that he would then leave your family alone. Hope that helps. Skallagrim
|
|
#34
03-06-2007, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I give up trying to explain. You guys can say I told you so when 2+2, Cardplayer, and other forums are shut down, Brunson, Negreanu, Ferguson and Phil Ivey (etc.) arrested, and all the TV networks who showed .net advertising sued and fined. [/ QUOTE ] you should spend more time researching and less time explaining. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, having dealt with these issues most of my professional life, I was going to say the same thing to you.
|
|
#35
03-06-2007, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
[ QUOTE ]
) This is not enough, the jury would have to find they designed the software with the specific intent that it be used to accept illegal US wagers (it is true that they would not have to know the wagers were illegal, but the wagers would have to be illegal in fact). [/ QUOTE ] right so...pokersite offers gambling services to US players. pokerpro knows pokersite offers gambling services to US players. pokersite pays poker pro to promote gambling services to US players. pokerpro knows promotion of pokersite indended to expand use of gambling services offered by pokersite. pokerpro does promote gambling services to US players. gambling services provided to US players by pokersite are illegal. hmmmm... seriously, i love fulltilt. best pokersite by far, but to say everybody is untouchable by the doj is overly optimistic.
|
|
#36
03-06-2007, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
One last example:
You wear a t-shirt that says "smoke weed" - no crime You wear a t-shirt that says "smoke Joe's weed" - no crime You wear a t-shirt that says "smoke Joe's weed, call 333-3333" and thats really joe with weed at that number and someone calls after seeing the shirt - probably a crime, lots of other details would matter. You wear the "Joe" shirt w/o the number, someone asks you for the number so they can buy weed and you give it - definitely a crime. You can guess where the FTP guys would fit, I think. Skallagrim
|
|
#37
03-07-2007, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
[ QUOTE ]
One last example: You wear a t-shirt that says "smoke weed" - no crime You wear a t-shirt that says "smoke Joe's weed" - no crime You wear a t-shirt that says "smoke Joe's weed, call 333-3333" and thats really joe with weed at that number and someone calls after seeing the shirt - probably a crime, lots of other details would matter. You wear the "Joe" shirt w/o the number, someone asks you for the number so they can buy weed and you give it - definitely a crime. You can guess where the FTP guys would fit, I think. Skallagrim [/ QUOTE ] Good example, except the activity in online poker's case may not be a crime, especially merely playing as opposed to running the website.
|
|
#39
03-07-2007, 11:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
I don't know if party pays google for clicks. It seems like google has a policy against this.
|
|
#40
04-23-2007, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Anyone got a good theory as to why the UIGEA would apply to an affiliate if he is not accepting funds for unlawful internet gambling? I don't see any legality status change after the "bill". [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't have anything to do with the recent bill. The US considering online gambling illegal before this bill (i.e. see Jay Cohen and the Neteller arrests)..... Thus, being in a business where you "split the revenue" with one of these businesses is absolutely, 100% illegal. Now, many people, including myself to a small degree, take the risk. But, I wouldn't ever go around claiming it was legal. [/ QUOTE ] One distinction that has been made before is that affiliates who get paid a flat fee per signup are probably much less vulnerable than those who take a percentage of the rake. [/ QUOTE ] Can anyone give any insight as to why this would be?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
