Few seem to have noticed how the new law "fixes" the Wire Act - Page 5

Wynton · #41 10-05-2006, 10:49 AM

As I mentioned elsewhere, I just read the available legislative history. So let me relate to you what the legislators (and conference reports) said about the Wire Act and whether the new law changed it in any way.

In brief, the legislators disagreed on this point. Some legislators argued emphatically that internet gambling was already illegal under the Wire Act and other state and federal laws, and that this new law was needed merely to enforce those existing prohibitions. This group of legislators did not think that the statute amounted to any change at all in the Wire Act.

Other legislators explicitly made a different argument, stating that the Wire Act (as well as other state and federal laws) were quite ambiguous as to whether they could be applied to internet gambling. This group of legislators believed, therefore, that the statute was helpful for clarifying that existing laws should be construed as covering internet gambling.

Now there is a fine line - and perhaps an irrelevant line - between clarifying the meaning of the Wire Act and actually amending it (albeit indirectly).

Moreover, the reason that the legislators were quibbling over the coverage of the Wire Act and current legality of online gambling was more rhetorical than anything else. Some believed that they had a stronger case for enacting this law if they could characterize it as merely enforcing existing prohibitions; others thought that the case would be stronger if they could persuade others that the existing laws were unclear.

TruePoker CEO · #42 10-05-2006, 11:04 AM

The definitions of bet or wager in the UIGE Act are relevant because the UIGEA Section 5363 prohibiton is based upon two items:

1. Coverage of businesses, i.e which "persons" are covered ... which refers being engaged in the business of "betting or wagering", which are defined in THIS Act.

2. What sort of activity constitutes "unlawful Internet gambling", which defines the type of "transaction" covered. This latter issue is determined by reference to laws other than THIS Act, so the play of a player may or may not be "unlawful Internet gambling", depending upon likely State laws.

The UIGE Act does not, in my view, "rely" on the Wire Act in any meaningful way, since the Wire Act would not apply to players as such. Rather, the UIGE Act is in parallel to the Wire Act. (Amendment of the Wire Act was considered and did not pass.) UIGE Act neither expands upon nor limits the Wire Act.

Utah · #43 10-05-2006, 11:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
some of you still think TruePokerCEO knows what he's talking about and amazingly, still trust the guy.

[/ QUOTE ]What is your Vendetta against this guy? Did he run over your dog or something. I can see you disagreeing with him (and even strongly so), but the vitriol seems unwarranted. Unless, of course, he ran over your dog.

Wynton · #44 10-05-2006, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It is relevant because the section 5363 prohibiton of the UIGEA is based upon two items:

1. Coverage, which "persons" are covered ... which refers being engaged in the business of "betting or wagering", which are defined in THIS Act.

2. What sort of activity constitutes "unlawful Internet gambling", which defines the type of "transaction" covered. This latter issue is determined by reference to laws other than THIS Act, so the play of a player may or may not be "unlawful Internet gambling", depending upon likely State laws.

The UIGE Act does not, in my view, "rely" on the Wire Act in any meaningful way, since the Wire Act would not apply to players as such. Rather, the UIGE Act is in parallel to the Wire Act. (Amendment of the Wire Act was considered and did not pass.) UIGE Act neither expands upon nor limits the Wire Act.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really is not inconsistent with what I was saying. I was pointing out that the legislators themselves did not agree about the scope of the Wire Act. Some hope that this statute will remove doubt that it covers internet gambling. But there is no question that the new statute presupposes that it is illegal to operate an internet gambling site pursuant to the laws of most states.

SHnewbie · #45 10-05-2006, 11:16 AM

There has been much mention about state laws here. I live in Michigan, and from what I have seen, internet gambling might be illegal under MI law. However, one of the recent sites that banned certain states from playing listed roughly 7 states that were banned. MI was not on there.

Can anyone clarify that MI is one of the states that has passed a law banning online gambling? Also, can anyone speculate why MI was not included on the list of banned states? Also, it is my understanding based on this thread that the new law would now give the federal government the right to prosecute based on the already passed state laws. Is that correct?

TruePoker CEO · #46 10-05-2006, 11:24 AM

Actually, one site I know of has banned Michigan play ... ironically, Pamela Anderson apparently would not let Kid Rock play at her site.

There is an excellent site for these issues, but I am too lazy to remember the url. You can find is by googling state laws internet gambling. It is run by Chuck Humphries and has gambling laws listed for all 50 states.

TruePoker CEO · #47 10-05-2006, 11:36 AM

'From the standpoint of gaming opponents, they did a better job than most are giving credit for as far as structuring this legislation to achieve their ends."....

1. Agreed, for some states, for law-abiding sites whose offshore business is covered by those states' laws.

2. However, they get a really failing mark on two fronts
if their intent were to cut-off Internet gambling ...

First, off-shore privately held sportsbooks/poker sites, who do not plan on coming to the US nor care about the law may have an almost uninterrupted access to cashflow, via EFTs or whatever Treasury exempts.

Second, the already illegal "credit" sportsbooks use agents/bookies in every town to collect bets and pay winners anyway. Those wiseguys just were handed a pent-up demand which is bigger than the gift they got from Prohibition.

Who is the biggest beneficiary of this Act .... the local bookie who gives credit and collects/pays cash.

Does this Act touch him ? No.

Was the intent of the Act to drive business to him ?

That was not its end, but it will be the consequence.

dneedle1 · #48 10-05-2006, 12:30 PM

If I were an ambitious US Attorney or state Attorney General, whoever was appropriate, a week after this law was signed, I would pick out a company for a good test case. And as Hock said, that company would be a poker site with a sportsbook. Paradise, unfortunately (since I play there) is easily the best choice. British listed poker site with an attached sportsbook. That is by far the best company to go after. The worst is a privately owned poker only site, such as pokerstars.

Don't get me wrong, this is nothing that I'm rooting for, but if there is action, Paradise, or a company like it, is the likely target.

Russ Fox · #49 10-05-2006, 12:38 PM

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/

vinyard · #50 10-05-2006, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As a matter of interest ... while it may take around 100-200 days to draft the regulations, surely financial institutions will be given a reasonable time period in which to implement them? Anybody have any idea how long this will be?

[/ QUOTE ] As long as the banking industry tells them it will take them to implement the regs and not a day shorter. I would be surprrised if at this this time next year (assuming the law holds, WTO case etc) if all banks were yet in compliance.