The war starts?

[Zobags]

[ QUOTE ]
1) The 5th Circuit case was to protect credit card companies from damages when players use them to buy online gambling chips. It is a RICO issue, not a UIGEA issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the dispostive issue in the case, was that the Wire Act applied only to betting on sporting events. Therefore, it is binding precedent on that issue. Have you read the UIGEA? It did not expand the scope of what types of gambling are illegal in the US one scintilla.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Stars, UB, etc, are not licenced in America, America doesn't issue gambling licences, states do. If a site is licenced in the UK, for example, it does not make it ok in America to use those sites, especially since UIGEA was passed.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no federal law that makes unlicensed gambling illegal. Therefore, that issue is dependent on the statutory language in each specific state. Also, the strict construction prinicple will be applied to any interpreation of a criminal statute.

[ QUOTE ]
What a chuckle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you a lawyer? Just because the DOJ says something to be the law, does not make it so. That is beyond the Constitutional powers of the executive branch.

[JPFisher55]

Expensive law firm represents Neteller founder.
http://www.gambling911.com/internet-...ng-012207.html

[JPFisher55]

See this article for explanation of case law interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act.
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/13599

[Rigel]

You are correct- I was unaware of that 5th Circuit decision. Here's the key part of the holding:

The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests and that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege that they had engaged in internet sports gambling.FN20 We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion. The Plaintiffs may not rely on the Wire Act as a predicate offense here.

In re MasterCard Intern. Inc.
313 F.3d 257
C.A.5 (La.),2002.

And here's the district court discussion which the Fifth Circuit affirmed:

The defendants argue that plaintiffs' failure to allege sports gambling is a fatal defect with respect to their Wire Act claims, while plaintiffs strenuously argue that the Wire Act does not require sporting events or contests to be the object of gambling. However, a plain reading of the statutory language clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest. Both the rule and the exception to the rule expressly qualify the nature of the gambling activity as that related to a “sporting event or contest.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1084(a) & (b). A reading of the caselaw leads to the same conclusion. See United States v. Kaczowski, 114 F.Supp.2d 143, 153 (W.D.N.Y.2000) (Wire Act “prohibits use of a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest”); United States v. Sellers, 483 F.2d 37, 45 (5th Cir.1973)(overruled on other grounds in United States v. McKeever, 905 F.2d 829 (5th Cir.1990))(“the statute deals with bookmakers)”; U.S. v. Marder, 474 F.2d 1192, 1194 (5th Cir.1973) (first element of statute satisfied when government proves wagering information “relative to sporting events”).

In re MasterCard Intern. Inc., Internet Gambling Litigation
132 F.Supp.2d 468
E.D.La.,2001.

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
War on Internet Gambling to be Fought by Powerful Law Firm

Following charges brought up against payment solution company, NETeller, one of the two co-founders arrested last Monday retained an attorney from the powerful Washington D.C. law firm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr.

Stephen Lawrence has hired the services of Peter Neiman who joined the firm in 2006 after more than nine years as an Assistant United States Attorney with the Criminal Division of the Southern District of New York. The irony here of course is that the charges against Lawrence have been brought by the Southern District of New York.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tourney guy]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct- I was unaware of that 5th Circuit decision. Here's the key part of the holding:

The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests and that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege that they had engaged in internet sports gambling.FN20 We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion. The Plaintiffs may not rely on the Wire Act as a predicate offense here.

In re MasterCard Intern. Inc.
313 F.3d 257
C.A.5 (La.),2002.

And here's the district court discussion which the Fifth Circuit affirmed:

The defendants argue that plaintiffs' failure to allege sports gambling is a fatal defect with respect to their Wire Act claims, while plaintiffs strenuously argue that the Wire Act does not require sporting events or contests to be the object of gambling. However, a plain reading of the statutory language clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest. Both the rule and the exception to the rule expressly qualify the nature of the gambling activity as that related to a “sporting event or contest.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1084(a) & (b). A reading of the caselaw leads to the same conclusion. See United States v. Kaczowski, 114 F.Supp.2d 143, 153 (W.D.N.Y.2000) (Wire Act “prohibits use of a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest”); United States v. Sellers, 483 F.2d 37, 45 (5th Cir.1973)(overruled on other grounds in United States v. McKeever, 905 F.2d 829 (5th Cir.1990))(“the statute deals with bookmakers)”; U.S. v. Marder, 474 F.2d 1192, 1194 (5th Cir.1973) (first element of statute satisfied when government proves wagering information “relative to sporting events”).

In re MasterCard Intern. Inc., Internet Gambling Litigation
132 F.Supp.2d 468
E.D.La.,2001.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems to me that the UIGEA has cleared this all up.

That case has little bearing on the UIGEA......you guys can think one thing, the virtual card rooms that are bailing on the US are thinking about things the right way.

It sucks, but until the G finds out how to properly tax poker winnings, we are $hit out of luck.

[Sniper]

[b]Related discussion & other articles:[b]

Reuters

New York Times

Discussion Thread w/ link to London Times article

Related thread in the Zoo

[Botchman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the online poker rooms are licensed. And in some states, using your computer to play poker on the internet is perfectly legal.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet that when a company tries to say a virtual poker room is different than a virtual sportsbook, a court is going to agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they already did - see the 5th Cir. ruling in In re Mastercard.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a chuckle.

1) The 5th Circuit case was to protect credit card companies from damages when players use them to buy online gambling chips. It is a RICO issue, not a UIGEA issue.

2) Stars, UB, etc, are not licenced in America, America doesn't issue gambling licences, states do. If a site is licenced in the UK, for example, it does not make it ok in America to use those sites, especially since UIGEA was passed.

3) PLaying poker online is totally legal, just gambling online is not!!!!!

By June 1, 2007, all sites will stop taking American deposits.

By June 1, 2010........USA LICENCED GAMING COMPANIES will be running online poker sites.......can you say taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]
The chuckle is you don't know wtf you're talking about.

[context]

[ QUOTE ]
People make me laugh about this issue.

If a foreign company does business in America, they must abide by American rules of doing business.

Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

Isn't it obvious???

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just dumb.


There are massive companies in the UK that make alcholic drinks (and other stuff). They own pubs and clubs and sell that alchohol to 18 year olds (and younger of course) in the UK.

These self-same companies operate in the US. It is illegal to sell alchohol to 18 y/o's in the US. When did the US DOJ attempt to prosecute these companies for operating under UK law in the UK, and US law in the US?


It's pretty obvious you're making a dumb argument.

[context]

Just to throw a curveball.

I'm pretty sure that there are still outstanding cases to be heard in the Enron saga. Does anyone know if any of the outstanding cases apply to any of these banks/financial institutions?

Some of the banks mentioned in this fishing expedition were under investigation for their part in what happened. They were(/are) charged with a bunch of financial irregularites.

Could the DOJ use this as leverage against them?