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

[blueodum]

Why doesn't one of the Cal-based casinos start an online poker room, make it available to Californians and make sure the rake is a drop and not a percentage?

They already have a gaming licence, do they not?

[sean1]

What it did not do is it did not criminilize the bettor.

Goodlatte's version made it possible to punish the bettor with 5 years in jail.

The ass plans to bring it up again next year.

Sean

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Not so fast. Read what you bolded again. I'll add another layer of highlighting:

at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; or

Show me the law that makes placing a bet at an online poker site unlawful.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/

The "internet gambling" column is irrelevant, the important one is the penalty for "simple gambling". If there is one, you're breaking the law, gambling is unlawful in your state, and this act applies. The majority of states outlaw it either directly or by not expressly permitting it. Anyway the exact state laws vary so you'll have to do your own investigating as to whether it applies to poker in your state.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, precisely .... California players should not be affected, which is why Truepoker would not break any law by continuing to accept their play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well at least you've stepped back from your previous claims about the whole of the US (although your position is still not entirely accurate). Good to hear.

You still have other false claims to retract, i.e. "There is nothing in the Act which addresses or restricts withdrawals in any manner whatsoever. " from the truepoker thread, where another poster called you out. Care to clear up those as well?

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The "internet gambling" column is irrelevant, the important one is the penalty for "simple gambling". If there is one, you're breaking the law, gambling is unlawful in your state, and this act applies.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not at all clear. Some states have expressly outlawed internet gambling precisely because the regular law does not or may not apply. Every state's law is different but most of them were written a very long time ago before modern telecommunications. Frequently state laws do not explicitly assert jurisdiction over games operated from outside the state. This is especially likely in states where only the game operator is committing a crime.

"It's against the law to run a casino in this state."
"Sorry, the casino is in Costa Rica."

(Turns to player) "Well you are in my state so I'll arrest you."
(A) "Sorry, I'm just a player. No law against that in this state." or
(B) "Sorry, the law says it's a crime to play in an illegal game. Under this state's law games in Costa Rica aren't illegal games."

(Fumes) "Damn loopholes."
"Yup."

[Phil153]

My point is that there are laws against players making bets or wagers in many states. Some of them are very old. Often they aren't enforced. But now, they all have teeth. Anyway, I doubt you'll find loopholes you've mentioned. The bet or wager is being placed in California. That may be enough in itself. In addition, if both parties are in the same state, then the wager would be occurring in that state. THe new law requires that it be legal in both jurisdictions.

As I said, the laws varies from state to state so you'd have to read the law to be certain if it applies to poker. For example, California's law says:

"Penal Code Sec. 330.

Every person who deals, plays, or carries on, opens, or causes to be opened, or who conducts, either as owner or employee, whether for hire or not, any game of faro, monte, roulette, lansquenet, rouge et noire, rondo, tan, fan-tan, seven-and-a-half, twenty-one, hokey-pokey, or any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, or any device, for money, checks, credit, or other representative of value, and every person who plays or bets at or against any of those prohibited games, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by a fine not less than one hundred dollars ($100) "

note: "A percentage game is one in which the " 'house' " does not directly participate in the game, but collects a percentage from it which may be computed from the amount of bets made, winnings collected, or the amount of money changing hands."

Which means that any person living in California who plays a percentage-based rake game is breaking the law. Once again, TruePoker lies for his own gain (or is incompetent) and gives reckless advice.

[SlapPappy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This intention of this law is very clear, and the language regarding "games subject to chance" is directly targeted to make the law apply to poker, where before it did not.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't make the law apply to poker where before it did not (other than through he mechanism that the OP mentioned -- by converting state crimes into federal crimes).

The "games subject to chance" language is in the section defining gambling. So poker is gambling; big deal. The law does not prohibit transfering funds in connection with Internet gambling. It prohibits transfering funds in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. "Unlawful" means already unlawful. The UIGEA does not expand the scope of what constitutes unlawful gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you maurile. This post makes more sense than any in this entire thread.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I do not believe that this statute presumes that the states have already outlawed internet gambling in particular. Rather, I believe that this statute presumes that most of the statutes have prohibited gambling businesses generally (without distinguishing internet from brick and mortar). And the purpose of the statute is to see that these GENERAL prohibitions are not effectively undermined by permitting internet gambling to occur.

I can elaborate about this here, but maybe I should start a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definitely would be a helpful new thread as a lot of what is out there misses these good points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you go.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, precisely .... California players should not be affected, which is why Truepoker would not break any law by continuing to accept their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is highly questionable as to whether or not federal law prohitbits interstate or international online poker. There appears to be no doubt that sports betting is illegal.

If internet poker was prohibited by federal law, Truepoker could not accept play from California players unless it had a site located in California, and if that site only allowed California residents to play there. If the site is off-shore, the internet transmission crosses the state line, and is therefore under federal jurisdiction. All of this assumes that California law does not prohibit intrastate, internet gambling, which is unknown here.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not so fast. Read what you bolded again. I'll add another layer of highlighting:

at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; or

Show me the law that makes placing a bet at an online poker site unlawful.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/

The "internet gambling" column is irrelevant, the important one is the penalty for "simple gambling". If there is one, you're breaking the law, gambling is unlawful in your state, and this act applies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're oversimplifying, and making assertions you can't back up (for example that the internet gambling column is "irrelevant" - that is not established). For example, some states have laws which expressly distinguish between poker and other forms of gambling, as they have been deemed to have sufficient elements of skill to be treated differently under the law.

Not to mention the info you posted is "only educated guesses in many cases" as mentioned on the page itself.

So, you're either lying or stupid or have cooties.

eastbay