iMEGA reports that the UIGEA Regulations will be out Thursday

[KEW]

Given how vague the UIGEA is and it's failure to define "illegal" gambling can the Regs even be specific??? If the Regs are specific would that not be either creating Laws(Congress) or interpreting Laws(courts)????

[TheEngineer]

JP,

You're entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate your enthusiasm in fighting back. And, I'm not trying to change your mind. Rather, I'm merely sharing my opinion with the board, so we can all choose a strategy.

IMHO, if the DoJ will use vague regs to intimidate banks, they'd use regs banning Internet poker to seriously intimidate everyone. And, I personally have no confidence in the courts helping us. I don't know why you think this is a slam-dunk, but it doesn't appear that way to me or to many here (see the poll on the other thread).

I personally would much rather have FT and PokerStars available while pursuing other options. I very much doubt that anyone here would like to shut these down for years of appeals while hoping we prevail in court.

[JPFisher55]

Engineer, there is federal appellate case law that holds that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting. This is why I am confident that a regulation defining online poker to be unlawful internet gambling would fairly quickly be injoined in court. Note that the DOJ has never threatened any person, entity or affiliate in the online poker industry with actual prosecution under the Wire Act. I think that if the lawyers at the DOJ thought they had a ghost of a chance with such prosecution they would have threatened or initiated it by now. Arresting Doyle Brunson or Howard Lederer and successfully prosecuting such a name pro for violating the Wire Act woudl be a career maker for a US attorney. But I have yet to read even a report of even a threat of prosecution agaisnt a name pro.
However, the DOJ has been very aggressive against the online sports betting industry. They have indicted Neteller, its founders and other individuals who were involved in credit card processing for the online sports betting industry.
Yet, Epassporte operates in the open. In fact, my last 2 withdrawals from Epassporte took only 2 days. Epassporte only serves online poker sites. They do not serve any sports betting or casino site or even a site with a mix unless such site separates poker from other accounts and does not permit money transfers between the different betting sites.
In an aside, maybe the best reg, if we can't get one permitting online poker, would be that a bank cannot process a ACH transaction that it has actual knowledge is related to unlawful internet gambling, but a bank can process any ACH transaction that the bank does not actually know involves unlawful internet gambling. Since a bank does not have any knowledge about where any ACH, this reg would keep the status quo.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, there is federal appellate case law that holds that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I welcome a court challenge to the DoJ's contention that Internet poker is covered under the Wire Act (for example, if the DoJ were to go after ePassporte). I think we would prevail for the reasons you stated.

What I don't want is regs against us, putting us on the defensive while shutting down our games. I certainly would try to get these to allow us to have a better court case. You stated the reasons yourself. You can play at FT and PokerStars, and you can move your money though ePassporte just fine. Why shut it down to try to get something better?

I suppose it doesn't matter...UIGEA is specific in that it doesn't define what is legal and what isnt', so it's unlikely regs to enforce it would.

[TheEngineer]

Also, scroll up a few posts to the poll on this. 25 folks do not want regs banning financial transactions to poker sites....only one wants the regs to ban it.

We'll get our challenge. The DoJ will start with sports betting, as you noted, as there is no question that the Wire Act applies to these sites. After this, they will either come for us, or they won't. If they do, we'll be in a better position than we will be if we have regs against us. If they don't, we'll have games while working on the laws.

[JPFisher55]

I agree with you Engineer. But I think that we have to examine the logical alternative regs and decide which is best and which is worst for online poker. Remember that a court challenge to the DOJ's contention that Internet poker violates the Wire Act cannot occur unless the DOJ threatens or prosecutes some entity in the online poker industry; or unless some reg under the UIGEA specifically defines internet poker to be unlawfull internet gambling.

However, I think that we need to examine 4 possible regs in order of favorability to online poker.

1. Online poker is defined not to be unlawful internet gambling. Great but not likely.

2. A bank can process any ACH or other transaction unless it has actual knowledge that such transaction is related to any unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very good for online poker because status quo is maintained and Epassporte and other future competitors can operate. This reg would make prosecution of any bank very difficult because no bank has actual knowledge about any ACH or most transactions. But unlikely reg.

3. Online internet poker is defined to be unlawful internet gambling. Bad for online poker but easily challenged in court.

4. A bank cannot process any ACH or other transaction that involves or is related to unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very bad for online poker. Banks might stop processing ACH's from Epassporte, any foreign ewallet, even suspicious checks because it could be liable for violating such reg even if it does not know is a ACH or other transaction involves internet gambling. This is the worst reg for online poker and would be more difficult to challenge and take much longer than 3. And I fear that it is the most likely reg to be issued.

So my question is how can we get the best reg for online poker? And my opinion is that 3. is better than 4.

[oldbookguy]

To begin with I think we will not see ant regs for a while.

First, I think IMEGA’S info on the publishing of the regs was either:

1. Dependant of the IMEGA case being dismissed that day, there are no regs, thus no ripeness, to publish them now the government would only be asking for the wrath of the court to publish them while the case in ongoing.
2. IMEGA put out the story on the regs being published to force the government’s hand, if you have them, produce them.

Second, the UIGEA though not defining illegal wagering states that the regs include several examples of unlawful transactions. So, the regs will be somewhat specific.

Much also depends on the USTR negotiations I believe. The DoJ may be backing off until they are concluded, then even the countries where the Poker sites are located will be cooperating with the DoJ to stop poker, a new WTO agreement on wagering will be in place.
I base the previous thought on the DoJ argument at the IMEGA hearing; the plaintiffs need have no fear of prosecution then stating later, the UIGEA could conceivably be used to prosecute them.

obg

[TheEngineer]

The regs will be out next week.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you Engineer. But I think that we have to examine the logical alternative regs and decide which is best and which is worst for online poker. Remember that a court challenge to the DOJ's contention that Internet poker violates the Wire Act cannot occur unless the DOJ threatens or prosecutes some entity in the online poker industry; or unless some reg under the UIGEA specifically defines internet poker to be unlawfull internet gambling.

However, I think that we need to examine 4 possible regs in order of favorability to online poker.

1. Online poker is defined not to be unlawful internet gambling. Great but not likely.

2. A bank can process any ACH or other transaction unless it has actual knowledge that such transaction is related to any unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very good for online poker because status quo is maintained and Epassporte and other future competitors can operate. This reg would make prosecution of any bank very difficult because no bank has actual knowledge about any ACH or most transactions. But unlikely reg.

3. Online internet poker is defined to be unlawful internet gambling. Bad for online poker but easily challenged in court.

4. A bank cannot process any ACH or other transaction that involves or is related to unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very bad for online poker. Banks might stop processing ACH's from Epassporte, any foreign ewallet, even suspicious checks because it could be liable for violating such reg even if it does not know is a ACH or other transaction involves internet gambling. This is the worst reg for online poker and would be more difficult to challenge and take much longer than 3. And I fear that it is the most likely reg to be issued.

So my question is how can we get the best reg for online poker? And my opinion is that 3. is better than 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think (and this is just speculation) #2 and #4 are equally likely, and #1 and #3 are equally unlikely (very unlikely). I think #4 is bad, but #3 is FAR worse. I join Coy Roy and others in asking that no one here push for a ban in hopes of getting a quick court judgement.

[oldbookguy]

As I posted someplace else, the UIGEA states there MUST be examples of unlawful transactions (though not all), thus there will be insight into specifics.

From the FRB 2006 report to Congress:

[ QUOTE ]
In prescribing the regulations, the Secretary and the Board must identify the types of policies and procedures, including nonexclusive examples, deemed by the agencies to be reasonably designed to identify and block restricted transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...06/pdf/fro.pdf

See left column, next to last page.

obg