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

[Self Made]

[ QUOTE ]
the Feds can send some agent to East Virgina, make a deposit at the target site, place an "illegal" (state law) wager, and then prosecute the site under Federal law for accepting the deposit. The state law remains unenforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what doesn't sound legal to me. It still sounds like their prosecution is based on state law.

[Bottled Rockets]

Thank you for these great analyses, True Poker CEO! (I can definitely tell you've been a high-quality practicing lawyer.)

[omgwtf]

Your arguments are thoughtful and well-reasoned. I have sued and been sued, and spent many long hours helping my lawyers construct legal theories from the law.

You've obviously given this a thorough analysis and the personal insults are entirely unwarranted.

I'll be moving my business to your site shortly.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's be clear about this, as evidenced by Ryno's comments above, some of you still think TruePokerCEO knows what he's talking about and amazingly, still trust the guy. As Stellar says, the effect of this law is to broaden the scope of the wire act; it doesn't make gambling itself illegal, only breaking other laws related to internet gambling (i.e. state laws or the wire act). It effectively gives them the power to prosecute under federal law, if a current law has been broken.

Let's have a look at who it applies to:

This is the definition of a bet or wager:

[ QUOTE ]
(1) BET OR WAGER- The term `bet or wager'--

`(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game <u>subject</u> to chance , upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;

[/ QUOTE ]

Now here's the killer in this legislation, and the reason True Poker CEO is either incompetent, or a liar (take your pick):

[ QUOTE ]
`Sec. 5367. Circumventions prohibited

`Notwithstanding section 5362(2), a financial transaction provider, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service, may be liable under this subchapter if such person has actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers, and--

`(1) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website 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

`(2) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website 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.'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sites that continue to accept US players ARE BREAKING THE LAW. If someone says otherwise, they are a liar.

[/ 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

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I agree with you that a site like Party (if they continued to accept US customers) are clearly breaking the law whereas it was not clear with the Wire Act (and certainly this is why only sports book CEOs have been arrested to this point).

[/ QUOTE ]

Even in say California where poker is entirely legal? There are no federal laws concerning poker, so I don't see how it could possibly be illegal for Californians. It may be that the correct approach to this is to ignore the Feds entirely and appeal to the states.

[TruePoker CEO]

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

[TruePoker CEO]

A federal judge could and would be obligated to do so.

[permafrost]

[ 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.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To Phil153: This act is not directly related to the wire act, anyone who says it is is either incompetent or a liar, take your pick.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. Learn to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just following your lead in making incoherent logical jumps, hooray for you!

[maurile]

[ 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 ]
Poker is illegal in California if it is played with a percentage rake instead of a drop.