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

[StellarWind]

The Executive branch has repeatedly stated that the Wire Act covers poker and casino games as well as sports betting.

So far the courts have rejected this theory. Therein lies a big practical problem for those who wish to prosecute offshore poker sites. The judge might dismiss the case without even hearing the evidence and create a damning precedent in the process. Then the Government might find that they couldn't even intimidate anyone anymore.

Everyone says the new law didn't change the legal status of online poker but as a practical matter this is not true for the sites. Ineffectual state laws against online poker have been de facto converted into Federal felonies. State XYZ may have a completely neglected law saying that operating an online poker game is a misdemeanor punishable by a $1000 fine. Maybe the DA has real crimes to fight and wouldn't prosecute even if the case was gift-wrapped for him.

Doesn't matter. The Feds can still bring Federal charges carrying a 5-year sentence against the site if they offer service in this state. A real law the judge can't ignore. No more fretting over whether the Wire Act will stand up against poker in court.

I think this is a significant reason why some of the sites are reacting as they are.

[Bigwig]

Of course. However, those who won't step foot on US soil have little to fear, as Antigua and Costa Rica (for example) would laugh at an attempt of extradiction.

[mattnxtc]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. However, those who won't step foot on US soil have little to fear, as Antigua and Costa Rica (for example) would laugh at an attempt of extradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

especially after the US laughed at the wto ruling...i bet these countries are just waiting for somethign to happen

[Ryno]

If you read True Poker CEO's posts you will see that the new angle is not being in the "business of betting or wagering". I think it is quite telling that Party announced the US block right away but Pokerstars is still considering their options - they might be thinking they can beat the definition of Unlawful Internet Gambling, where Party clearly cannot.

[Phil153]

Ryno, this angle is nonsense. If what you suggest is the case, Party and others would have simply blocked US gamblers from accessing their casino games.

Stars may be able to distance themselves from prosecution by taking their business offshore, appointing new managers, etc etc but that's doubtful, at least in the short term.

Stellar's post is spot on. 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.

[maurile]

[ 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.

[FearNoEvil]

[ QUOTE ]
"Unlawful" means already unlawful. The UIGEA does not expand the scope of what constitutes unlawful gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I. Nelson Rose says also.

[Phil153]

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. The text you read above is the reason Party and others with actual lawyers on their staff have pulled out of the US market, and quickly.

The only people who can get around this are ones who live in places without extradition treaties with the US, but they are still breaking the law. If they tell you otherwise, do no listen to another word they say.

[Ryno]

I agree with Stellarwind about the purpose of the law. The definition of a bet includes games subject to chance. But S5363 says "no person engaged in the business of betting or wagering...", and Pokerstars does not bet or wager with its customers. You have to admit that poker-only sites could at least have a case here.

FWIW I don't know why Party does not turn off their casino games to US players. Maybe they figure the "business of..." could easily be interpreted to include hosting a poker game even if you have no interest in the outcome. But True Poker CEO has come right out and made the argument that I am making here, with (I would hope) some legal counsel.

[Phil153]

Just to be really, really, clear on this...the act of two people playing poker against each other constitutes an unlawful bet or wager. Sites that provide a poker service fall under sec 5367:

"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;"

By facilitating the placing of bets and wagers, they are guilty under this act and the applicable state or federal law.