THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION WONT WORK...PERIOD

breaktwister · #1 10-01-2006, 10:21 PM

I'm a lawyer in the UK and find this situation completely laughable. It seems to me that there is no need for panic as the US law as it is written does not seem to be capable to achieving its goal (to ban internet gambling). Lets look at it in more detail:

Frisk himself said

"The bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can't monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws".

Ok - lets examine this statement and the law in USA. Frisk is refering to the Wire Act 1961 when he says "internet gambling is illegal". However, The Wire Act DOES NOT MAKE INTERNET GAMBLING ILLEGAL. The Wire Act refers to penalties unpon betting businesses that operate within the USA.

EXTRACT FROM WIRE ACT
"Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses 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, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"


So the Wire Act makes it illegal to run an Internet betting operation in the USA but it DOES NOT PROHIBIT any free citizen from making bets or gaming on the internet with foreign based betting companies.

Now onto the new regulations which, as Frisk declares himself, are designed to regulate financial institutions by getting them to block gaming tranactions. First of all this method is fundamentally flawed AS IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO US BASED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time or space here to go into every flaw with the regulations but there are a number which in my view a good lawyer should be able to completely rubbish.

FLAWS
For example, the definition of a "restricted tranaction" refers to a tranaction which "the recipient is prohibited from accepting". 
Now, following common sense logic, if the receipiant of a transction is not based in the USA, how can the USA prohibit that party from accepting any tranactions?

IT CANNOT.

It therefore follows that the definition of a "restricted transaction" cannot be applied where the receipiant of a transaction is based outside the USA.

Therefore, if your USA based bank or credit card company refuses to make a foreign transction due to this new legislation then they are in breach of contract as this terrible piece of law (both in objective and drafting) clearly does not prohibit any such thing.

The new law refers to "unlawful internet gambling" which it defines as "any bet which involves the use of the internet and which is unlawful by any applicable Federal or State law". 

WHAT A LOAD OF GUFF!!!

This new law does not even define what "unlawful internet gambling" is! It simply refers to whatever existing law exists (if any) that purportedly already makes internet betting illegal. As above - the Wire Act does not apply to citizens not acting in the course of a business.

I could go on but in short I will say

1) The new legislation creates no "new law" to prohibit US citizens who wish to gamble on the internet.

2) The wording and definitions - particularly in the important areas of what exactly consitues "unlawful internet gambling" and in the definition of a "restricted tranaction" are not clear or succinct enough to be legally sound.

3) The law cannot apply to foreign based operations either of a financial nature eg Neteller or gaming nature.

4) The law specifically does not prohibit any money tranaction to a company like Neteller.

5) The law cannot stop US citizens making financial deposits to a non-US based institution. Any attempts to do so would be blocked by the World Trade Organisation.

Quite why some non-US based companies are afraid of accepting business from US citizens is baffling. Have these big businesses not got any good lawyers?????

I am left with one main unanswered question; if anyone knows of any State or Federal law which prohibits using the internet to place a wager please advise me so I can look into the matter further. In the absence of such existing State or Federal law then there is actually no such thing as "unlawful Internet gambling".

Lawman007 · #2 10-01-2006, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Frisk himself said

[/ QUOTE ]

His name is Frist, and you don't know what you're talking about.

Anders · #3 10-01-2006, 10:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frisk himself said

[/ QUOTE ]

His name is Frist, and YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY WONT WORK...PERIOD

[/ QUOTE ]

poker1O1 · #4 10-01-2006, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT A LOAD OF GUFF!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
well we can agree on this

mpslg · #5 10-01-2006, 10:27 PM

Good luck convincing Neteller and all of the online sites.

breaktwister · #6 10-01-2006, 10:30 PM

OK lawman - you claim that I dont know what Im talking about? Why do you disagree? I have read the legislation and it is woeful - it simply doesnt do what it is purported to do.

What an ignoramous you are with a comment like "you dont know what your talking about" but you can provide no evidence or even an argument to back yourself up.

What exactly do you disagree with and why?

Lawman007 · #7 10-01-2006, 10:34 PM

Try reading some of my jillion posts from the past two days and learn something about American law, you British twit. I'm not going to repeat myself for you.

CrazyIrishman · #8 10-01-2006, 10:36 PM

Unfortunately bush appointed the Supreme Court who won't shoot down anything he passes...bye bye overturning this bill.

bobhalford · #9 10-01-2006, 10:38 PM

why the hell are people flaming this guy for his post?

cking · #10 10-01-2006, 10:40 PM

because every single post by lawman has just been a flame stating his grand knowledge of law as he is the lawman (similar but not quite as good as the more famous, Walker Texas Ranger)