Why is Partypoker.net Pulling the Plug? I don't see what has changed

[danielkomen]

I don't understand partypoker's stance. I think most legal scholars would have said it was illegal to run a gambling site (including poker) before this ban and it was illegal to bet on sports (but it was a gray area if you played poker).

I think evidence of this was shown by partpoker.net being used in advertisements. If partypoker.com was completely legal why not use the partypker.com name?

Now, they are going to withdraw from the US market? I don't see what has changed from their perspective. Running a site was already illegal, now it is also illegal for a bank to fund the sites. But it seems like nothing has changed for the poker sites themselves. Or would they argue that there was a gray area for running non sports gambling sites in the past and that only operators of sports books could be prosecuted in the USA?

[kleath]

They have stock to think about maybe?

[goldtoes]

no, running a site off-shore is not illegal and the advertisement of the .net site is the only way they could get away with advertising in the U.S.

mod please close this

[guids]

The best that I can gather is that publicly funded sites are the ones that get screwed, while private ones dont. Im not sure why, or if Im right, but it seems all the publicly funded ones are the ones not catering to americans.

[DING-DONG YO]

Queue Mr. K.

Guys, re-read the other posts. The bill shuts down funding options AND makes it illegal to accept bets from US customers.

[linuxrocks]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand partypoker's stance. I think most legal scholars would have said it was illegal to run a gambling site (including poker) before this ban and it was illegal to bet on sports (but it was a gray area if you played poker).

I think evidence of this was shown by partpoker.net being used in advertisements. If partypoker.com was completely legal why not use the partypker.com name?

Now, they are going to withdraw from the US market? I don't see what has changed from their perspective. Running a site was already illegal, now it is also illegal for a bank to fund the sites. But it seems like nothing has changed for the poker sites themselves. Or would they argue that there was a gray area for running non sports gambling sites in the past and that only operators of sports books could be prosecuted in the USA?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch of reasons for Party to so quickly give a statement and not accept US players.

1. They are a publicly traded company, they have share holders they have to listen to.
2. They are the biggest company out there and will be immediately targeted if they persist.
3. They are based in UK which has very friendly extradition laws with US. They also have other businesses (like PartyCasino) which they still want to keep.
4. They probably think that they can get some profits by just having European, Asian customers.

[goldtoes]

[ QUOTE ]
no, running a site off-shore was not illegal and the advertisement of the .net site is the only way they could get away with advertising in the U.S.

mod please close this

[/ QUOTE ] was

[lanquid]

[quote
There are a bunch of reasons for Party to so quickly give a statement and not accept US players.

1. They are a publicly traded company, they have share holders they have to listen to.
2. They are the biggest company out there and will be immediately targeted if they persist.
3. They are based in UK which has very friendly extradition laws with US. They also have other businesses (like PartyCasino) which they still want to keep.
4. They probably think that they can get some profits by just having European, Asian customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add to the list.
5. Directors may fancy visiting the US rather than a US jail.
6. Short term wisdom would be to comply for the time being with hopes to move back later. Difficult to do if all your operatives are labelled as criminals

[EgoSlasher]

[ QUOTE ]
[quote
There are a bunch of reasons for Party to so quickly give a statement and not accept US players.

1. They are a publicly traded company, they have share holders they have to listen to.
2. They are the biggest company out there and will be immediately targeted if they persist.
3. They are based in UK which has very friendly extradition laws with US. They also have other businesses (like PartyCasino) which they still want to keep.
4. They probably think that they can get some profits by just having European, Asian customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add to the list.
5. Directors may fancy visiting the US rather than a US jail.
6. Short term wisdom would be to comply for the time being with hopes to move back later. Difficult to do if all your operatives are labelled as criminals

[/ QUOTE ]


Can't extradite if it's not illegal in the UK

[Leader]

The company is run by fools. Note this is not a new development.