Learn, Chat & Jail with the Pros(part2)

[gaboonviper]

I have been posting recently how likely it is that one or more of the top pros could wind up in jail for being sponsors of the online sites. I have said that the Full Tilt Pros are the most likely to be attacked beacause Full Tilt is by far the most VISIBLE of the poker sites. They do a ton of tv ads; they sponsor both the Pro Am Poker Equalizer and Poker After Dark; they also sponsor a huge group of very visible top poker pros; and Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson are both founders of Full Tilt and part owners of Tiltware--the company that supplies Full Tilt with all its poker software(for a big fat fee). Now I want you to read a paragraph by poker expert and author Russ Fox(his book is Mastering No Limit Holdem and he has written a load of poker articles). "Today, Pokerstars and Full Tilt operate in the US. Yes, they have no physical presence in the United States, but both pay individuals to promote their brands, both advertise on television, and both would be considered by US courts to be operating in the United States. THAT MAKES BOTH ENTITIES SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES LAWS, AND THEIR OWNERS AND EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATING THOSE LAWS." So all of those pros who are compensated by the online sites(through sponsorships/endorsements, tourney entry fees, and whatever other financial perks they are given) are clearly in violation of United States law and thus subject to prosecution. Period. Now how long do you think it will be before one or more of the poker pros is nailed by the feds? Lederer and Ferguson are especially in the crapper beacause they are part owners of Tiltware. But there is not a sponsored pro out there who is not at risk--and most all of them live right here in the United States--easy targets. So go ahead: Learn, Chat and Go To Jail with the Pros.

[LeeLoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been posting recently how likely it is that one or more of the top pros could wind up in jail for being sponsors of the online sites. I have said that the Full Tilt Pros are the most likely to be attacked beacause Full Tilt is by far the most VISIBLE of the poker sites. They do a ton of tv ads; they sponsor both the Pro Am Poker Equalizer and Poker After Dark; they also sponsor a huge group of very visible top poker pros; and Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson are both founders of Full Tilt and part owners of Tiltware--the company that supplies Full Tilt with all its poker software(for a big fat fee). Now I want you to read a paragraph by poker expert and author Russ Fox(his book is Mastering No Limit Holdem and he has written a load of poker articles). "Today, Pokerstars and Full Tilt operate in the US. Yes, they have no physical presence in the United States, but both pay individuals to promote their brands, both advertise on television, and both would be considered by US courts to be operating in the United States. THAT MAKES BOTH ENTITIES SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES LAWS, AND THEIR OWNERS AND EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATING THOSE LAWS." So all of those pros who are compensated by the online sites(through sponsorships/endorsements, tourney entry fees, and whatever other financial perks they are given) are clearly in violation of United States law and thus subject to prosecution. Period. Now how long do you think it will be before one or more of the poker pros is nailed by the feds? Lederer and Ferguson are especially in the crapper beacause they are part owners of Tiltware. But there is not a sponsored pro out there who is not at risk--and most all of them live right here in the United States--easy targets. So go ahead: Learn, Chat and Go To Jail with the Pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well i'm no attorney and don't know all the legaleeze or however you spell it but what will be the charge, what is an employee, where does it say that if you wear a hat or get paid to wear a hat at certain times you van be arrested and so on and so on. My understanding was that the new bill that was passed tries to stop money transfers. Also something about accepting a bet or wager. I'm sure it gets very technical on what is a violation and what is not. Sitting on the outside and making sweeping statements that someone is an employee and therefore can be prosecuted seems a bit off. Perhaps they can but I'm sure there are many legal minds who would differ on this.

[Ron-Mexico]

Bottom line is noone has gone to jail for just poker.
There is already some case law the wire act doesn't hold up for poker.
Poker is very grey (At best)

[Lucky]

The internet poker players mentality of 2007 is not that of the professional gambler in general. Lederer, Doyle, Zolotow and others have been arrested. It's not a big deal to them, but comes with the territory. Add their almost welcoming attitude to the fact that pokers in a grey legal area, and I dont think its inevitable at all.

It simply wouldnt have the chilling effect that it would for more traditional CEO and business people like Caruthers, and the neteller guys. For sure Lederer and Doyle aint skeered.

[LetsGambool]

What purpose would be served by the DOJ arresting sponsored pros? Wouldnt that be a colossal public relations mistake? Letter of the law or not, this isnt going to happen. The law didnt make playing poker illegal, they're trying to legislate by making funding hard enough that the casual player gives up because they just dont care that much about gambling online, its just another entertainment option. The only ones getting into legal trouble are wealthy foreign CEO's, the public doesnt care. Throw Doyle Brunson or even Jamie Gold in cuffs and this becomes harder for them. The approach theyve taken so far is superior. As long as these players have their taxes in order, this isnt going to happen.

[Jooka]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt that be a colossal public relations mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]


why would this be some sort of public relations mistake? Im not saying any of these people are going to be arrested but I dont see it being a big deal to anyone but regulars here and on other poker related forums. if they can arrest Martha Stewart they can arrest any of these pros with little to no consequence should they try to. Bugs me that people think the poker is bigger than it really is for some reason.

[LeeLoo]

[ QUOTE ]
What purpose would be served by the DOJ arresting sponsored pros? Wouldnt that be a colossal public relations mistake? Letter of the law or not, this isnt going to happen. The law didnt make playing poker illegal, they're trying to legislate by making funding hard enough that the casual player gives up because they just dont care that much about gambling online, its just another entertainment option. The only ones getting into legal trouble are wealthy foreign CEO's, the public doesnt care. Throw Doyle Brunson or even Jamie Gold in cuffs and this becomes harder for them. The approach theyve taken so far is superior. As long as these players have their taxes in order, this isnt going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I agree with the flip side here either. If someone can be prosecuted then I believ sooner or later they will. The DOJ is not enamored by the pros and many Americans could really care less. Much more prominent individuals that poker pros have been charged in the past. The DOJ will charge if they can. DOJ will enforce what they can. When a law changes hten they will stop enforcing. Public opinion does not dictate what they enforce, but in a way I guess it does, the bill was passed by individuals who were voted in by the public so I guees the DOJ would be doing what they think the public wants done.

[LetsGambool]

Martha Stewart went to jail for covering up what she allegedly did, these guys will get the same treatment if they didnt pay taxes on their earnings. I just cant imagine arresting a big name for playing poker is going to go over well, the WSOP is covered on ESPN and is pretty mainstream. It could get some John Q Politician's attention as a cause de celeb. To start with, Harrah's would 100% be against it as it would clearly hurt their franchise, so it might get the Senate Majority Leader's attention. JMHO, but I dont think this will happen.

[wil]

If the feds had to decide between the benefits of "making an example" and a possible PR blunder, I fear they'd make an example.

But it sure seems like the law is on the side of the pros in this situation. They're just endorsing the sites, right? And the sites they endorse on TV and stuff are the dot net sites, right? That's still legal (for the moment) isn't it?

[jimmytrick]

[ QUOTE ]
If the feds had to decide between the benefits of "making an example" and a possible PR blunder, I fear they'd make an example.

But it sure seems like the law is on the side of the pros in this situation. They're just endorsing the sites, right? And the sites they endorse on TV and stuff are the dot net sites, right? That's still legal (for the moment) isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The workarounds used (.net scheme and shell companies like tilt ware) are pretty vunerable to certain types of prosecution and in fact might be helpful to the government in terms of proving intent in a continuing criminal enterprise.