California + Canada + Party Poker = Money Laundering?

[jackflashdrive]

Many professional online poker players have considered getting canadian bank accounts in order to play poker on sites that don't allow US players (there are ways to make it appear that you are playing from canada but that is not the point of this thread). The idea with the canadian account is to transfer money from a poker site to a canadian account, and then from the canadian account to a US account.

Here's the relevant US law on money laundering:


"Whoever [ . . . ] knowing[ly] [ . . . ] conducts or attempts to conduct [ . . . ] a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity [ . . . ] with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity [ . . . ] shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both."

California law from Chuck Humphrey's website:

California Penal Code Sec. 330. provides: "Every person who plays... any banking or percentage game played with cards... for money, checks, credit, or other representative of value, and every person who plays or bets at or against any of those prohibited games, is guilty of a misdemeanor..."

Humphrey believes it is a misdemeanor to play online poker from California.

PROBLEM

There is little reason to worry about being prosecuted by the state of CA for violation of CA law or by USJD for violation of the wire act (which probably would not hold up). BUT:

It is quite possible that moving money internationally will trigger the scutiny of the vast all-seeing international money laundering gotchha system. If so then it seems to me that you could easily find yourself prosecuted for laundering by Federal officials so inclined (which means up to 20 years in jail, which means losing everything, etc.). It is pretty clear that using canadian accounts and international wires to move funds fits the definition of laundering posted above.

-J

[Yakuman]

There's no real difference between an international bank account and an e-wallet like Neteller. Are they going to come after everyone who use Neteller?

[jackflashdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no real difference between an international bank account and an e-wallet like Neteller. Are they going to come after everyone who use Neteller?

[/ QUOTE ]

DOJ does not need to arrest or harass US residents who have used Neteller in the past because that road is now closed (and there are just too many people who used Neteller). Those who take a detour around the closed road may now be much more likely to come under scrutiny. Prosecution for laundering seems an easy (very threatening) charge to bring if so desired.

[SlapPappy]

Your dreaming if you think the DOJ if going to come after you for opening a Canadian bank account to play online poker. LOL.

[StellarWind]

This excerpt is from a 2002 article by Miriam Wasserman on the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston web site.

[ QUOTE ]
The MLCA defined money laundering fairly broadly. Financial transactions that ordinarily would not be considered illegal became criminal if they knowingly involved the proceeds of a “specified unlawful activity.” These activities comprise a long, and expanding, list of over 200 criminal offenses including such diverse items as health care fraud, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, espionage, extortion, murder, and—since 1996— terrorism. (Interestingly, tax evasion is not currently part of the list.
...

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not just any random criminal activity that qualifies. Someplace there is a list of crimes that trigger the money-laundering statute. I haven't actually seen the list but I'm going to guess that playing online poker is not on it. The Wire Act (sports betting) might be another matter.

Does anyone know where the list of specified unlawful activities is?

Does this 2002 article reflect current law?

[crashjr]

Poker is not against the law in California. Mr. Humphries is wrong. Tibbetts v. Van de Kamp (1990, 1st Dist) 222 Cal App 3d 389, 271 Cal Rptr 792, 1990. The way that the rake is taken online might be illegal, but the game most certainly is legal in California

[crashjr]

Ok after a bit more reading, I found the Humphrey article that the OP refers to: http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...california.htm

So Humphrey was referring to the way that the rake is taken. However, Humphrey comes to the conclusion that even if he is corect (and I am not at all sure that he is), the player has little to worry about.

[MiltonFriedman]

Apparently, a time charge or flat per hand dealt charge would pass muster for California ?