Breaking News: DOJ says only sportsbetting violates Wire Act

[lots0]

Personally, I hope the Feds keep the hell out of online gambling.
Seems everything they touch gets screwed up. Just look how bad they screwed us all over for the last 4 years... Just to tell us all... oops never-mind...


Now the Feds are out of it, we should see some real action for a change.

[boczom1]

so..... i'm like already bursting into online advertising mode. watcha guys think ?

also, maybe a lil too early to start posting our gambling directories on our facebook profiles ?

hmm. i'm sure others are feeling the same. I wonder if Google will quickly change their stance on AdWords advertising now.

[boczom1]

also, has anybody else thought that maybe this is just a sneaky trap by the Feds ?

To get us all excited & flamboyant...but only so we can start opening up more & spilling our beans ?

Notice how they never said online casino gambling is now legal. It's still one of those 'read between the lines' things..




then again....maybe i'm being ultra-paranoid again..

[lots0]

also, has anybody else thought that maybe this is just a sneaky trap by the Feds ?

To get us all excited & flamboyant...but only so we can start opening up more & spilling our beans ?

Notice how they never said online casino gambling is now legal. It's still one of those 'read between the lines' things..

then again....maybe i'm being ultra-paranoid again..

LOL... Yup yur ultra paranoid.
There is way too much money on the line, not to mention the States want control.

Once we see the legitimate payment processors open their doors to the states again, things will really start pop.

[Monica]

I agree with Anthony totally, I mean its not a green light but it gives us something to look forward for 2012. Its good to see them at the very least taking a written position, instead of rumors which are leaked every other week.

Well at the very least we can get into dreamy mode and fantasize over the good old days hihi

[boczom1]

I guess we could thank the bad economy for the States desperate needs for online gambling to be legalized.

[celena]

I sincerely hope that everything will go back for you and for us: D

[TheOnlyPoker]

The take-away for me, is summed up by Prof Nelson Rose at gamblingandthelaw.com : "Since states are now clearly free to legalize intra-state online poker, and perhaps even interstate, there is not much reason to even bother with a federal law. Only the major operators, like Caesars Entertainment, need a federal law, because they don’t want to be competing with politically connected local gaming companies for limited numbers of licenses in 50 states."

Prognosticating a bit, i can envisage that certain states will push forward with their own approach to legalizing online poker for an intra-state Consideration/Chance/Prize venue. Will the transaction processors enable such state-licensed activity? Of course they will, - is there any doubt?

If you are running a poker platform in the offshore (i.e. Malta or CR), does this help your legal stance (defense) in taking US players? Not a wit in my opinion. If anything, it darkens your position, unless you are licensed in that state, because now the state will have a competitive reason to go after your company, using UIGEA. There's more to UIGEA than just the Wire Act, cite ML etc

[lots0]

...There's more to UIGEA than just the Wire Act, cite ML etc

Your wrong.
You might want to actually read the UIGEA.

(10) UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term 'unlawful Internet gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

for a full text of the law.. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h109-4411

an absence of law, makes nothing illegal and everything legal. 49 states currently have no laws against online gambling... The ONLY state to out law online gambling is Washington State.

Just to quote I. Nelson Rose from his CNN interview yesterday "...an explosion of online gambling is coming to America."

Just a short time(2 months or less) before the legit payment processors open their doors inside the USA again... Mark my words.

[TheOnlyPoker]

Your wrong.
You might want to actually read the UIGEA law.


for a full text of the law..
an absence of law, makes nothing illegal and everything legal. 49 states currently have no laws against online gambling... The ONLY state to out law online gambling is Washington State.

Just to quote I. Nelson Rose from his CNN interview yesterday "...an explosion of online gambling is coming to America."

Just a short time(2 months or less) before the legit payment processors open their doors inside the USA again... Mark my words.

I've read the UIGEA many times, but its always good to read it again. Maybe you misunderstood my sentence. I said there's more to UIGEA than (just) the Wire Act.

One EG:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, being engaged in a gambling business, knowingly--

(1) uses a communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or to or from any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to any transmission to or from the United States, of--

(A) bets or wagers;


(B) information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers; or


(C) a 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; or


Regarding you comments on legit processing 'opening their doors in 2 months or less', i would bet against that position, that said, my post says nothing negative about that, rather the opposite. I speculated industry processors will indeed service any state licensee, should one surface. I'd be interested to know your rational however, the basis which your reasoning follows.


Its interesting Nelson Rose put the explosion of gaming he sees coming, in the context of 'to America'. Is that what you agree with? My take is that if it indeed comes in 2012, (an expansion) it will be from within.

[lots0]

actually your just quoting part of the law. The UIGEA just amends/modifies an existing federal code, a federal code that is commonly called the Wire Act of 1961. So really, the UIGEA is literally nothing without the 'wire act'
The actual law reads as follows:

Section 1084 of title 18, United States Code
(a) 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.

You'll note the highlighted sections.

My reasoning... is the above law... that according to the United States Justice Dept. NOW applies ONLY to Sports betting...

Now are you starting to understand.... What this decision means???
There is NO federal law against online gambling, other than sports betting... and only one state has specific laws against online gambling.
THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST TRANSFERRING ONLINE GAMBLING FUNDS.. unless the money is from betting on sports.
Starting to get the picture now?

[xecutable]

So what happens if you casino players decide to visit the sportsbook section of the website, generate $5 from sports betting? Will this be legal, illegal? Who's there to trace that etc...

[TheOnlyPoker]

actually your just quoting part of the law. The UIGEA just amends/modifies an existing federal code, a federal code that is commonly called the Wire Act of 1961. So really, the UIGEA is literally nothing without the 'wire act'
The actual law reads as follows:


You'll note the highlighted sections.

My reasoning... is the above law... that according to the United States Justice Dept. NOW applies ONLY to Sports betting...

Now are you starting to understand.... What this decision means???
There is NO federal law against online gambling, other than sports betting... and only one state has specific laws against online gambling.
THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST TRANSFERRING ONLINE GAMBLING FUNDS.. unless the money is from betting on sports.
Starting to get the picture now?

Ok lots0, let me see if i get this right: your argument contends that "Online Poker" per se, is suddenly deemed 'not illegal' BECAUSE the UIGEA in substance is actually 'nothing more than an amendment to the Wire Act of 1961', AND BECAUSE the recent DoJ conclusion that the Wire Act’s “prohibitions relate solely to sport-related gambling activities in interstate and foreign commerce..” therefore poker is excluded from any or all force and effect of UIGEA. You will agree i have interpreted your argument correctly? Or is there more?

In the first place UIGEA does not amend the Wire Wager Act. (as you stated)

In the second place, UIGEA created an independent law under Title 31, the Money and Finance Code, a new federal crime, making it a violation for American financial institutions to process transactions originating from or directed to any online gambling operator.

Google 31 U.S.C. § 5363

§ 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling

No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling—
(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);
(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;
(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any financial institution; or
(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction, as the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may jointly prescribe by regulation, which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of such other person.

And that, recall, was my original point, that UIGEA is more than just the Wire Act.

For an example of 31 U.S.C. § 5363 in action , i'll cite the following:

MANHATTAN U.S. ATTORNEY CHARGES PRINCIPALS
OF THREE LARGEST INTERNET POKER COMPANIES WITH BANK
FRAUD, ILLEGAL GAMBLING OFFENSES AND LAUNDERING
BILLIONS IN ILLEGAL GAMBLING PROCEEDS

On October 13, 2006, the United States enacted the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ("UIGEA"), making it a
federal crime for gambling businesses to "knowingly accept" most
forms of payment "in connection with the participation of another
person in unlawful Internet gambling." Despite the passage of
UIGEA, the Poker Companies, located offshore, continued operating
in the United States. In a press release dated October 16, 2006,
Absolute Poker announced that the company would continue its U.S.
operations because "the U.S. Congress has no control over" the
company’s payment transactions.

I fail to see the connection between the conclusion by the DoJ that the Wire Act’s “prohibitions relate solely to sport-related gambling activities in interstate and foreign commerce" and the above 31 U.S.C. § 5363.

Everyone and anyone who has anything to do with the G industry professionally understands the content and history of the Wire Act and is well aware of the controversy/premise that poker is not sports betting. That is precisely why the UIGEA targeted the processing industry, for that very reason.

In conclusion, I would be personally elated to know that its open season again for poker in America, but I for one don't see the connection. HOWEVER apparently Prof Nelson Rose does because he goes on at some length to say how, " ..prohibitions relate solely to sport-related gambling activities in interstate and foreign commerce, eliminates almost every federal anti-gambling law that could apply to gaming that is legal under state laws."

Yet Prof Rose closes with this statement: "There is as little chance of this Congress passing a new Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act as there is of it passing a repeal of the UIGEA."

Maybe that's what he meant by use of the word 'almost' - 'almost every federal anti-gambling law.

[lots0]

5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling

No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling...

That section you provided depends on it's definition of unlawful Internet gambling from the Wire Act OF 1961 (as amended by the UIGEA)... So it is NOT ILLEGAL unless it is Sports Betting. That is the connection you failed to see.

TheOnlyPoker, Your argument is invalid, your knowledge of US law is sadly lacking. You may have read the UIGEA 'many times' as you said, but you obviously don't understand it. You might want to ask a real lawyer with some expertise in online gambling about all this... I did.

I just want to point out here that you are not just disagreeing with me, your disagreeing with the foremost legal authority in the online gambling business I. Nelson Rose, who is the acknowledged expert. Your also disagreeing with the lawyers I hire, who also work exclusively in the online gambling business and I have yet to hear a single legal expert agree with your position and believe me I have been asking around.

***
As far as online sports betting in the US... it is illegal and I fully expect legit online casinos to stop offering sports betting to US punters, I also expect that Justice Dept. will now be going after all forms of illegal online sports betting with a vengeance.

[Caruso]

That section you provided depends on it's definition of unlawful Internet gambling from the Wire Act OF 1961 (as amended by the UIGEA)... So it is NOT ILLEGAL unless it is Sports Betting. That is the connection you failed to see.

There is no connection. The UIGEA does not relate to the Wire Act. They are completely independent of each other.

The UIGEA defines "unlawful" as follows:

"The term 'unlawful gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use of a communication facility where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made."

So assuming poker is illegal in NY State and Washington (I can't remember), then the UIGEA makes their online counterpart illegal. Whatever state laws rule against whatever gambling activity, UIGEA makes them illegal online. UIGEA doesn't make any current legal (or not illegal) gambling illegal.

The Wire Act simply illegalises sports betting via "wire".

[LuckyLizzy]

I'm happy you two had this discussion because it really helped me see everything a little bit more clearly. In my opinion, that UIGEA was written so everyone would be confused. I don't know why they find it necessary to write laws that the majority of people have to read three times just to grasp the concept...

[LuckyLizzy]

There is no connection. The UIGEA does not relate to the Wire Act. They are completely independent of each other.

The UIGEA defines "unlawful" as follows:

"The term 'unlawful gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use of a communication facility where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made."

So assuming poker is illegal in NY State and Washington (I can't remember), then the UIGEA makes their online counterpart illegal. Whatever state laws rule against whatever gambling activity, UIGEA makes them illegal online. UIGEA doesn't make any current legal (or not illegal) gambling illegal.

The Wire Act simply illegalises sports betting via "wire".

They relate because the Federal Wire Act of 1961 makes sports betting or contest bets online unlawful in the US which directly effects what the UIGEA makes unlawful. And in the UIGEA it says that it's only illegal if it is unlawful under any federal or state law. When they say wire I think they mean any telecommunications like over the internet or phone to accept wagers.

[lots0]

There is no connection. The UIGEA does not relate to the Wire Act. They are completely independent of each other.

Really what lawyer told you that?

READ THE UIGEA... it palinly states on the VERY first line...

SEC. 802.
PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PAYMENT INSTRUMENT FOR UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

You guys believe what you want... I am tired of wasting time on this, I got money to make.
Talk to your own lawyers... see what they say.

[boczom1]

so...i'm still a little confused.

My general question is, how much mustard does the UIGEA have without the wire act supporting it anymore for internet gambling ? It sounds like when UIGEA was created, it was done mostly off the wire act.... and at that time , everything was more uncertain.

or maybe in better terms : How much prosecuting power does UIGEA now have on it's own in regards to internet gambling?

[TheOnlyPoker]

That section you provided depends on it's definition of unlawful Internet gambling from the Wire Act OF 1961 (as amended by the UIGEA)... So it is NOT ILLEGAL unless it is Sports Betting. That is the connection you failed to see.

TheOnlyPoker, Your argument is invalid, your knowledge of US law is sadly lacking. You may have read the UIGEA 'many times' as you said, but you obviously don't understand it. You might want to ask a real lawyer with some expertise in online gambling about all this... I did.

I just want to point out here that you are not just disagreeing with me, your disagreeing with the foremost legal authority in the online gambling business I. Nelson Rose, who is the acknowledged expert. Your also disagreeing with the lawyers I hire, who also work exclusively in the online gambling business and I have yet to hear a single legal expert agree with your position and believe me I have been asking around.

***
As far as online sports betting in the US... it is illegal and I fully expect legit online casinos to stop offering sports betting to US punters, I also expect that Justice Dept. will now be going after all forms of illegal online sports betting with a vengeance.

lots0 my good man, you seem a bit confused in general. I think this is a very important matter, so I'm going to carry on with this discussion primarily because other people reading this thread could be picking up misinformation, generously donated here by you.

1. You keep insisting that UIGEA 'amends' the Wire act. (wrong)

Here's the actual text:

TITLE VIII-- <<NOTE: Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.>>

UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT SEC. 801.

<<NOTE: 31 USC 5301 note.>> SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006''.

SEC. 802. PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PAYMENT INSTRUMENT FOR UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.
(a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SUBCHAPTER IV--PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING

Note: that title 31 is monetary Transactions
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 53 —MONETARY TRANSACTIONS

in SUBCHAPTER IV > 5362 Definitions read the following:

(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 subject 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;
(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);
(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section3702 of title 28;
(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering;

Note that UIGEA defines Bet or wager within its definitions UIGEA goes on to define Unlawful internet gambling as:

(10) Unlawful internet gambling.— (A) In general.— The term “unlawful Internet gambling” means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

I will direct your attention to the sub-text: where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law

The above text is where it gets slippery, or tricky, if you will. The question at issue: define what is unlawful under ' any applicable Federal or State law '

What Prof Rose seems to say, (paraphrasing) is that IF the bet/wager is made legal by state law, then UIGEA does not apply. (this is the news as far as i'm concerned) The other part of his argument concerns Federal law, and he makes the point that the Wire Act cannot be applied to Lottery. Ok, fine, is this news? I think we all knew that, or at least assumed it to be true. But now we have the DoJ coming out and stating it plain English. But does this event, as a consequence of their words, de-fang UIGEA? I for one don't think so.

I think i'll stop here, and invite the brightest minds to debate the point, if they care to.