DoJ/USA Discussion - Must read for US Players and affiliates.

[pokeraddict]

I have not followed this thread as I did not expect it to be in this section. I thought it was being ignored because the immediate consequences are likely to only be for poker. Here are some thoughts of mine.

1) I live in Nevada and have worked in the online poker industry since 2004. Part of why I moved here is because I was betting this would happen. I also own a bunch of gaming stocks that exploded on this news. Currently I write online poker news for a living.

2) Lotteries could already sell tickets online and some states already do. This did not change anything. The specific question from the state lotteries was if they could use out of state processors. The UIGEA already carved out state lotteries as well as anything else intrastate.

3) As for crossing state lines, horse racing and fantasy sports already do this. They are carved out by the UIGEA as well but there was never any conflict with the wire act. To me, this was a tell that the wire act did not really apply regardless of what the feds wanted to say out loud.

4) The government has already shown that they are indifferent about intrastate forms of online gambling. Nevada has had mobile and internet sports betting for about two years. Several gaming companies in Nevada offer it. The feds stayed out of it. They have also stayed out of the recently legalized online poker debate in Nevada.

5) This does not affect Black Friday because AP/UB/FTP and Stars were committing bank fraud and violating state gambling laws. A NY anti gambling law was used as the law that set off the UIGEA charges. You could argue that if the feds did not have the wrong legal conclusion banks would have drawn another conclusion but that is not relevant. The crime was committed (allegedly) regardless of the motive or reasons.

6) This does not affect Neteller because they processed sports betting transactions, clearly illegal under the wire act. The fact that some of their other transactions may have been legal does not change the fact that they were committing a crime processing sports gambling transactions. All other processor seizures/indictments are the same situation. They processed payments that must have violated some sort of state law that would trigger the UIGEA.

7) This does not affect the Blue Monday indictments against Bookmaker.com/True Poker/DoylesRoom/Beted etc because they are all tied to a sports gambling operation. The poker rooms were just along for the ride.

8) This gives states the go ahead to link their legalized and regulated online poker rooms with each other. It does not make it so that Poker Stars can reenter the US market tomorrow. I would imagine all states have some law that makes offering unlicensed gambling a crime if they do not outright ban it.

9) This does very little for those of you that are looking to play slots from your home in the U.S. I cannot think of much of a reason that you would have to have interstate online slot casinos. If your state passes online casinos there will be little motivation for them to network them. Each casino company would likely LLC in your state and get licensed. While this may have changed the outlook on internet gambling, it did not change the fact that your state could have already legalized intrastate online gambling if they wanted to do it.

10) Forget online sports betting, it is not going to happen outside of Nevada unless NJ gets the Bradley Act overturned.

This changes nothing from the past and likely only affects online poker going forward in states that specifically legalize it and agree to network their player bases. This was maybe slightly positive for online slots and table games just because of a sentiment change and is not going to change online sports betting at all.

[Cleveland]

"We Shall Overcome"

[me_and_ed]

If I had the name Dikshit and 300 million I think I would surely change it.

[chuchu59]

"We Shall Overcome"

Regretabbly this is followed by 2 words.

[Cleveland]

Regretabbly this is followed by 2 words.

This faith?

Why regrettably? The next two words in the MLK speech is "this faith"

I'm confused

[chuchu59]

This faith?

Why regrettably? The next two words in the MLK speech is "this faith"

I'm confused

If I recall the song correctly the next 2 words are 'some day' implying we could be in for a long tussle.

[ksech]

This was posted in our local paper this morning....

http://www.freep.com/article/2012010...ambling-shifts

[takethemoney]

The DOJ acts have hurt American players worse with their deeds than online gambling ever could have. If you take a step back and think about this, it has left only a few casino softwares to play, who have proven that they basically can have their way with us because we have so few options. In fact, many Americans have been driven right into the hands of rogue casinos. Yeah, good looking out for us, DOJ! A competitive market tends to keep things in check. We're not getting that right now and there are many things wrong that are effecting players.

[ksech]

Here is the complete story that ran in my local newspaper Tuesday. (sorry was having computer issues the other day and didnt get the link I wanted...) The correct link and article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...en-151-not-if/

(AP) LAS VEGAS - The fight to fully legalize online gambling in the U.S. is now less about whether Americans will be able to play and more about who will bring the action to them — and when.


A recent U.S. Justice Department opinion opened the door for cash-strapped states and their lotteries to bring online gambling to their residents, as long as it does not involve sports betting.


The DOJ memo also enflamed a battle within the industry over how to legalize online gambling that once generated an estimated $6 billion yearly just from poker: Should each state have its own system, or should there be a nationwide law?


While the opinion sent gambling stocks rising, many players who've been shut out from top online poker sites since April just want games to restart and don't care who profits.


"I don't like this legal limbo. Is it legal, or is it illegal?" said writer Brian Boyko, who plays poker as a hobby.


Boyko of Austin, Texas, has been using a small offshore site since executives and others at PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker were accused of illegally getting banks to process gambling funds.


Most of the U.S. games disappeared after the indictments.


One lawmaker in New Jersey is pushing to make online gambling legal, citing the DOJ memo. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak said he'll try to get a bill to Gov. Chris Christie's desk by next week.


"We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming," he said. "It's the wave of the future."


Online poker boomed in the U.S. over the last decade, but a 2006 law made it illegal to run most online gambling businesses by forbidding financial institutions from processing transactions related to illegal online gambling.


The law, however, didn't clearly specify what kinds of gambling were illegal.


Some forms of gambling, like fantasy sports and horse racing, got explicit carve-outs, while many poker games kept going online as some operators got differing legal opinions about whether the Wire Act of 1961 applied to them.


Since then, poker proponents have argued that the game is different from other casino games like blackjack or slots because it involves significantly more skill.


Even casino companies — which make far more money from luck-based games than poker — began pushing for poker-only legislation under the assumption that poker regulations would be easier for lawmakers to stomach than other games.


Meanwhile, New York and Illinois officials asked the DOJ in 2010 whether the Wire Act or the 2006 law prevented them from selling lottery tickets online to adults within their states.


Last week, the DOJ answered: The Wire Act only prevents players from wagering on sports outcomes — other bets are OK.


The commercial casino industry's top lobbying group in Washington, D.C., believes the DOJ's interpretation of the Wire Act was correct, but added more confusion than solutions.


"There's probably some staffers at work on (Capitol Hill) now taking a real hard look at this as they figure to bring some sanity," said Frank Fahrenkopf, chief executive of the American Gaming Association.


Fahrenkopf said his group will keep pushing Congress for online poker legislation that establishes baseline rules for Internet poker operators.


Within the gambling world — which includes lotteries, private and publicly-traded companies, American Indian tribes, software manufacturers, offshore sites and others — there are differing visions for ideal online gambling laws.


Mark Hichar, an outside lawyer for the company that runs the Texas lottery, said the memo removes uncertainty and will prompt lotteries to begin running as many different kinds of games as are allowable under state laws.


"This helps lotteries, which are ... determined to remain relevant and to attract a new generation of players," said Hichar, who represents Rhode Island-based GTECH Corp.


Lotteries have generally opposed federal legislation, pushing for states to retain control of gambling laws.


I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law expert, said the opinion's timing and deference to states could mean trouble for commercial casinos that want an inside track on running licensed online gambling.


"They're going to have problems because when the states legalize, their natural inclination is to give it to the locals," said Rose, who regularly writes about online gambling developments at his blog, Gambling and The Law.


And that, he said, is the big question: Who's going to get the license?


"If you're a Nevada casino operator, you don't want to be competing in more than 50 separate jurisdictions against connected, politically powerful operators," Rose said.


Rose said new federal laws are a longshot in 2012, while states could choose to enter into compacts with other states to pool players, making games more lucrative.


U.S. lotteries could emulate counterparts in Canada that run limited online gambling sites in the provinces, he said.


Recreational player Mark Gorman of Austin, Texas, said he's skeptical, because different DOJ officials under a future president could change their opinion, forcing lawmakers to start over again.


"I wasn't terribly excited that this would change the landscape," Gorman said.


In Nevada, where gambling regulators adopted online poker regulations the day before the DOJ opinion, it's not clear whether casinos will try to let gamblers wager on more than just poker online.


Michael Gaughan, owner of the South Point casino in Las Vegas, said his lawyers are looking at how the opinion has changed legal situation as he tries to become the first Nevada casino operator to run legal online poker in the state.


"I don't know what happens," Gaughan said. "This opens up a whole can of worms, now."


He said he'll wait for their analysis before deciding whether to ask Nevada regulators to expand his plans.


Poker may be a baby step, legalized before other games as states argue that gambling creates jobs, said Alexander Ripps, a legal analyst in Washington for independent gambling market analysis firm Gambling Compliance.


"I think you're going to see it coming down to what to they think can get through," Ripps said. "Once you're in with one thing, then, in theory, down the line you can always get something else in."


Meanwhile, Boyko said, he just wants to be able to trust his money online while the game.


"All I want is a safe place to play poker," he said.



Maybe there is some kind of hope that online gambling will see some type of legislation this year.