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

Diane

Ueber Meister
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Location
WI
I was prepared for some MORE bad news, but pleasantly surprised and encouraged..

Thanks very much for sharing.

Diane
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
What about previous casino/poker wire act cases prior to UIGEA? Could there be grounds to overturn verdicts and recover seized funds, or even sue the DoJ for false arrest/proscecution?

The Neteller seizure was prior to UIGEA, and if this was mostly unlawful, Neteller could ask for those assets to be returned, although it would have to show sports betting wasn't involved.

UIGEA still stands in the way of even intra state lotteries, since what is legal and illegal gambling have not been properly defined, so in order for a transaction not to violate UIGEA, it has to be demonstrable that it relates to a gambling activity that has been defined as being legal when conducted remotely via the internet. Just because it is legal person to person at a kiosk, such as a lottery, it does not necessarily follow that it is automatically legal via the internet.

Since the DoJ has given much of the earlier seized money away, this could become a problem for them.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I assume Neteller also received and paid out funds related to Sports betting. That is still under the wire act.

Yes, but ALL transactions were ruled unlawful, not just the sports ones. This would have made some of the seizures not covered by the law, as only a proportion was related to sports betting. The fine based on "illegal profit" would also have been wrongly calculated.
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
True.

No telling what all the implications of this will be.

Well, one thing is for sure, this will be extremely interesting to watch.
 

Mousey

Ueber Meister Mouse
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Location
Up$hitCreek
Thanks for the news, Dom!

In a 13-page legal opinion written by Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz and dated September 20, the Justice Department says “nothing in the materials supplied by the Criminal Division suggests that the New York or Illinois lottery plans involve sports wagering, rather than garden-variety lotteries. Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed lotteries are not within the prohibitions of the Wire Act.”

WTF?? Have we not been trying to TELL the damn DOJ and the FBI (etc., etc., ad nauseum) that for YEARS?? Old Attachment (Invalid)

I'm as happy to see that 13 page opinion as I am frustrated by being caught in the 'it's illegal just because we say it's illegal and we're more powerful than you' morass for years.
 

P.V.

Dormant Account
webmeister
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Location
Turn around...
Many states have been holding back because of the DOJ's original opinion, this should open the floodgates for online intrastate gambling.

I see lotteries quickly moving forward with online ticket sales etc. via their websites.

It's a big step forward, that's good news for a change. :D
 

P.V.

Dormant Account
webmeister
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Location
Turn around...
Old / Expired Link

Some immediate consequences

I agree with the article about the use of credit cards, but debit is another story and they can put a cap on online sales if needed.

I do have concerns with the retailers who currently sell the tickets and this would definitely put a bite in their income.

If the lotteries do jump into the online arena, hopefully it will be something that doesn't affect the mom and pop stores and other outlets.

The updated opinion from the DOJ opens all sorts of scenarios inside the US.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
I wonder who paid who? I'm not talking about brown envelopes necessarily, but a lot of people must have been promised a lot of things.

I don't believe the DOJ would change their tack just like that because they felt bad for online gamblers. The legal opinion could have been sought years ago.....in fact, what's to say they didn't and just sat on it until the major offshore operators were dealt with.
 

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
I wonder who paid who? I'm not talking about brown envelopes necessarily, but a lot of people must have been promised a lot of things.

I don't believe the DOJ would change their tack just like that because they felt bad for online gamblers. The legal opinion could have been sought years ago.....in fact, what's to say they didn't and just sat on it until the major offshore operators were dealt with.

I agree totally. They might be heavy-handed but they will be surrounded by lawyers and I am sure they knew this all along. IMO they used the uncertainty as a foundation for the scare tactics - very successfully in terms of getting rid of offshore operators, not very successfully in terms of PR for the "American way". Like they care LOL.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I wonder who paid who? I'm not talking about brown envelopes necessarily, but a lot of people must have been promised a lot of things.

I don't believe the DOJ would change their tack just like that because they felt bad for online gamblers. The legal opinion could have been sought years ago.....in fact, what's to say they didn't and just sat on it until the major offshore operators were dealt with.

Maybe they were told to think again by an increasing number of states wanting to press ahead with online lottery sales. This of course could have unintended consequenses as by now saying that non sports wagering via the "wire" is not illegal under the wire act, states with no specific laws against online gambling are again open to all types of non sports wagering, and since this would no longer be "illegal gambling", the UIGEA would no longer prohibit the transactions. It seems additional laws will be needed so that the "carve outs" can be defined as legal, whilst at the same time the offshore offerings can be defined as illegal at a federal level.

Without such new laws, the states may argue that their lotteries are now legal online because they are not sports related, and there is no law saying they are illegal. There don't seem to be laws that specifically protect the carve-out operations from the rest, the "war" has relied heavily on interpreting current laws in favour of the carve out operations.

Now of course, what about horse racing. This clarification could have the opposite effect, strengthening the view that horse race bets online and by phone are illegal as they are sports related. There would need to be a law specifically saying that horse race betting within states over the internet or phone is legal, whilst it is illegal across borders. I think at present they rely on the fact that because it is done intra state, it is not covered by the wire act, however geolocation is imprecise, so they cannot be 100% certain they are only taking intrastate bets. It is not as precise as taking the caller's number from CLI and mapping it to an address to determine that the bet is intrastate.

Maybe this has backed the US into a corner, and they will have to start regulation, and specifically approve individual operations to take bets from US players. I am sure state lotteries and horse race tracks will be first, followed by the big casino operators and online poker run within the US. The banks may say "screw this", and stop trying to determine which gambling transactions to block, and which to let through, and wait for new and more precise instructions on how to implement filters.
 

Mousey

Ueber Meister Mouse
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Location
Up$hitCreek
I wonder why it took them 3 months to release the opinion? And this about face really opens up a whole big can of worms for them. Now where are the banks and UIGEA in this mess the DOJ has thrown into the fan? Except for sports betting and internet gambling deemed illegal by specific state laws ...


“The Wire Act’s legislative history reveals that Congress’s overriding goal in the Act was to stop the use of wire communications for sports gambling in particular,” the Justice Department’s legal opinion says. “Our conclusion that subsection 1084(a) is limited to sports betting finds additional support in the fact that, on the same day Congress enacted the Wire Act, it also passed another statute in which it expressly addressed types of gambling other than sports.”


It just seems so strange to see an opinion that agrees with what players and people like I. Nelson Rose have been saying for years....

I'm still a bit stunned...
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
The last paragraph in their official statement reads:

Given that the Wire Act does not reach interstate transmissions of wire communications
that do not relate to a “sporting event or contest,” and that the state-run lotteries proposed by
New York and Illinois do not involve sporting events or contests, we conclude that the Wire Act
does not prohibit the lotteries described in these proposals. In light of that conclusion, we need
not consider how to reconcile the Wire Act with UIGEA, because the Wire Act does not apply
in this situation. Accordingly, we express no view about the proper interpretation or scope of
UIGEA.
 

Cleveland

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Location
Texas
I haven't read the whole thread or the news article so forgive me if this question is answered:

Does this mean I can play at 32red? If so who should contact them and let them know to let us in? I will read the article later but for now the answer to those two questions will do. :eek2:
 

Cleveland

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Location
Texas
A bit odd for the DOJ to back track like this..Something heavy is stepping on some toes....

I took one for the team and slept with the head of.... :xxx

:eek:
 

ksb11

Dormant account
Joined
May 10, 2009
Location
Wait'n for a payout!
I haven't read the whole thread or the news article so forgive me if this question is answered:

Does this mean I can play at 32red? If so who should contact them and let them know to let us in? I will read the article later but for now the answer to those two questions will do. :eek2:

Yea, there you go Cleveland, skip right to the important stuff. When can we play at all those great casinos. That's when I'll be happy
 

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
Does this mean I can play at 32red? If so who should contact them and let them know to let us in?

No is the quick answer. I would imagine a lot will get discussed in 2012 but it will take some time just to work out what this means IMO.
 

Silencio

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Location
Netherlands
I agree totally. They might be heavy-handed but they will be surrounded by lawyers and I am sure they knew this all along. IMO they used the uncertainty as a foundation for the scare tactics - very successfully in terms of getting rid of offshore operators, not very successfully in terms of PR for the "American way". Like they care LOL.

Heavy-handed > Lawyers > Light-handed

Anyhow..
Merry Christmas all, gonna be a great year :D
Stay positive :)
 

binshakindown

Dormant Account
Joined
May 24, 2008
Location
CO
I am confused

From what I gather about the DOJ statement, it only seems to specifically address the issue of a (insert state here) and it's lottery. Given this was a statement issued by the DOJ; that the DOJ can say whatever they want without consequence; that the DOJ, in the interest of protecting the US (not us) big money interests dictate how US citizens may spend their own money; and that past experience has shown that the DOJ cannot be trusted, I think it would be foolish to believe that the statement made by them would apply to anything other than a particular lottery and the associated state and that the DOJ was simply saying that the lottery is not sportsbetting.

At the end of the day I just have to remind myself that the DOJ can say whatever they want and no one can stop them from seizing money at will, since the company it was seized from basically has to sue to get the money back. As Vinylweatherman somewhat eluded to above, by the time that company does win the court case, it is unlikely that the money could be found. In several states, the local government can sieze your car for the simple suspision of comitting a crime. When the indivual goes to court and is found not guilty, they cannot get their vehicle back, unless they pay the impound fees. If you don't pay the impound fees, the city will sell your vehicle, keep the money and send your impound fee bill to collections. This is actually okay in the City of Denver, Colorado. How much money could they swipe from the off shores who unknowingly became victims because they actually believed something the DOJ said.

I just couldn't trust a statement made by the DOJ. They are experts when it comes to trickery, deceit, and illusions. Basically I am saying take it with a grain of salt. I hope I am wrong, though.
 
Top