- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- The Boonies
DoJ/USA Discussion - Must read for US Players and affiliates.
- Thread starter dominique
- Start date
- 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
Thanks very much for sharing.
Diane
- 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.
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.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- The Boonies
I assume Neteller also received and paid out funds related to Sports betting. That is still under the wire act.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
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.
- 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.
No telling what all the implications of this will be.
Well, one thing is for sure, this will be extremely interesting to watch.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
Thanks for the news, Dom!
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Location
- Turn around...
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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 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.
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
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.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
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.
- 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 ...
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...
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...
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- The Boonies
The last paragraph in their official statement reads:
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.
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.
- 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.
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
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
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.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2011
- Location
- Netherlands
Heavy-handed > Lawyers > Light-handed
Anyhow..
Merry Christmas all, gonna be a great year
Stay positive
- 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.
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.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2006
- Location
- US
Another article from the NY Times Old / Expired Link
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- The Boonies
Nelson Rose's legal opinion:
Old / Expired Link
Old / Expired Link
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Location
- Wait'n for a payout!
Very fascinating. Thanks for all these links your posting
4 of a kind
Repeated violations of forum rule 1.16 - troll
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Location
- New York
The only good thing about this decision is the fact that at least it’s something positive about the future and online gaming in the USA.
With just the different unanswered concerns being mentioned here, one could only imagine how far from reality anything actually is.
You probably would have better odds picking tonight’s winning lotto numbers then trying to predict what could happen when dealing with USA legislators.
This place (USA) is in a complete mess at the moment.
With just the different unanswered concerns being mentioned here, one could only imagine how far from reality anything actually is.
You probably would have better odds picking tonight’s winning lotto numbers then trying to predict what could happen when dealing with USA legislators.
This place (USA) is in a complete mess at the moment.
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Bare with me on this one. It seems to make sense in my head.
I'm under the assumption that a decent portion of online casinos pulled out of the United States based on the DOJ's negative stance on online gambling. They weren't yet banned correct? So since the structure is already in place, couldn't those casinos come back based on the DOJ's new opinion?
My thought process may be way off but the thought of being able to have a decent selection of casinos to play at instead of 1 or 2 (that aren't RTG) is driving me insane. So many wicked looking games I want to try out 
.
I'm under the assumption that a decent portion of online casinos pulled out of the United States based on the DOJ's negative stance on online gambling. They weren't yet banned correct? So since the structure is already in place, couldn't those casinos come back based on the DOJ's new opinion?
My thought process may be way off but the thought of being able to have a decent selection of casinos to play at instead of 1 or 2 (that aren't RTG) is driving me insane
. So many wicked looking games I want to try out .
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Bare with me on this one. It seems to make sense in my head.
I'm under the assumption that a decent portion of online casinos pulled out of the United States based on the DOJ's negative stance on online gambling. They weren't yet banned correct? So since the structure is already in place, couldn't those casinos come back based on the DOJ's new opinion?
My thought process may be way off but the thought of being able to have a decent selection of casinos to play at instead of 1 or 2 (that aren't RTG) is driving me insane
It might have removed the worry of being arrested but there are other factors that I think will prevent that happening. Firstly, processor confiscations and the UIGEA. Secondly, the software providers (Playtech and MG) also blocked their licencees from taking US bets. And thirdly, if licences are required in the future, those operators will want to stay on the right side of the US authorities I would imagine in case opportunities arise to locate offices in the US.
What it might do though - ironically - is make the shadier operators feel safer, much like the UIGEA allowed them to re-establish a foothold by driving out most of the good brands.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Location
- FLORIDA USA
This is what I just read, woohooo this looks promising.
Obama OK's online gambling in states
By: Tim Mak
December 26, 2011 09:19 AM EST
Merry Christmas to the online gambling industry.
The Obama administration has cleared the way for states to legalize online poker and other forms of virtual gambling with the release of a new interpretation of the law, reports the Associated Press.
The Justice Department opinion, dated September but only released Friday, holds that the Wire Act of 1961 does not make it illegal for states to use the internet to sell lottery tickets to adults.
Previously, the Justice Department has held that wagers through telecommunications that cross state lines or international borders were illegal.
The question at issue in the Justice Department’s decision was confined to whether states like Illinois and New York could sell lottery tickets online to in-state adults, but the principles behind the DoJ’s decision has wide-ranging effects throughout the industry.
The Justice Department said that the “ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘sporting event or contest’ does not encompass lotteries,” which sparks a precedent in interpretation that could free up states to legalize other forms of virtual gambling.
“The United States Department of Justice has given the online gaming community a big, big present,” said I. Nelson Rose, a gaming law expert who consults for governments and the industry, according to the AP.
The new decision would eliminate “almost every federal anti-gambling law that could apply to gaming that is legal under state laws,” Rose wrote on his blog.
If a state were to legalize intra-state gambling, “there is simply no federal law that could apply,” given the new decision, he said, according to the AP.
Obama OK's online gambling in states
By: Tim Mak
December 26, 2011 09:19 AM EST
Merry Christmas to the online gambling industry.
The Obama administration has cleared the way for states to legalize online poker and other forms of virtual gambling with the release of a new interpretation of the law, reports the Associated Press.
The Justice Department opinion, dated September but only released Friday, holds that the Wire Act of 1961 does not make it illegal for states to use the internet to sell lottery tickets to adults.
Previously, the Justice Department has held that wagers through telecommunications that cross state lines or international borders were illegal.
The question at issue in the Justice Department’s decision was confined to whether states like Illinois and New York could sell lottery tickets online to in-state adults, but the principles behind the DoJ’s decision has wide-ranging effects throughout the industry.
The Justice Department said that the “ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘sporting event or contest’ does not encompass lotteries,” which sparks a precedent in interpretation that could free up states to legalize other forms of virtual gambling.
“The United States Department of Justice has given the online gaming community a big, big present,” said I. Nelson Rose, a gaming law expert who consults for governments and the industry, according to the AP.
The new decision would eliminate “almost every federal anti-gambling law that could apply to gaming that is legal under state laws,” Rose wrote on his blog.
If a state were to legalize intra-state gambling, “there is simply no federal law that could apply,” given the new decision, he said, according to the AP.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
Unfortunately, living in Alabama, I see a big down side to this.... Our lawmakers here may take it into their self-righteous, sanctimonious heads to ban internet gambling altogether. (For our own good, of course. hah!) As it stands now, there is no specific law against it.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Location
- Orlando, Fl
I'm trying not to get too excited about this but.... I can't help it!!
Coming back to work today and reading this news has given me the motivation I needed to keep on keeping on!
It looks like Nevada already has everything in place to get the ball rolling, but it would be nice to see federal regulation come to fruition in 2012.
Coming back to work today and reading this news has given me the motivation I needed to keep on keeping on!
It looks like Nevada already has everything in place to get the ball rolling, but it would be nice to see federal regulation come to fruition in 2012.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
The DOJ (Den Of Jackasses) has not seen the light.....they've seen the color.....GREEN.
It ain't about what's right or fair, its about that good ol' hard currency that the governments of the US are craving right now.
Make no mistake. The DOJ would have hired a team of lawyers to tell them it IS illegal if they so desired. One doesn't pay a law firm to provide an opinion they don't want to hear.
It's been all about clearing the decks via the UIGEA for the big US guns to swoop in and take the cake. It makes total sense, and is the usual American way of doing business I.e. making sure the playing field isn't level and only abiding by the international trade laws that suit them (in no way is this an insult to my US friends here )
It wouldn't surprise me if harrahs and others had their own online software ready to go at the drop of a hat. Now wouldn't THAT be interesting to see.
It ain't about what's right or fair, its about that good ol' hard currency that the governments of the US are craving right now.
Make no mistake. The DOJ would have hired a team of lawyers to tell them it IS illegal if they so desired. One doesn't pay a law firm to provide an opinion they don't want to hear.
It's been all about clearing the decks via the UIGEA for the big US guns to swoop in and take the cake. It makes total sense, and is the usual American way of doing business I.e. making sure the playing field isn't level and only abiding by the international trade laws that suit them (in no way is this an insult to my US friends here
)It wouldn't surprise me if harrahs and others had their own online software ready to go at the drop of a hat. Now wouldn't THAT be interesting to see.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
The DOJ (Den Of Jackasses) has not seen the light.....they've seen the color.....GREEN.
It ain't about what's right or fair, its about that good ol' hard currency that the governments of the US are craving right now.
Make no mistake. The DOJ would have hired a team of lawyers to tell them it IS illegal if they so desired. One doesn't pay a law firm to provide an opinion they don't want to hear.
It's been all about clearing the decks via the UIGEA for the big US guns to swoop in and take the cake. It makes total sense, and is the usual American way of doing business I.e. making sure the playing field isn't level and only abiding by the international trade laws that suit them (in no way is this an insult to my US friends here
It wouldn't surprise me if harrahs and others had their own online software ready to go at the drop of a hat. Now wouldn't THAT be interesting to see.
Oh, they've been quietly sharpening their little fangs for a while....
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Location
- Land of the "free"
I can't even tell you how happy that'd make me. I don't have my tinfoil hat quite finished yet, but it's safe to say some here would think it's in the works because I just don't know if I trust online operators the way I trust landbased casinos. So gaming regulated by the same authorities that I trust from landbased casinos sounds like heaven.
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Just a side-note, that site says "Play Lord Of The Rings" with a shot of the slot from WMS but afaik, the LOTR online licence went to Microgaming and WMS told me that, as a result, they can't bring their version online. Probably refers to the mini-game that WMS do in their Players Life system which allows you to unlock an extra bonus or two for when you go to land-based casinos and play it.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
- Location
- USA
Please let them sell lottery tickets online. Now that my father passed away and she can't drive anymore I play them for her. It is so annoying. Maybe the US can move into the modern age.
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Not to come across as addicted or anything
but
given this: Old / Expired Link
and the fact that some states such as Texas doesn't care (its legal) aren't we good to go
32 red account please? ? ?
LOLYou might need a processor first
The UIGEA is still there and that makes it illegal for any bank or processor to allow US residents to transact with an offshore and unlicenced operator. Plus 32Red are a PLC - IMO they aren't going to go near the USA until it's actually legal - as opposed to "not illegal" - to do so - or they are invited!All this really translates to I reckon is a message to State legislators - and perhaps central Gov - that says "hey, if you want to start the process to legalise it now, we've done what we set out to do so we won't stand in your way".
pokeraddict
Webmaster
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2002
- Location
- Las Vegas
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.
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.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
"We Shall Overcome"
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
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
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.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Location
- Here
This was posted in our local paper this morning....
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
takethemoney
Banned User - Chargebacks at Slotastic
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Location
- Washington
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.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Location
- Here
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:
Old / Expired Link
(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.
Old / Expired Link
(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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
