Is it still ok to play online in the U.S.?

[m249a]

Just a question for everyone, with the crackdown on internet gamming in the United States, does anyone know if our play/paypout, deposits ect...are beign tracked? I understand the tax issues on withdraws over $10,000 a day, but I think that is only @ land based casinos. I am concerned enough to have slowed down alot with my online play, but hell its FUN. I wonder if the smart move might be to stick to land based casinos. FYI I am a staunch Bush supporter so lets try not to spiral into a Michael Moore type Bush bashing (the moron who hit us with Farenheit 9/11). Just wondering if there are any "insiders" who might work for a bank or casino that has info on how, if at all, the U.S. clients are beign tracked.

 

[savanna3]

Net Teller is not required to report

I emailed NetTeller a while back and I got a short one-line response. They said that they are not required to report activities to the IRS. Quite frankly I think that there are lot of ways to interpret that, but I didnt press.

Savanna3

 

[zaphod42]

Staunch Bush supporter likes to gamble online?

FYI I am a staunch Bush supporter so lets try not to spiral into a Michael Moore type Bush bashing (the moron who hit us with Farenheit 9/11).

Just one question:

How can you be both a fan of online gambling AND a staunch supporter of Bush? Don't you realize that if Bush knew you were a big online gambler, he'd love to see you go to prison and/or end up in tax court? (Luckily for you there are no laws (yet) that would back him up, so you're relatively safe.) It is the Bush regime and closed-minded people like them that are responsible for creating the dark cloud that hovers over online gambling today. Wake up.

OK, I guess that was two questions. But you really need to ask yourself...

--------------------

As for NETeller, I would say you don't have much to worry about (unless you are making withdrawals out of NETeller into a U.S. bank account) because they are (or were) a Canadian company and thus have no requirements to report anything to the IRS. And now that NETeller is a publicly traded company on the AIM London stock exchange you should feel even safer (we all know the U.K. supports online gambling and doesn't have any problem with allowing U.S. players, even if Uncle Sam begs to differ.)

And to my knowledge, the $10,000 red flag limit applies everywhere in the United States, not just casinos. If you make ANY transaction greater than $9999 at or through any U.S. financial establishment, you WILL be tracked.

 

[m249a]

Just one question:

How can you be both a fan of online gambling AND a staunch supporter of Bush? Don't you realize that if Bush knew you were a big online gambler, he'd love to see you go to prison and/or end up in tax court? (Luckily for you there are no laws (yet) that would back him up, so you're relatively safe.) It is the Bush regime and closed-minded people like them that are responsible for creating the dark cloud that hovers over online gambling today. Wake up.

OK, I guess that was two questions. But you really need to ask yourself...

--------------------

Ok...I asked myself, and guess what smart ass??? I can easily support the president and gamble online, its not illegal, and for the most part I agree with the stances our President has taken, both militarly and political. I can support the man based upon the vast majority of policies and actions he has enacted since elected. I can disagree with his administrations policies on restricting online gamming, and for the most part I do. To say the Bush regime is responsible for the "the dark cloud that hovers over online gambling today" is not only inacurate, but irresponsible as well. The "dark cloud" is spawned by, and further fueled by the industry itself. The crackdown his administration has imposed is directed towards regulation, and trying to stop money laundering for both terriost activites, and illegal drugs.
I challenge you to provide proof of your outlandish claims of "he would love to see you go to prison and/or end up in tax court"...or provide proof of how the Bush "regime" (in itself a completely slanderous statement, since the word regime is a direct implecation to a non-democratic elected govt.) is responsible for this "dark cloud".
Furthermore, which one of us is the closed minded one? You or me? I can openly support someone based upon my personal experiences, and disagree with certian aspect of his platform. You however, do not add anything valuable to the discusion other than taking the oppurtinuity to spew your bullshit forth for all to see. I am well aware of the $10,000 daily deposit regulation, as stated in my orginal post. So your piss-poor attempt to conceal your true motives of taking a crack at our President, and ME, with the cute statement at the end of your post did not go un-noticed. I started the thread with the intention of finding out if anyone that had direct conections with, or "insider" information in banking or casinos, to tell us if there was anything new going on with U.S. regulations. I added the "dis-claimer" so the people posting replies would understand I was not looking for a free for all discusion on how President Bush is making things harder for us to enjoy ourselves online. Please get your facts straight before you come onto a thread I started with this crap. If you don't have anything valuable to add then do me a favor and shut the hell up. Sorry Bryan, but he opened the door, I'm simply walking thru it.

 

[The Dude]

Okay let's be mellow:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/forum-rules/

Take that cup of coffee and pour it out - decaf is the way to go. Calm down and we'll try not to bring up Bush Jr. Bush Sr., Reagan, Clinton, the Queen, the Prince of Denmark or any other individual that assists in law making.

Political discussions are welcome in the "Wild Card" section. That would be an interesting topic...

 

[zaphod42]

Byran, I sincerely hope you dont remove this post. Politics may be a sensitive issue, but we ARE still on topic. This post is almost entirely about the online gaming industry, unfortunately some politicians have stuck their nose in it and thus they are involved to some degree. Based on the topic of this thread and the forum in which its in, I dont think politics (or Bush) could be left out of the discussion without gross neglect on the part of its participants. After all, the government plays a huge part in how this industry develops.

--------------

m249a, I stand corrected- the Bush regime did not create the dark cloud, but they are doing everything in their power to make sure it grows.

On your second point, that the "dark cloud is spawned by, and further fueled by the industry itself. is unfounded. To date there has not been a single shred of evidence presented linking online gaming to money laundering for terrorism, drugs or any other purpose. But, since when does Bush need any evidence to go forward with his master plan? Furthermore anyone familiar with money laundering law can explain to you why it is ludicrous to believe that the online gaming industry is attractive to money launderers, or for that matter even practical. Attached below is an article to educate you, please read it.

Also, you said The crackdown his administration has imposed is directed towards regulation which is completely fallacious. If it were directed toward regulation they wouldnt be trying to ban it. Regulation implies a green light to the industry but with a close watch over and strict rules and procedures to follow. Thats not at all whats going on. Whats actually going on is a front to cover up the true goal of imposing other peoples morals and/or religious beliefs on the nation at large. If you want an example of regulation, look at how the U.K. is handling it.

Your third point, that my referring to the Bush administration as a regime is slanderous, is inaccurate. In truth, Bush was not elected democratically (the popular vote) but rather by the electoral college. Anyone who has studied U.S. constitutional law knows the electoral college was created specifically to restrain (read undermine) the democratic (popular) decision if necessary, particularly in cases where one region of the country has the ability to swing the outcome of the election. This is an indisputable fact.

If you truly support Bush, then I suppose the answer to your original question is No, it is not safe to play online in the U.S. and in fact its getting less safe every day.

So to conclude, my facts are straight as an arrow and I AM extremely open minded. You are the one that apparently hasnt done any research and resorts to name calling instead (smart ass.)

 

[The Dude]

Byran, I sincerely hope you dont remove this post. Politics may be a sensitive issue, but we ARE still on topic.

Okay, I stand corrected. As long as governments either regulate, choose not to regulate, or attempt to ban online gaming, it's still an element to this thread.

Bush backers or Bush whackers - let's make sure it's relevant

 

[jpm]

I think it would be more accurate to say that John Ashcroft would be the one who would like to see you in jail for online gambling.

 

[dominique]

There is no federal law against online gambling in the US. For 3 years now they have tried to pass one, and it never does. My guess is it never will. The industry is busy lobbying and has been doing this all these years. Without that, we would likely not be talking here.

Some states have laws against online gambling.

Sportsbetting is a seperate issue - it is possible that it may fall under the wire act and therefor is illegal in the US.

With the current judgement for Antigua/Barbuda against the US and the judgement in favor of free speech for the porn sector, the legality of online gambling is less and less questionable.

What the DOJ is doing now is rogue behavior. It is intended to intimidate. There are no laws to back up any of these actions.

Online gambling is not illegal at this time. Not paying your taxes IS illegal, and I recommend everyone have their t's crossed and their i's dotted.

For updates on the situation you can go the site of Larry Walters, who is a lawyer specializing in online gaming.

The URL is

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

We do need a president wo will be up for reelection 4 years from now in order to deal properly with the legal issues. For that reason alone Bush is a poor choice in relation to this industry.

This posting and any others like it anyplace on the web are merely my opinion and not legal advice. My opinions are intended only for entertainment purposes.

 

[GrandMaster]

The crackdown his administration has imposed is directed towards regulation, and trying to stop money laundering for both terriost activites, and illegal drugs.

I don't recall any proposals to license and regulate online gambling at the federal level, I only ever heard of attempts to ban it, to restrict it or to make it more difficult. The fight against terrorism is just a convenient slogan to push through various policies, since of you oppose the policy, then you must oppose the fight against terrorism, so you must support terrorism.

There is another thing that has not been mentioned yet. Existing land based casinos and states that have legal gambling are very concerned about the competition from online casinos and the loss of profits and tax revenues. The casino industry can afford highly paid lobbyists, the top paid Nevada casino lobbyist in Washington made over $1 million in 2003. Obviously the casinos must think that he is worth that much.

 

[m249a]

I don't recall any proposals to license and regulate online gambling at the federal level, I only ever heard of attempts to ban it, to restrict it or to make it more difficult. The fight against terrorism is just a convenient slogan to push through various policies, since of you oppose the policy, then you must oppose the fight against terrorism, so you must support terrorism.


Sir, even if the statement was made in jest, to imply that I support terroism is very VERY far off center. I am a combat veteran, I am one of the many who went to Afganistan to help put a stop to these fanatics who want to kill me and my family. I still have a brother and an uncle in Iraq. I lost two friends when the third airplane hit the pentagon. I DO NOT SUPPORT, NOR DO I CONDONE TERRORISM. The implication that I oppose the fight against terrorism, or support terrorism is something I take great offense to.
I am trying very hard to exercise a level of self control, out of respect for those who are not part of this disscusion, but let me say this sir, If and I doubt you would, but if you had made such a statement in person to me, I promise you the self-control I am excersing now would be very hard to maintain.
To the other posters on this thread I didn't forget or getr scared away, I was busy this holiday weekend, and I will post replies shortly. This one however required a response now as opposed to later.

 

[dominique]

Terrorism and money laundering are indeed despicable - but they have nothing to do with online gambling.

This connection is intended to obfuscate - and judging by this thread very successfully so.

Guys, I don't really think you disagree on the basics. There are some issues being mixed together here that have nothing to do with each other.

 

[sw2003]

Landbased casinos obviously don't like their online counterpart. Nobody likes so many competitions. They are currently in a difficult situation because they cannot open online shops themselves that actually have obvious connection to them while everybody else is opening shops overseas. If in the future the US government changes its position, they would be so far behind everyone else and be in the disadvantage.

They have two choices to make! The first is to lobby banning online gambling in the US so that they still have a sort of a monopoly. The second is to lobby for legalization of that so that they themselves can enter the market while facing a lot of already existing and established competitors. I suspect that they very much prefer the first, but unnatural, choice.

 

[dominique]

Both parties have been lobbying a lot over the last 3 years.

Sooner or later this will lead to regulation of online casinos - and the entry of land based casinos into the business.

They will enter when they are good and ready, and I don't think they will be too scared of the competition. They will be well funded, well regulated and familiar names that will attract players from the getgo.

It is just a matter of time.

 

[GrandMaster]

Landbased casinos obviously don't like their online counterpart. Nobody likes so many competitions. They are currently in a difficult situation because they cannot open online shops themselves that actually have obvious connection to them while everybody else is opening shops overseas. If in the future the US government changes its position, they would be so far behind everyone else and be in the disadvantage.

They have two choices to make! The first is to lobby banning online gambling in the US so that they still have a sort of a monopoly. The second is to lobby for legalization of that so that they themselves can enter the market while facing a lot of already existing and established competitors. I suspect that they very much prefer the first, but unnatural, choice.

MGM Mirage had an online casino, but US players were not allowed becuase of the legal uncertainty. It was clearly not profitable and closed down.

 

[GrandMaster]

[Sir, even if the statement was made in jest, to imply that I support terroism is very VERY far off center. I am a combat veteran, I am one of the many who went to Afganistan to help put a stop to these fanatics who want to kill me and my family. I still have a brother and an uncle in Iraq. I lost two friends when the third airplane hit the pentagon. I DO NOT SUPPORT, NOR DO I CONDONE TERRORISM. The implication that I oppose the fight against terrorism, or support terrorism is something I take great offense to.

I did not mean personal anything about you. I used the pronoun "you" in a general sense. I just tried to describe the following scenario:
Politician A proposes a bill to ban internet gambling with the justification that online gambling is used for money laundering by terrorists. From this point there is no rational debate on the merits of the proposal, whether there is indeed any connection, or whether licensing and regulation would be a better way to prevent any possibility of money laundering and criminal involvement. If politician B speaks out against the proposal, he risks being called soft on terrorism or worse, which he cannot afford in an election year.

 

[m249a]

I did not mean personal anything about you. I used the pronoun "you" in a general sense. I just tried to describe the following scenario:
Politician A proposes a bill to ban internet gambling with the justification that online gambling is used for money laundering by terrorists. From this point there is no rational debate on the merits of the proposal, whether there is indeed any connection, or whether licensing and regulation would be a better way to prevent any possibility of money laundering and criminal involvement. If politician B speaks out against the proposal, he risks being called soft on terrorism or worse, which he cannot afford in an election year.

Thank you for clearing up the statement, terrorism is a sensitive subject for alot of Americans, as you can empathise with...The terror tatics used by the IRA speak for themselves. Nuf' said
I did a google search combining "online casinos/money laundering, and found several articles in refrence to the connection between the two. People have been laundering money for ever and will continue to do so, even if we somehow close down all the internet casinos.
An eairler poster stated the word regime applied to the elected government in the United States, and he attempted to use the electoral college as proof of such a statements validity. The Electoral College in the U.S. is based upon the population of that particular state, the purpose of the electoral college is a safeguard against a state with a higher population having too much of an impact on a Presidential election. Each state is assigned a number of electorial votes, and for the most part they parallel popular vote. History has shown a few exceptions to that. The electoral college does not affect house or senate outcome what-so-ever. So to say our elected government is a dictator style "regime" in my opinion is inaccurate.
I would support land based casinos opening up shop on the web, as I stated before, I think they would bring a level of credibilty, and ethics to the table the online industry has yet to establish for itself.