Jetset - you can probably answer this, but am I right in thinking that although the UIGEA went through, the original legislation from which is was extracted for a "quick kill" is still potentially on the table?
As you know, the UIGEA went through on the coat tails of essential security legislation, late at night and just before Congress recessed - clever political timing by Bill Frist and Jon Kyl, who were its primary architects and tacticians.
The US legislative scene is so damned convoluted and busy that it's not difficult to lose track of all the proposals and manouevreing, but I seem to recall that before that fateful night's work back in late 2006, there was another piece of legislation, I think by Goodlatte and some other anti-online gambling politico who's name escapes me at present.
In order to avoid as much opposition as possible, this was very carefully crafted to preserve all the inequitable carve-outs for fantasy sports, horse racing and state lotteries in previous proposals, and I think it backed the Wire Act too.
From what I can remember this didn't really go anywhere useful and was sort of eclipsed by the UIGEA. I assume it must have dropped off "time expired" in that session of Congress, but to be honest I lost interest in it as the UIGEA became the dominant anti-online gambling vehicle.
Then there was all that banking and other opposition to the UIGEA and the difficulties that the Treasury and AG departments had in actually framing workable regulations to support the act - that took well over the timetable voted by Congress and even now it's definition of what constitutes an illegal gambling transaction is pretty wooly and much criticised.
The regulations are due for implementation June 1st after being postponed for six months by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner....and it doesn't appear there will be any reprieve this time.
However, as Bryan pointed out earlier in this thread, the Act doesn't penalise players - it's intention is to disrupt or stop financial transactions with "illegal" online gambling companies.
There are widespread fears that banks trying to come to grips with the imprecise definition of what is illegal online gambling will err on the side of caution, resulting in over-blocking and monumental foul ups.
There have already been two state lotteries adversely impacted by over zealous ban decisions, and we're only just getting to the starting gate on this punitive measure.
Edited to add that the feds are touting a recent prosecution of an i-processing manager as the first real UIGEA prosecution. Thirty-six year old Massachusetts resident Todd Lyons is the subject of a criminal prosecution involving 36 counts of racketeering, money laundering, operating an illegal gambling business, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, filing false tax returns and a variety of other related charges, according to the Department of Justice, which unsealed a multi-count indictment last week. (see Casinomeister News for the full report).