Interesting Article The fallout from the new Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 has been nothing short of amazing. Every publicly traded gaming company is running for cover, and many of the private ones as well. Operators as big as PartyPoker and the payment processor FirePay stopped taking bets from the U.S. when President Bush signed the bill into law on Friday, October 13th. Other companies have said they will cut off U.S. players once regulations are in place. The main question is: Why? The new Act should add little to an online operator's worries. Legally, it creates a new crime, accepting money for unlawful Internet gambling transactions, that only applies if the gambling is unlawful under some other federal or state law. Practically, this was not a drive by the federal Department of Justice or any state prosecutors. It was merely an underhanded ploy by a hypocritical politician, Bill Frist (R.-TN), to score some points for his presidential ambitions with the religious far right. Some legal commentators have said that the new Act is something new, because it makes an operator guilty of this new crime in every state, since every state makes non-licensed gambling illegal. But, half the states do not have laws on the books against bettors. In those states, betting even with an illegal bookie is not a crime. The other states do make betting under some circumstances a crime. Of course, in the history of the United States, only one person, a sports bettor in North Dakota, was ever charged under these archaic statutes. I have heard it argued that up until now, the only potential criminal liability was on the bettors in those states, not the foreign operators. Imagine what such a law would say: It a crime in this state to make a bet, but it is not a crime to be in a gambling business that accepts the bet. There never has been a law that penalizes only the players and not the operators. More importantly, these laws were on the books long before this new Act was passed; so were the many state statutes outlawing unlicensed gambling businesses. If an Internet poker operator was violating any of these state laws it was already in trouble. Years ago, Congress made it a federal felony to be involved in any way in a "gambling business," defined as five or more people violating state gambling laws for 30 days or with gross revenues of $2,000 in any single day. Worse, if those were state felonies, the operators were already guilty of the federal crime of racketeering, which has far worse penalties than this new Act. Internet poker operators had looked at the state and federal anti-gambling statutes and concluded that they probably did not apply. The federal Wire Act, for example, was held to be limited to sports bets, while the state statutes are flawed because they do not expressly apply to out-of-state operators. This new Act does not extend the reach of the Wire Act or any other federal or state anti-gambling law. There may be good reasons for folding a business that is making millions of dollars a day, including the risk of prosecution. But this new Act did not change those odds. Joep
Does the detail of the law really matter? I've been a bit surprised by how much focus there has been on examining the fine print of exactly what has and has not been made illegal by the new law. The bigger picture seems to be that a crack-down has been under way. No new laws were needed for the arrests of those two guys from Sportingbet and Betonsports, and wasn't it those arrests that sparked the first few withdrawals from the US? Does anyone know what's become of those two btw? I seem to recall hearing that one of the two had been arrested at the behest of a particular State, and subsequently a judge in another State had rejected their request to have him 'extradited', whereas the other case was a Federal one. I may have got all that completely wrong though; I don't pretend to understand the US legal system (or the UK one, for that matter). If this law has been poorly crafted, so that it doesn't really change anything, but the crack-down policy continues then (lame-duck presendencies aside) it might be prudent to assume that there will be more new laws coming along, as well as more attempts to pursue online gaming companies using existing laws which may or may not have actually been violated. Perhaps some have simply seen this new law as the final straw, leading them to take action now, as much to avoid future problems and uncertainties as to comply with the letter of the law as it stands today. Better to bite the bullet now and race your competitors to expand into other markets than to wait for an imperfect attempt at a ban to be perfected. Plus, some of the executives may like to take their holidays in the US, and wish to do so without risking arrest!
This law tucked into the back of another law is an example of abuse of power recently stripped away from Republicians. Not that the Democrats are any better really...they won but not becase of how good they are ..rather because of how bad the opposition was... That said....I wish these sites would stand up to this law a bit...I actually think its a toothless lion...the US gov isnt going to Aruba to shut down any sites...and I doubt anything is really going to change in the banking area either...banks arent going to shoulder 1 cent of additional cost...they will not be hand checking checks to see if the were cashed by party poker or whoever....its just NOT going to happen. None the less.....the news keeps getting worse.. Yesterday Golden Palace (which was developing a great game with a well thought out software) has blocked play to US players...the most interesting thing is that they only blocked Blackjack tournaments....I can still play poker there for money...I can still play casino games...just not the new tournament Blackjack... Ive read some press release earlier and Gold Palace invested $600,000 plus for the purchase of a % of the software developer...only to apparently abandon the game a few weeks later....I hope this game returns ...it really is a good game and when further tweaked it would offer traditional tournament play second to none, I hope Bet 21 and others keep running the game...we have had crap laws before and when the majority disagree then the action continues...I remember my grandfather telling stories from the prohibition days ....he claimed that alcohol was more plentiful and cheaper. I think after the dust settles this will be the same.... This wasnt a tax grasp,...neither was prohibition....they are both moral laws enacted by conservative religous right..you know the boy handlers.. I dont know....maybe the huge amount of poker sites are allowing youngsters to play and maybe there are problem gamblers losing everything online...I dont play enough poker to be a good judge...it does seem that the stakes are higher there...I dont think our game is any sort of problem...and in any case it should be my decision ...no one cares if I go to a B&M and lose my house....so I didnt play online until recenly really...Im not in a gambling area ...but was stuck with a few Indian casinos that have a terrible game, attitude and atmosphere...online was better...now its mostly gone..its just not right... Its time for another tea party...screw these half assed First type guys..we have conservatives spending like the libealist of Dems and and Dems who arent smart enough to present a canidate good enough to beat Bush last election... Remember just this little issue next election...this year I voted to change every Federal canidate...not because they offered anything new.rather because they needed changed just like a dirty diaper and for the same reason.
New Law, Law, Law. London: With all that's going on and needs to be sorted out and brought before any number of courts....The guys who ran the sports book off shore and did just fine and lived a great life, chose to come back to the states to fight "the Law" whatever the hell it was. I am cornfused now and can't say for sure. Long and short, they were fine where they were, but couldn't come back HERE. Once they did , they could be prosecuted and were. The current legislation, with the power of the "Patriot ACT" puts enough fear in the financial institutions to back off any sembelence of impropriatey. Regardless of what any one thinks, until a case is brought to fight "The NEW LAW," we's stuck with the decisions of the sites and the money transfer folks. Not one of them wants to risk the fines, or imprisonment. No matter whose Justice Department, the Prez, or the Dems, those boyz are goin after people. And the guys in the Caribbean, who thought they had a good case, are now, going to jail, when they coulda just sat around in the sun and the water and the breasts of the babes. So who else wants to stand UP and be the test CASE? And RISK sharing a cell with Bruno, or Alfredo? So far the odds are stacked against all of US and because it was easy to enact, it will be difficult to overturn. Mein Gott! gambling is evil! Who can argue against that. How do you bring a case against what is in the best interests of society. Save us from ourselves, we obsessive/compulsives weeeeee. It's tricky and there's no group with a strong enough voice to employ one of the two litigators willing to take it on. We knash our teeth, but........
The Long Arm Noman, The particular news-worthiness over here has been that it was British citizens, executives of nominally British comapnies, who were arrested. (Actually, I think Sportingbet may be genuinely British in its origins, rather than just flying a flag of convenience by listing on the London Stock Exchange.) I did a spot of Googling and found some reports in the UK press - Articles on David Caruthers, chief executive of BetOnSports in the FT and the Telegraph- David Carruthers: The unlucky gambler , US attack on online gaming And on Peter Dicks, (now former) chairman of Sportingbet, in the Guardian and the FT - Sportingbet arrest threatens internet gambling, Ex-Sportingbet boss free to return to UK
London May be two different deals. There's been discussion about the US guys. And I don't remember, maybe 60 minutes did a deal on them. You're pursuit of the facts is commendable, cause, I'm so lazy, I tend to rely on my memory and often it's as hazy as a lazy shade of winter.
Who is in office? I must respectfully disagree with some of these posts. Yes, the Reps used this as a grandstanding,moral issue. But, I believe it is really a taxation issue. We all know how much both the Reps and Dems love taxes. Money is the mother's milk of politics. When a way can be found to regulate and tax internet gambling it will be back. Probably with the big political contributors of the BM casinos included. It will take time. Check the voting rolls. Dems were on the bandwagon too. They like the tax money. When the tax money is there, internet gambling will be both legal and moral.
