Legal view - Cardplayer.com

[corpfan1]

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news...lass=PokerNews

Just thought it was a good read.

[stillshadow]

This is a must read for everyone who thinks that online poker (and subsequently promoting online poker) is suddenly illegal.

"I am surprised to see some online sites overreacting and posturing as if they will pull out of the market. Any company that just pulls out of the market deserves to lose a lot of money because it is receiving bad legal advice.

Offshore companies are not bound by US antigaming laws. But the most persuasive reason why offshore companies shouldn’t pull out is because the laws of online gaming have not changed. A few years ago when the government was beginning to subpoena news networks, offshore sites didn’t pull out because the movement by the government couldn’t affect them. Similarly, a law that directs itself to the mechanism used to enforce current laws, does not change the legal landscape."

Brilliant. I'll listen to a real gaming lawyer and advisor over panicking players, bloggers, and affiliates anyday.

[stillshadow]

You know, coming back to this article I just have to say it's one of (if not the) best article I've seen reacting to this nonsense. Most of what has been thrown out there so far has been bull**** interpretation but this tells us the facts: existing gaming law hasn't been touched. Whichever way you twist and slice it, online poker hasn't been made illegal. This is an ENFORCEMENT act that puts burdens on banks. The only law that has been changed is the formalizing of direct banking transfers from domestic banks to online gaming sites. I'm sure that the US will try to go after the third-party offshore services, but as it stands (and as it SHOULD stand legally) they remain untouched.

Why this article is so brilliant is that it sites to real US court case (circa 2001 - not too far in the past) in which the Wire Act has been properly analyzed and deemed not relevant. Even Goodlatte made a statement regarding wanting to update the Wire Act because it clearly only applies to sports betting.

Leave the US market entirely. Leave the industry entirely; that's less competition for the rest of us. I, for one, will be posting this article to my sites. Be fearful as much as you like, but that article is much more a helluva lot more valuable than any other response to date... IMHO.

[PPP]

"online poker hasn't been made illegal."

But that isn't the point. In fact, its irrelevant.

The law specifically criminalizes an activity that must occur for real money online gaming to happen.

[stillshadow]

Originally Posted by PPP

The law specifically criminalizes an activity that must occur for real money online gaming to happen.

Does it really? Neteller, Firepay, and the rest don't classify as "Unlawful internet gambling sites", do they?

[stillshadow]

Even if it falls under the realm of wishful thinking, I don't see why a veteran gaming lawyer would miss that point.

[PPP]

That's up to the US government to define.

To simplify it, the law criminalizes sending money to an online gambling site. The law in fact says nothing about someone PLAYING. Statements about online poker's legality are irrelevant. The law is about moving money.

It's like some state passes a law that says you can't take money into a casino, or get credit once inside a casino (or breathe air for that matter). Whether that state actually has a law against casinos or not is really irrelevant. (That would be the sensible law to pass, but supposed you were a cowardly Congress and you wanted to stop something without actually addressing the issue head on...)

[stillshadow]

I see your point and I agree with you: this was the mildest form of the bill that was able to slip through relatively unnoticed. However, I suppose the true test will be how the Feds deal with the third-party services. If my bank sends money to Neteller, as I understand it this isn't a crime YET. Even Frist said that the bill was about monitoring financial institutions rather than curb online gaming entirely.

What I'm missing is why Mrs. Shulman would fail to recognize such a simple deduction. Do you believe she is wrong in her position that online poker sites have been given poor legal counsel?

Finally, take a look at these pages:
xhttp://www.pokerlistings.com/US-poker-rooms
xhttp://www.pokernews.com/poker-faq/online-gaming-bill-poker-ban.htm

Are 2 of the top poker affiliate sites in the industry voluntarily breaking the law? Do such highly exposed sites not have decent legal advice? Or, more likely in my opinion, are they capitalizing on changes in the industry while still maintaining some convoluted form of legality?

[richardb]

Originally Posted by stillshadow

Are 2 of the top poker affiliate sites in the industry voluntarily breaking the law? Do such highly exposed sites not have decent legal advice? Or, more likely in my opinion, are they capitalizing on changes in the industry while still maintaining some convoluted form of legality?

All you have to do is look at the main players in this industry to get an idea of what the law means. A lot of affiliates, including pokernews and pokerlistings, are making comments based on their heart and emotion, instead of using their brain.

The #1 player in the industry (PartyGaming) is exiting the market. Enough said.

[PPP]

I'm not going to get into whose lawyers are better lawyers, but the idea that PartyGming didn't spend a fortune on the best lawyers they can find before they decided to lose six billion dollars of value is silly.

The people most at risk from this law are the directors of the public companies. Would you rather head a 3 billion dollar corporation or be a wanted criminal by the most powerful nation on Earth... (heh, and your salary is the same for both)?