How Am I Wrong With This?

[stillshadow]

If a US player deposits money into Neteller and then deposits into Full Tilt, how is Full Tilt in violation of this law? If we're talking about Neteller or Firepay they are not accepting deposits from a US bank and, as most of us said when the panic ensued, isn't this whole law about stopping BANKS from processing gambling transactions? How does that make online poker operators criminal operations?

Most importantly, why would I, as an affiliate, be committing a crime by referring US players to a poker site that may or may not accept deposits from US players? I am not a bank sending money to a gambling site and isn't that the only thing the law criminalizes? Playing online poker from the US is still not illegal. Furthermore, I am not enabling a banking transaction or recommending it.

As of right now, it isn't illegal for US citizens to put money into Neteller. Where it goes beyond that isn't the government's business since Neteller isn't an American bank. I remember PPP and others calling this a "banking measure" when we first read the approved draft of the bill. When did this all take the ugly twist of making promoting online poker illegal? I remember perhaps part of the first Congressional bill making it illegal to link to gambling sites, but at the danger of looking like a complete ass the actual approved Senate bill didn't include this, did it?

I've found a damn good business working with something I love and there have been some damn good people on this board who have helped me learn and become successful. I'm not giving up as easily as many affiliates and right now and I don't see why I should. If I need any convincing, I can look no further than PAW's parent company to see their prominent "These are the sites that still accept US players..." page. The bill still hasn't been signed into law, we still have 270 days, and I'd like to know why it's illegal to PROMOTE online poker now. Besides, I'm sure that you'll all pitch in for my bail.

Am I wrong about my reasoning? If so, I'm all ears for legal reasons why I am.

[mikebrad]

aiding and abetting:

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

If you tell someone where to break the law (gamble online), you are aiding and abetting. Of course, I'm not an attorney but it seems straight forward to me.

[scrawnybob]

hi Mike

I see your point but isn't that looking at who the potential "criminals" of the bill actually are

as I understood it (totally prepared to be put right) but within the remit of the online gambling bill it's still about the BANKING of it not the provision etc

the US player is not the "criminal or criminalised"
(which you would think he was)

but it's potentially the Banks who are criminalised for enabling the real money transaction

The poker room is not the "criminal" either (as they seem to see it)

So how can we be aiding and abetting - we not providing information to commit the actual "crime" of transferring money through a bank we are providing the information of the existance of a poker room which is open to US players but which cannot be funded through a "criminal" bank method

seems like that is a big difference - the bill is still about the banking - not the player and not the poker site (therefore not the affiliate)

I can see if we however recommeded some type of fraudulent way that breaks the law of the bill (like a way of banking somewhere that has been banned) then thats obviously wrong

but as some said earlier - this bill has a funny setup (designed to mess us up but not specifically banning online poker)

just a thought / idea scrawnybob

[Jeremy]

Here's just some food forr thought. Technically promoting sportsbooks has been "illegal" since the wire act passed in the 60's. If affiliates are going to get scared and think they will be arrested I think they should use this as an example.

Actually the wire act has a lot more teeth than this bill in respect to aiding and abetting if promoting sportsbooks.

Yet has a single sportsbook "affiliate" ever been arrested? No. I know some people are worried but lets think realistically here. Do you really forsee the feds pulling up in their suburbans at thousands of "poker affiliates" homes and making arrests.

To be honest, I am not going to change anything because of this law that has nothing to do with affiliates and everything to do with banking mechanisms.

The day a regular old poker affiliate gets arrested for a violation of the Safe Port Act will be a day to go down in history. Maybe I am seeing this totally different or my risk threshold is higher, but come on, can you really see this happening?

[pokermac]

I can't see this happening.

But then I never thought I'd wish my friend good luck in Iraq for a year.

[stillshadow]

I am 100% in agreement with Jeremy on this one, hence the basis for my post. I don't really see anyone saying exactly (and in legal terms) how it is even unlawful to promote online poker sites. I am not a sportsbook affiliate and, as Jeremy said, this is truly what the Wire Act applies to. I'm not going anywhere and I truly feel sorry for those who have given up so easily. Well, not too sorry.