Internet Gambling in Congress again...

[nflchad]

Heres the bill, the online gambling starts on page 213.
Up to 5 years in jail for so much as cashing out.
This could be very very bad.
Edit: This is being discussed on C-SPAN 2 right now

[Boobie Lover]

This fucking sucks. FUCK

[PShabi]

This was actually said today by one of these retarded fuckers:

"Internet gambling is crack cocaine for gambling. You just click the mouse and you lose the house."

If it passes, which it's most likely going to, it goes to GW's desk. So when is the earliest this could actually be passed as law? How much time do we have? Who's withdrawing everything?

[Reel Deal]

OK, I've read the relevant section of the proposed statute and I'm not that worried because of the following: (a) the only person(s) or entities that can be charged under this law are persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering..." and (b) most "persons" engaged in the business of betting or wagering are not based in the United States. So, since the United States cannot enforce its laws against persons or entities not domiciled in the U.S., they can't shut down poker sites not based in the U.S. This law does not allow the government to prosecute individual internet poker players in the U.S. because an individual player could not be construed to mean a person "engaged in the business of betting or wagering." The only problem I can imagine is if the poker sites overreact to this and start banning U.S. players... however, if I'm their lawyer I tell them don't ban U.S. players and don't worry about this unless you plan on setting up or physically doing business in the U.S.

This is an attempt to "go after" the internet gambling sites and not individual "end users" like us players.

[Tony Cheval]

Can you say...paper tiger?

I knew you could.

[PShabi]

From everything I've read in the legislation forum at 2+2, the problem we're going to be facing is that they're going to shut down the companies that facilitate our deposits and MORE IMPORTANTLY our fucking withdrawals!

So, yeah, you can keep playing but good luck collecting any wins. It'll be just like play money! Sweet! These bible beating, one foot in the grave republicans worried about my fucking family values are seriously making me want to go outside, kill my dog, smear his blood all over my naked body and worship fucking satan.

[PShabi]

From 2+2, legislation forum, by poster "Hock."

Here are the highlights as I see them. [Disclaimer: Although I was a lawyer at a top DC firm for 10 years, and worked on cases involving statutory interpretation all the way up the the US Supreme Court, I am -- at least was until 15 minutes ago, haha -- not a lawyer, I am (was) a professional poker player. Plus I've only had this text in front of me for like 30 minutes. This is therefore not intended to serve as legal advice.]

1. The Act, S.5363, prohibits anyone "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" from knowingly "accept"ing VIRTUALLY ANY type of credit, electornic funds transfer, check, or other "financial transaction" associated with "unlawful Internet Gambling."

2. "Interactive Computer Services" (s. 5365(c)): Only resposnible for disabling access to a site after notice from authorities specifying exactly what needs to be shut down, including the specific "hypertext link".

3. PENALTIES:
(A) CIVIL: On top of any state remedies, federal courts have jurisdiction to enjoin any violating transactions and to prevent future violations.

(B) CRIMINAL: Fines Under Title 18 (I don't know what that says) AND/OR up to 5 years in prison.

4. "Circumvention" (S. 5367): ISPs and financial institutions can't knowingly allow transactions/activity that violate the Act IF they "control" the bets or wagers.

ANALYSIS

First, it sure seems broad with respect to the types of financial transactions covered. Not good. Much depends on exacatly what the Fed's regs say, but it has broad authority if it wants to use it.

Second, the ISP-blocking piece seems relatively tame, applying only under specific circumstances, only on the instigation of federal authorities (no self-monitoring/enforcement requirement), and only to hyperlinks specifically identified by authorities (how'd ya like to have the job of constantly finding those links and telling ISPs to shut them down?). I'd be surprised if this ended up being a real problem, but admit I know virtually nothing about the technology involved in monitoring/disabling access to a site.

Finally, what I find particularly interesting/troubling is that the Act at least arguably applies to at least professional poker players, because it applies to the "accept"ance of any of the covered financial transactions by any "person engaged in the business of betting or wagering" (as long as the bet/wager is illegal under federal/state law; query whether playing poker as we do is in fact illegal under federal/state law). "Engaged in the business of betting or wagering" is not limited to the sites, at least not in this legislation (it may have been in case law somewhere, but I doubt it). Which in turn means that simply by "ACCEPTING" a cash-out using virtually any method currently available, at least "pro" players (i.e., those "in the business of betting or wagering") could be violating a statute that carries with it substantial civil penalties and up to a 5 year jail term. All of that said, similar language was included in other proposed bills and no-one seemed to think it applied to the players, so maybe they know something about this point that I don't. Please tell me they know something I don't.

[PShabi]

(also from 2+2 legislation forum)

Friday evening update:

Forgive me if this post lacks energy.

This evening, the efforts by Senate Majority Leader Frist and others who seek the restriction on Internet gambling in the United States have been successful.

Internet gambling language was included in the Conference Report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This legislation's main focus is on port security.

Both chambers are poised to clear the port legislation overwhelmingly, effectively meaning the Internet gambling legislation will be sent to the President for signature. He will sign this bill.

[Tony Cheval]

And that right there is where he lost me. 30 minutes? Nobody can possibly read through a piece of US legislation and fully interpret it in 30 minutes!

[Tony Cheval]

More seriously, legal precedent in the past has applied the term 'business of wagering etc' to businesses, NOT individuals who merely happen to place bets. Though that certainly can change.

[Reel Deal]

They could only do that if the company was based in the United States... as an example, Neteller is not based in the U.S., they're based in the Isle of Man, good luck to the U.S. government shutting them down.

Honestly, the only persons that should be worried are those who think they are "engaged in the business of betting or wagering." I'm not engaged in that business, I play poker as a hobby, I hardly think that could be construed as meaning I'm "in the business." Now, professional poker players might be in a different boat. However, they have an out as well since it's tied to having to be related to an illegal state/federal activitiy... so if you live in Las Vegas, or Atlantic City or L.A. or any other place where playing poker is clearly legal, you're probably safe.

I really don't think this is that big of a deal. But, what do I know, I'm just a part-time law school professor.

[PShabi]

I pray to Satan and all that is evil that you are right Dr. Republico. Some are hinting that Poker site ---> Neteller cannot be stopped but Neteller -------> US Bank account can be.

It's a lot of speculation and I'm reading myself in circles right now. Whatever the case is, it's going to hurt online poker at best, and destroy it at worst.

That's gayer than me.

[PShabi]

Isn't it already "illegal" in Nevada???? Fuck, I don't know shit. I've typed "fuck" a lot in the last hour.

[Reel Deal]

From the Statue:

"The term 'business of betting or wagering' does not include the activities of a financial transation provider, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service."

Sounds to me like they couldn't go after Neteller under this statute if Neteller were based on Capitol Hill itself. Since Neteller, by the definition in the statute, is not engaged in the business of betting or wagering, then a transaction from Neteller to a U.S. bank would not be covered by this statute.

[Robbr25]

See but Netteller is used for more then just transfers to poker.
It is a bank pure and simple.
Not under US control or restrictions.