Quote:
Originally Posted by vonheimler
Any instances of people getting charged for online gambling? Particularly interested in washington state experiences. I understand WA has the strictest laws around but have they ever been enforced? From my understanding the laws are in place to prevent domestic sites from excepting players and from businesses setting up shop in state, however when I read the law it is scary, actually a felony. It reminds me of downloading music/movies/software, etc harsh penalties but law enforcement is only concerned with the people owning the servers, not the users/small fry's. I can see the state getting interested if one where to be bringing in 100k a year or something but otherwise...?
This is the law as I understand it, once again though I am a UK law student so US law is something I am still trying to come to grips with.
The UIGEA never made online poker Illegal. What it did do was prohibit the financial transactions that facilitate unlawful internet gambling under federal law. The first issue is that the UIGEA fails to explain exactly what 'unlawful internet gambling' is, it assumes that this something the reader is already privy to. Where gambling is concerned there are three types of game: skill, chance and hybrid. All that is really explained in the UIGEA is that the act does not apply to wagers placed in a 'game of skill'.
When distinguishing a game of skill from a game of chance courts apply the predominance test which asks whether skill or luck prevails in the outcome. So for example, in a game of chess skill is the only factor in determining the outcome whereas in roulette luck is the only factor. Poker would be best described as a hybrid of the two as where luck is a big factor in the short term, skill prevails over the long term. So... obviously I'm biased but the first issue seems to be that poker shouldn't even fall under the UIGEA.
This is complicated by the fact that each state has their own authority to legislate internet gambling as they see fit. Therefore, the UIGEA only applies to states where internet gambling was is already an offence. Pokerstars were indicted because it was alleged they laundered money to bypass banking regulations so that they could facilitate the financial transactions in the states where internet gambling was unlawful.
In essence what was of concern was not the players but the operators that were providing the games. The legislation was passed with the belief that internet gambling was becoming a problem for banks and credit card companies and Congress that need to address. As far as I am aware there has never been a case of an individual player being prosecuted under the UIGEA and I think that is the reason why.
In reality there doesn't appear to be any evidence that internet gambling was a problem for banks and credit card companies and the way the UIGEA was passed seems very suspicious. It was rushed through Congress on the back of a port security bill and very few even read it before voting on it. I heavily suspect the campaign against online poker was initiated through casino lobbying. We all know how powerful the casinos are in the US and if they felt like they were loosing money to internet poker it would make sense they would want it gone. With the flow of money and profit appearing to be the main influence on US anti-gambling laws its not the players that are targeted.