http://theppa.org/ppa/2012/08/21/u-s...cristina-case/

The decision linked above and in the OP is worth a read. Hats off to the PPA and all that contributed to this outcome.

Ultra condensed cliffs:
Defendant was charged with running an illegal poker room, was convicted under a Federal Statute because the jury was told it was an illegal poker room under NY law. Judge threw out the conviction based on evidence that poker is not a gambling game as described by the federal law.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...-game-of-skill

here's another one

Hopefully this is one step closer.

this is for sure a huge step forward....

Can anyone address this?

I thought that banking for an activity couldn't be deemed illegal if that activity was legal.

If that is true, wouldn't it make going after PS and FT on Black Friday wrong since they were strictly poker?

Generally true about banking for legal activities, but US Bank Fraud laws are also written so that LYING to a bank about your otherwise very legal transactions, even if it does not cost the bank one thin dime, can still be bank fraud if it involves a transaction that the bank would otherwise treat differently (i.e., refuse to do the transaction or charge more for doing the transaction).

At least that is the DOJ's argument in the BF Bank Fraud charges, and it has some support in the courts.

The bigger effect would be on the Money Laundering charges. If the money involved was not part of an illegal transaction nor derived from an illegal source, then it is not "dirty" money and cannot be "laundered."

Skallagrim

Your reply seems like this ruling may have some bearing on whether we get our monies back from the site.

Thank you.

Skall,

I am missing something obvious i am sure.

Why doesn't this ruling make poker legal in the USA? If they accurately report their transactions what law would they be braking?

Maybe the wire act? I really don't know....

My only other guess is this wasn't a Federal court. But wouldn't that mean it got kicked up to the next level if true?

the 'logic' behind that is the following

UIGEA says transferring between banks and (illegal) gambling operators is illegal. when poker is a skill game, it isn't gambling, so uigea won't apply


anyway, i think i've read an statement from an 'expert' about this and he said this ruling means nothing. and shortly after the dicristina ruling, howard lederer lawyer(s) tried to argue based on that ruling (motion was dismissed imo)


because you mentioned the wire act: the doj specifically said (dec '11), that the wire act only applies on sports betting (sport events). that means that only the uigea prevents online poker.

in my (limited!!!) understanding regulated websites (like in nevada) can offer online poker since in this case uigea won't apply.

and i think, that it is also be possible, that a in the usa regulated site could offer poker on federal level (as long as other states don't explicitly forbid it) ... e.g. State A allows poker, state b has no ruling, state c forbids it - so a player from b could play on a server from a, but a player from c could not.

but the problem is, that there is no specific ruling. since no one tried that, i think nobody wants to create a nationwide network and then the 'feds' close it.

as i can remember new jersey planed to offer poker (and gambling) nationwide and even worldwide (as long other states/ countries don't have laws against it).

like i said, my (very) limited understanding of the situation

This has been hashed out in NVG. To summarize:

[1] First, this judge was interpreting the IGBA, not the UIGEA. Just because a similar or identical term term is used in both statutes does not automatically mean that the same definition applies. Second, one ruling in one district by one judge at the lowest tier of the federal judiciary (well, not counting federal magistrate judges) does not magically determine how the statute is interpreted across the entire country.

[2] Nerdsuperfly responded to this already. No fear under the wire act under the current administration's interpretation of it.

[3] It was a federal court. Judge Weinstein sits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

[View: I like the concept of a separate Poker Headlines forum, but the problem is that while the L/C from NVG is filtered out, the substantive discussion doesn't appear in both places. This question and other related issues were discussed extensively in NVG.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArE_F41iLd4

TY for the replies and info guys.

"Court Rules Poker Is a Game of Skill, But …" by Prof. I. Nelson Rose

Source: http://pokerati.com/2012/09/court-ru...-of-skill-but/

quite interesting imo

obvi game of skill, surprising its taking these ppl so long to figure it out