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