http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/stat...es-opinion.pdf

This seemed NVG worthy.

Legislation thread

Can u please explain what this means. Im just a NVGtard. Thanks

.

This seems pretty huge IMO

Definitely good, this could potentially open some online poker prior to Congress acting, right? If they can figure out how to get around UEGA... either way this is only a good thing!

This is a big deal right?

Not a lawyer, but I would guess this would mean that the UIGEA does not apply to online poker in states that do not expressly forbid it.

This is great!

That is what PX said in the legislation thread. I am sure there will be quite a bit of discussion on this over the next few days.

Also, this comes out 1 day after Nevada approves regulations for IPoker.

I understand that PokerStars has a lot on their plate right now dealing with the DoJ and all, but if the UIGEA doesnt apply to online poker anymore what is keeping them from offering online play to US citizens again?

+1

The date on the doc is September 20, 2011. Also, if this applies to lotteries it almost certainly applies to states that pass online poker and want to merge platforms like the lotteries do. The only issues I see is transmission of the online poker server information across states lines that do not participate. I am sure lottery info already does that though. This should make it easier for Nevada and California to join forces if California passes online poker.

1. PokerStars made an agreement with the DOJ not to do so, pending the outcome of the indictments against them.

2. The DOJ did not say that the UIGEA doesn't apply to i-poker. It said that the Wire Act only applies to sports wagering. The UIGEA would still apply to any wagering over the Internet which is unlawful. It is the stance of almost all of the state Attorneys General that i-poker is illegal within their state since no authorizing legislation exists. Although this goes against the general principle that something is legal unless a law exists that makes it expressly illegal, this still makes unlicensed i-poker a legal grey area in most states and potentially a target of the DOJ.

I believe the date is around the time Reid/Kyl send the letter to the DoJ asking about the Wire Act.

So it's still risky to run an online poker site now as the feds could somehow determine it unlawful- what might the charges be, given the Wire Act clarification here?

I don't think this opinion letter is of any significance for online poker. It does not necessarily follow from what is set forth in the letter that the Wire Act doesn't cover online poker. (I happen to think it doesn't FWIW).

And the Wire Act is not the basis for any criminal charges or civil causes of action in the Black Friday cases in the SDNY. So even if this opinion letter did necessarily apply to online poker, it wouldn't change the DoJ's overall position regarding the illegality of online poker, which is based on statutes other than the Wire Act.

Similar to the indictments against PS, FTP & AP, which didn't rely on the Wire Act either.

The Wire Act wasn't used in the BF indictments. The Illegal Gambling Business Act was the gaming law that was enforced(along with the UIGEA, laundering, and fraud).

Huh? The letter clearly states that the Wire Act legally applies only to sports wagering, contrary to previous court and DOJ conclusions that it applies to all wagering over transmission lines. How does that not mean that the Wire Act doesn't cover online poker?

One time please...

According to the opinion letter (which I read), the entirety of the Wire Act applies to "bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest". The opinion letter doesn't in any way answer the question of whether a poker game is a "sporting event or contest" (it is, IMO) or whether a wager by a participant in a poker game is a "bet or wager" on a "sporting event or contest" (it isn't, IMO).

Yeah, I read the letter too. It clearly states that the Wire Act only applies to sports (i.e. sporting events or sporting contests). So, I take it you think poker is a sport? I doubt that will be a legal issue, as all the state laws that address it classify it as gambling or a game of skill. There are no US legal definitions or precedents that put it in the category of sports.

So I guess this means entertainment betting is A-OK and we can all legally wager on who will win the Oscars and **** via the internet?

Yes, I think poker is a "sporting contest". Give us some examples of what you think would qualify as a "sporting contests" but not "sporting events". Citing a lack of precedent on one side isn't particularly compelling when there isn't any on the other side, either.

So a site like PartyPoker could return to the US market shortly? Any speculations on when?