UIGEA Is Final - Page 6 - Poker News

kai-zhan · 11-12-2008, 04:03 PM

don't be too optimistic about leaving it to the states, a bunch of states just banned online poker....

Mich P Rich · 11-12-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevmath

FWIW

So should I be withdrawing BR in one month, or one year?

MasterLJ · 11-12-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarianceMinefield

However, the Congressional Review Act has this clause:

"...any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. The new Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate."

As Politco sums up:

"In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress."

Sicccckkkk.

Good stuff.

We've weathered a few storms, I think we will weather this one as well.

kk405 · 11-12-2008, 04:04 PM

Obviously not enough

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPPjunkie

What exactly did the PPA do to prevent this?

Snipe · 11-12-2008, 04:06 PM

I think it's important to note that financial institutions are NOT police. With the passage of the first UIGEA they were faced with a 'This **** is illegal so don't ****ing accept xfers' type threat - HOWEVER - while some were like 'Oh noes - we better comply or else', others were like '*** - it's not our business to cut into our profits by putting investigation teams in place to verify the true source behind every single check, ACH, Wire, etc. that comes in - if you want to - feel free - until then - **** off."

I personally don't see how this really changes anything - and if I'm missing something, someone please let me know.

plopro7 · 11-12-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarianceMinefield

However, the Congressional Review Act has this clause:

"...any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. The new Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate."

As Politco sums up:

"In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress."

We really need to start to put some serious $$ into lobbying this.

Gildwulf · 11-12-2008, 04:07 PM

goddammit

MasterLJ · 11-12-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by err

time to withdraw

No. You can receive payments 100% legally, so there's absolutely no point in withdrawing. The absolute worst case scenario is that no one is able to deposit, and maybe a year or two after the regulations go into place (that is, years after Dec 09) sites would be full of very good regs who ended up with all the money. That is the absolute worst case scenario, assuming there is exactly 0 ways to get money onto sites. I don't think that is ever going to happen, and even if it does, I will start worrying about it in December of 09.

Riveredya · 11-12-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPPjunkie

Who on this forum voted for the Republicans? Please raise your hands.

Which party is in control of congress (and has been for some time)? ...it is irrelevant that GWB may have passed it, but it was passed by the Dems.... The President doesn't create legislation, ergo they all screwed it up.

God people are ignorant.

brettkc · 11-12-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterLJ

Wow, so I got through most of it. They are leaving it to the Banks and payment processors to interpret law. This was their half-assed way of making sure State and local laws are upheld... but at the same time we've seen Memos from national banking institutions that suggest that any/all forms of gambling payment transactions should be barred.

But again, the optimistic carve out comes from properly licensed gambling businesses to be exempted, but I am doubtful that the Treasury will recognize the KGC. Would be interesting to hear other opinions.

Post in legislation forum for legit. opinions...srsly gogo

Bumbaclat · 11-12-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncaron

Not yet, but considering the Harper govt was thinking about implementing their own version of the UIGEA a while ago, this might just be the incentive they needed to go forward with it.

As a Canadian break even player* this almost doesn't affect me... but what if I push through to profitability?!?!

*I play every day, haven't bought in for 3 years but also haven't cashed out. I can't stop taking shots above my bankroll. In the last year alone I have payed almost 14 times my current bankroll in rake.

-----------

In all seriousness, I could see Harper doing something like this, he is Bush's effeminate lapdog after all.

coinflipper · 11-12-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kk405

Not true...the can go after ANY site for any reason...they are called the United States of America and they can do whatever they want...even when the World Court rules against them, they still somehow win by arm-twisting and strong-arming countries and or offering them other incentives...

So far, they have chosen NOT to go after the sites...but they have compiled a massive list of individuals who work for these sites and or are affiliated with them and would arrest any of them if they happen to even step on U.S. soil for a nano-second (remember those who were arrested while on an International transfer flights? which technically supposed to be off-limits? but somehow, U.S. CBP doesn't care and still arrests individuals on an International lay-over)....

the good thing is that the administration is changing and due to immense REAL problems that day-to-day Americans are feeling and Obama will have to deal with, the ENFORCEMENT of such ridiculous rules will take a back seat, as opposed to Bush administration that constantly wanted to find more people to throw in jail...

Um no, lol the people still tied to the major sites have been aware of this for very long, welcome to over a year ago (neteller) No one working for pstars or FT or european sites will step foot in the u.s. nothings changed.

and those international flights layovers were in u.s territorys (carribean islands), anyone with 1/2 a brain will not make the same mistake.

If ur an online casino operator offering services to u.s players u make ur transit on the island of St. martin, not st. thomas. Very simple stuff.

MasterLJ · 11-12-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snipe

I think it's important to note that financial institutions are NOT police. With the passage of the first UIGEA they were faced with a 'This **** is illegal so don't ****ing accept xfers' type threat - HOWEVER - while some were like 'Oh noes - we better comply or else', others were like '*** - it's not our business to cut into our profits by putting investigation teams in place to verify the true source behind every single check, ACH, Wire, etc. that comes in - if you want to - feel free - until then - **** off."

I personally don't see how this really changes anything - and if I'm missing something, someone please let me know.

I tend to agree. And the people who process payments currently have always operated on the fringes of the law anyway, so I don't see how they will care. From what I gather, if you could write a check and mail it into a gambling site, I don't see how the proposed regulation could do anything to stop that. And as I've said a bunch of times, it's 100% legal to receive money from sites.

Aes · 11-12-2008, 04:09 PM

Interesting quote I found earlier...

Quote:

Gary Loveman is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Harrah's Entertainment, the company that owns and operates the World Series of Poker brand, and he was recently interviewed by the Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper, where he sounded positive about he future of online poker. Loveman stated that the outlook for legalization of online poker is looking better now that there will be a new party in power in the US, referring to the president - elect Barak Obama. Specifically Loveman pointed out that the new Congressional committee leaders were not opposed to the idea.

Spenda · 11-12-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarianceMinefield

However, the Congressional Review Act has this clause:

"...any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. The new Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate."

As Politco sums up:

"In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress."

plzplzplzplzplzpzllpzlpzlplpllpzzzzz