This keeps coming up, so I felt it deserved its own thread and hopefully a sticky

Obviously this is in today's terms... I can't tell you what banks might do, and I admit that I'm not knowledgable about what kind of power the Treasury has to shut down sites. So if something catastrophic happens, hopefully I don't get a bunch of angry PMs. I think all of us have known that our money on a site is not 100% face value. You don't know what tomorrow brings (as the Neteller fiasco showed us).

But anyway, as of today, your money is just as safe an accessible as it was before the Regs. These Regs only deal with loading money onto sites.

Why do only regs get their money and not the fish?

This is from the statute itself, which is clearly limited to blocking transactions INTO the sites.

very nice somewhat reassuring find sir...thank you

IC wat u did there

I trust you, Optimus Prime.

so we're gonna start getting checks w/ pokerstars at the top and laughing to the bank?

I only have experience with Cake and FTP checks, but they say (insert major bank name here).

And gobbo... like I said, I don't want an inbox full of angry PMs if something weird happens. I don't want accountability in case something really weird goes down and the owners of FTP are arrested. But just trust what is printed in the regs released today that there is no new or additional threat to your online bankroll. And as someone so elegantly put it, "we can wait for Armageddon to happen before having to truly worry."

In after gobbo.

good work LJ you have given me hope. a new hope.

After reading what seems like a dozen of these UIGEA threads i would just like to say that people have been way too speculative and irrational and that MasterLJ has been the voice of reason in every one. Thank you for sifting through all the jargon and finding whats important. Hopefully you don't get flamed for it in this one.

Can someone send the pdf to a law blog somewhere and have them analyze it? Seems like the blind leading the blind in NVG.

duhduhduh duhhhhhh, duhhhhh, duhduhduh duhhhhhhhhhh duh, duhduhduh duhhhhhhhhhhhh duh, duhduhduh duhhhhhh

qft

My understanding has been that this was the case all along. It's been such a red tape cluster**** with the banks and whoever else trying to figure out wtf they were supposed to be doing, though, that they kept ****ing with cashouts for no apparent reason. Maybe they'll stop doing that now. At least that's a plus.

I really really hope so...

I don't know if this helps but I'm a graduating 3L at NYU Law who is writing a paper on this topic - I've read through most of the threads, just haven't felt the need to post because MasterLJ is showing you the most important stuff.

UIGEA has never claimed to change any of the substantive law regarding gambling - it piggybacks off existing state and federal law to determine what is improper (with regards to bets and wagers). The troubling part of the new regulations, as MasterLJ points out in another thread, is that the regulators are wavering on what exactly the legal standard is: MOST of the state law requires the outcome to be predominately subject to chance for it to count as "gambling" (which is where the "game of skill" exception that FTP and Stars are invoking) comes into play. UIGEA, according to the text of the statute, should not be changing this. But the new regulations have a section which imply that a prohibited transaction would include games "subject to chance" without the predominant requirement. This would be a drastic departure from the text of the UIGEA and the typical federal approach to gambling.

If there is no change to the substantive law, then the only real impact is the chilling effect that it's had on sites who were unwilling to stick it out in the US market due to the legal uncertainty and banks who didn't want to run afoul of the legislation, but most of that probably happened when the legislation was initially passed.