Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05
Just to point out something obvious that isn't necessarily relevant in the CCC's decision making:
Even IF PokerStars is guilty of bank fraud and money laundering as alleged, such activity obviously only occured because the transfers they had to make in their regular course of business were being blocked as transfers in connection with illegal gambling, while their business may or may not have actually been illegal gambling.
Now that NJ explicitly legalized online gambling, the transfers will be allowed. There won't be any need for bank fraud or money laundering to make transfers in the regular course of the business.
Even if PokerStars were found guilty of bank fraud and money laundering in the past when transfers in their ordinary course of business were being blocked, I don't think I would care and would still want them to get a license in NJ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dipce
I think the argument is relevant:
The association said unlike other businesses that complied with federal laws and stopped taking bets from players, PokerStars disregarded the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 and continued to take bets from U.S. players. That allowed PokerStars to grow its share of the global online poker market from 7.6 percent in 2002 to more than half by 2012, according to the association.
“Any action allowing PokerStars to be licensed would send a damaging message to the world of gaming, and to the world beyond gaming, that companies that engage in chronic lawbreaking are welcome in the licensed gaming business,” the trade association said in the brief. “That message would dramatically undermine public confidence in gaming regulation and could cripple the industry’s public image.”
http://m.pressofatlanticcity.com/new...9bb2963f4.html
The argument is bull****.
The UIGEA doesn't make anything illegal unless it is already illegal under another law. For the UIGEA to apply there must be a predicate violation. And PokerStars hasn't been shown to have violated any law that would then trigger the UIGEA. (Also, the AGA should be aware that PokerStars wasn't "taking bets" at all. They provided a platform for other people to bet against each other at the game of poker and they collected a fee in the form of rake for providing such service. I guess "taking bets" sounds worse.)
Also, you could probably say that many casinos engage in "chronic lawbreaking". One stupid example .... I don't know of a casino that accepts Form 5754 though by law they are required to. I think a few others have been mentioned in this thread.
Every argument the AGA makes here starts from .... PokerStars will be major competitor of all of our members if they get a license and in that event our members will likely make less money than they would if PokerStars didn't get a license. What can we do to make it less likely PokerStars will get a license? Idea # 1: We could try to become involved in PokerStars licensing hearing and say things like:
“Any action allowing PokerStars to be licensed would send a damaging message to the world of gaming, and to the world beyond gaming, that companies that engage in chronic lawbreaking are welcome in the licensed gaming business,” the trade association said in the brief. “That message would dramatically undermine public confidence in gaming regulation and could cripple the industry’s public image.”
Last edited by Lego05; 03-29-2013 at 05:36 PM.