Player A is American, and he ships money to his bro, Player E in England then E gets on Stars, allows “view” of his screen, and A views, and tells Player E what to do on a mic, is anything being violated?

No law has been violated here.

Clearly, what we’ve just witnessed, though, is a less convenient version of an American depositing on Stars, and an American playing on Stars.

Any real crime that is committed cannot be duplicated with small inconveniences and made into “not a crime.” Obvious crimes are like murder, rape, etc….how would you change a few things around keeping the same perp(s)/victim(s), and make it not a crime?

Other minor ones like, say, possession of an illegal narcotic. What would you do? Have someone else possess it? Then they are clearly committing the crime.

E is not committing fraud. Neither is Stars, neither is Player A. Neither is the bank.

You might be violating the TOS and end up getting your funds confiscated by PokerStars.

Sorry, but your rather novel definition of a "real" crime is not widely accepted in legal circles. "Going to a minor incovenience" is not likely an valid defense where the underlying activity would itself be a crime.

Nice try, but it won't withstand meaningful analysis.

(FWIW, neither is "possession of an illegal narcotic" considered a "minor" crime in the US. Generally, if you want to "grade "crime, the accepted major/minor distinction is between felonies and misdemeanors and traffic offenses.)

Someone simply playing for you, not aiding you, violates TOS? I could believe it, but I could also see it not being written about. It's one thing to be given advice on hands, it's another for someone to click what you tell them to click?

Donkey, I didn't mean to trivialize any crimes. I suppose I just felt that possession vs. murder was different levels.

You did debate the point I was trying to make. My point was that, what crime was committed? In the situation I described, who would be arrested? I realize you say there wouldn't be a valid defense, but you have to be convicted of something first to have to provide a defense, right?

Rape isn't a crime if you go through the "small inconvenience" of gaining consent. Not sure how to spin murder haha

OP who on earth would ever agree to such a thing?

I just don't think that's relevant to the post. I suppose if you REALLY think no one on the planet would play for someone else along the same lines as someone can't sprout wings and fly, then yes, it's relevant. But, since they're not along the same lines, I think the question has nothing to do with what I'm getting at.

But, you're not replicating rape when consent is issued.

In the scenario I described, it replicated an American playing on Stars with his own money, and there was nothing anyone could be arrested for.

Yes, a crime in one jurisdiction is still a crime even if that same offense is not criminal in another jurisdiction.

lol, yet, none of what I explained in the OP is a crime.

What jurisdiction would it be a crime if I shipped $$ to my bro, he deposited in his account, and simply clicked what I told him to click (as described in the OP)?

Your preposition is misplaced and erroneous:

Bank fraud is one thing up with which legal authorities will not put.

i never said it was.

I said that something that is illegal in a jurisdiction is illegal in that jurisdiction.
If that same thing is legal in another jurisdiction, it is legal there.

Your example, you have moved the event to a new jurisdiction where it is legal, so yes, not a crime.

However, that doesn't change the fact that if you hadn't gone through the small inconvenience of moving jurisdictions, it still would be a crime in the original jurisdiction.

For example, if its illegal to buy fireworks in illinois, but legal in missouri. Just because you live near the border and its easy to drive across the river and buy your fireworks in missouri, that doesn't affect that it is still illegal for you to buy them in illinois.

so - yes, it is a crime (to buy fireworks in illinois) even if a small inconvenience (driving to missouri) would make it not a crime.
Or in your original example, yes it is still a crime (to deposit/play poker in the US) even if the small inconvenience (acting through a proxy in a foreign country) makes it not a crime.

(PS> not debating the factuality of whether or not playing poker is a crime or acting through proxy is a crime.)

I think this does raise an interesting issue, although I can't think of anything useful to come from it beyond discussion.

If it's a ToS violation then it's a ToS violation (and I think it probably is)

I don't know what laws might be broken, but the bank fraud stuff is a little farfetched. Suppose the parties get together once a year or whatever and they exchange cash. Player A lives in the US and instructs Player B for each poker action taken. In return, player B gets X% of the profits.

I haven't seen a post here yet convinces me regarding any violation of laws in this scenario.

I also haven't seen any argument that convinces me it makes any difference.

Edit:
also assume the transactions are documented properly and taxes are paid appropriately and the "business venture" is otherwise properly formed and managed

I also would not dare to say that "small inconveniences make it not a crime" The quick example I can think of is regarding taxes. There are some tax scenarios such as education IRA contributions where the gross income of the contributor can limit the contribution amount. However, the max limit is $2000 (last I remember) so a contributor can give the money to the beneficiary or somebody else who makes the contribution instead. It's a minor inconvenience, but if you skip that step the IRS will not be happy. I don't know where this gets "criminal" but just because it's easy to go around a rule/law doesn't mean that you can just ignore the rule/law.

While you are at it, why not also discuss:

If a US commercial airliner, carrying 20 Mexican nationals, 20 US citizens, and 20 citizens of the UK somehow crashes on a February 29th at midnight, exactly on the border between the US and Mexico, where do they bury the survivors ?

The idea that if an act which is a crime can become "not a crime" by a change in a trivial circumstance then the act should not be a crime in the first place is a well respected point of political philosophy. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

But as a practical matter philosophical discussions about the proper role of the state in human affairs have virtually no real influence on modern political law making (except maybe to Ron Paul supporters). Politicians love power and use power to enrich themselves and their allies or to demand that their "enemies" submit and conform. The only thing that gets argued about these days is not the proper limits of state power, but how to use the state's unlimited power.

Example 1: conservatives think states rights should allow states to ban abortions. They also think the Federal Government should prevent states from allowing Gay marriage ....

Example 2: liberals think that states' rights should allow for medical marijuana. They also think the Federal government should prevent states from allowing people to go uninsured ....

Skallagrim

PS. The answer to the plane question is: "in the ground."

You're a sick sick man. Would've never figured you for a guy who wants to bury people alive.

Nothing was said about the burying being done right away.

Everybody dies eventually

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out post, ..... except the P.S. part about burying the survivors of the hypothetical plane crash.

You might have been a bit clearer, "the answer" being that one does not bury people who have survived, regardless of all the other irrelevant "facts" set out in the question.

The point of the hypothetical was that adopting a few "small inconveniences" to mask an overall criminal activity would not make the overall activity "not" a crime. The small inconveniences would be irrelevant, whether you call them "small" or "trivial" or some other loaded descriptive term.

It is the underlying material facts which are important to analysis, i.e. in the plane crash hypothetical, survivors are not dead, regardless of their national origin or the time or location of the crash, or expectation of a long lifespan before they expire from some entirely unrelated cause. In the OP's hypothetical, the criminality of each activity is not likely to avoid an underlying criminal label if the underlying coordinated actvitiy were a crime.

A "Kazaa"-like structure may make enforcement more difficult, but does not affect the criminality or not of a coordinated overall activity .....

The government believes offering online poker to Americans is illegal. Site A would be offering to Americans. There is no reason to go past that, because nothing else matters.

This is just another loophole to offer online poker to Americans. Remember how moving your poker site of the country was a loophole to be able to offer to Americans? Remember how moving processors outside of the country was a loophole to deposit? Remember how any WTO country could offer online poker?

A couple quick points:

Maybe you meant Player A? If you think "site" A, you misread what was talked about.

Also, if offering online poker to American's is illegal, who would be indicted in the OP's example?

Also, someone brought up a plane crash scenario. Where would you bury people, etc...that misses the point too. This isn't a logic problem. It's more a question about the internet, and it's boundaries, and how America is slowly cornering off sections of it the best way America knows how than it is a plane crash logic problem. Not to say that that argument is irrelevant, I see what you're trying to pose, but I think it misses the point.

Ultimately, Skall is right. It can be talked about all we want, but those in power have never demonstrated that they operate by what makes sense, or is most practical.

Pokerstars would be allowing Americans to play for money on their site. It doesnt matter where the mouse clicks take place. If pokerstars or any site had knowledge of OP and didn't try to stop it(assuming they didn't sign an agreement and they weren't already indicted), they would be indicted. I'd also say if the DoJ had unlimited resources, they would go after player e as well for processing illegal gambling funds. Does pokerstars offer real money games to any players from the US of A? That is the only question that matters to the DoJ. Player E and pokerstars could explain it to a jury.

I know there's a blind guy who has someone click for him. Was approved by pokerstars and the WSOP.

So you're saying Player E, and Stars would be indicted, by an American court where you're innocent until proven guilty.

Proving that Player E was not playing Stars on his computer in another country would be really difficult.

Proving that Stars was allowing an American to play would be difficult.

The operative word in the question is "where" and so the correct answer is "in the ground." The question itself assumes that burial will take place.

Wanting to reword the question to ask "whether" burials should take place, is to ask a different question.

People who want to demonstrate points by engaging in word games ought to choose the wording of their game very carefully. If the question had been "in what country should survivors be buried" then the question of the utility of burying survivors is raised.

Absent that, survivors are to be buried where everything else is buried, namely, in the ground.

And if you think the above is a relatively stupid and unimportant point then a) you also realize that so was the question, and b) you haven't spent years reading the opinions of judges trying to interpret legislative enactments.

Skallagrim

NH.

I'll just add that people keep thinking up "workarounds" and etc. and let's just face it. The gov't DHS and DOJ does not **** around when it chooses to. On top of that, if you do something that may be screwing with the integrity of a poker site, PokerStars is THE site you do not want to try and pull a fast one with.

My Cousin Vinny ITT.

To OP: I don't really see a point in asking 2+2 their opinion. Our opinions mean jack ****. You need to first ask Stars if it's OK to do something like this a la getting clearance first like the blind guy did, and then we can talk about whether this is a crime or just barely not one.