Mexican Drug Cartel Linked to Money Laundering through Horse Racing

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

The current situation has EVERYTHING to do with the UIGEA, and the UIGEA was a direct result of special interests. Yes, the DOJ did their job. Yes, FT, PS, and Cereus circumvented laws, effectively asking the DOJ to do their job. You bet the symptom, I raise the source.

UIGEA made things easier for the DOJ, but BF would have happened anyway. They just would have filed charges under IGBA and the money laundering act.

Regardless, what the DOJ is complicit in and the gov't has already done is effectively analogous to shutting down an entire city of streets just because a few intersections have malfunctioning lights, when all you had to do was maintain and/or upgrade the lights, without shutting down the whole city.

This is quite wrong. What the DOJ did was (a) enforce what is probably a correct interpretation of US law and (b) shut down an enterprise that was associated with a fair amount of criminality (FTP's Ponzi scheme, AP/UB's superusers) but which also posed all sorts of risks for the integrity of significant portions of the US legal system, including taxes, state public morals legislation, and money laundering.

Implying that what the DOJ should have done was go in with a scalpel and try to excise only those parts of the enterprise that you feel were criminal is basically asking the DOJ to do the impossible.

You mean, they might actually finally ask Congress to regulate the industry so all these international financial transactions operate 100% above-board like they were pre-UIGEA? Nice, it only took them ten years and hundreds of billions in tax-payer money and tax-payer-funded manpower!

Pre-UIGEA, millions of dollars were flowing offshore into unregulated poker sites. Not only did this leave the door open to money laundering, but it almost certainly meant widespread tax evasion. And tons of underage players were playing poker, as well as tons of players from states that banned poker. THAT status quo wasn't any better from the DOJ's standpoint than the post-UIGEA one.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by CountingMyOuts

The current situation has EVERYTHING to do with the special interests. The DOJ played their part, just like Senator Frist and his cohorts who put the UIGEA in the Safe Ports Act at the last minute. The DOJ was not driving the bus on this.

The DOJ would have acted to shut offshore unregulated online poker down even if there wasn't a single lobbyist working on the issue in the United States.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

But, this is America. And in America the fear of the very remote possibility that you may end up on a plane with a terrorist has lead to most Americans being quite complacent about government agents groping their private parts before allowing them to board a plane.

This is a bad analogy. Groping your private parts is a very serious intrusion. Indeed, it is a Fourth Amendment search and seizure.

In contrast, governments have banned or severely restricted gambling since the founding of this country. There is no constitutional right to gamble.

[TeflonDawg]

Originally Posted by lawdude

UIGEA made things easier for the DOJ, but BF would have happened anyway. They just would have filed charges under IGBA and the money laundering act.

This is wrong. The UIGEA added another (rather large) problem the DOJ had to deal with as far as money laundering is concerned. What's worse is this version of money laundering effectively had no victim and also worse is that it has in no way been associated with any type of terrorist-funding.

So basically, gov't wrote a law that directly led to a giant mess that the DOJ had to clean up. So yes, it effectively made the DOJ's job harder because it merely added to a problem and diverted attention and resources from real ones.

Based on this alone it is arguable that no, they never would've filed any charges under IGBA and money laundering. The actual act of laundering money on a scale that even grabs the DOJ's attention didn't occur until years after the UIGEA came to be. No UIGEA, no money laundering.

Originally Posted by lawdude

This is quite wrong. What the DOJ did was (a) enforce what is probably a correct interpretation of US law and (b) shut down an enterprise that was associated with a fair amount of criminality (FTP's Ponzi scheme, AP/UB's superusers) but which also posed all sorts of risks for the integrity of significant portions of the US legal system, including taxes, state public morals legislation, and money laundering.

Implying that what the DOJ should have done was go in with a scalpel and try to excise only those parts of the enterprise that you feel were criminal is basically asking the DOJ to do the impossible.

I said the DOJ was complicit in the goverment's agenda. You're just regurgitating talking points that aren't relevant to my point, allthewhile retaining your King of Straw Men title belt. It's getting old.

Originally Posted by lawdude

Pre-UIGEA, millions of dollars were flowing offshore into unregulated poker sites. Not only did this leave the door open to money laundering, but it almost certainly meant widespread tax evasion. And tons of underage players were playing poker, as well as tons of players from states that banned poker. THAT status quo wasn't any better from the DOJ's standpoint than the post-UIGEA one.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse while yet again regurgitating talking points that aren't relevant to my point.

None of these problems got solved, and they still aren't solved today, yet you still sit here bloviating the same justifications for problems that still aren't solved. And lol @ saying the door was open to money laundering when it's crystal clear the UIGEA is the door, and prior to that, everyone knew where the money was coming and going.

Originally Posted by lawdude

The DOJ would have acted to shut offshore unregulated online poker down even if there wasn't a single lobbyist working on the issue in the United States.

Another straw man. You completely ignored my earlier point that you bet the symptom, and I raised you the source.

Originally Posted by lawdude

This is a bad analogy. Groping your private parts is a very serious intrusion. Indeed, it is a Fourth Amendment search and seizure.

In contrast, governments have banned or severely restricted gambling since the founding of this country. There is no constitutional right to gamble.

lol @ Strawdude calling an analogy bad because your response is merely a true statement that has nothing to do with the point of said analogy. Regardless of history and interpretation of law, the fact remains that we as a country continue on a path to move mountains to cover up molehills.

[novahunterpa]

^^^Pretty sure BF would've happened even if there was no UIGEA, money laundering charges included.

[Skallagrim]

The only actual "money laundering" alleged in the BF indictments was based on the profits the sites made by raking the games. If providing the games was not itself illegal, then there was no money laundering going on.

So saying the DOJ had to decide online poker was illegal and prosecute it because they had to stop "money laundering" is totally circular reasoning: "its illegal so its money is dirty so it engages in money laundering, and the reason it needs to be illegal is ... because we cant allow it to engage in money laundering."

Even the DC politicians who passed the UIGEA didn't argue that. They, as lawdude constantly reminds us, stated their concern to be the supposed ability of already illegal folks like drug dealers and terrorists to use poker sites to launder money without detection.

[novahunterpa]

Skall, The problem is the sites providing the games was illegal or at least its alleged to be illegal by the DOJ based on the charges. UIGEA or not the DOJ was going to come down on the sites and money laundering would have been part of it.

[CountingMyOuts]

Originally Posted by lawdude

The DOJ would have acted to shut offshore unregulated online poker down even if there wasn't a single lobbyist working on the issue in the United States.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the night, lawDOJ.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

So basically, gov't wrote a law that directly led to a giant mess that the DOJ had to clean up. So yes, it effectively made the DOJ's job harder because it merely added to a problem and diverted attention and resources from real ones.

Teflon, UIGEA is a bad statute, but it didn't create the mess at all. The mess was created by offshore unregulated online poker. For one thing, how much underage gaming and tax evasion was going on? For another, how were states that banned poker going to be able to enforce their laws? How much cheating and fraud was going on? The money laundering concern was real as well, but it was just a concern-- the other stuff WAS HAPPENING.

Offshore unregulated online poker was not going to last. UIGEA was a symptom and a tool, but it wasn't the cause of the crackdown. The cause of the crackdown was that offshore unregulated online poker was not sustainable. The status quo, pre-BF, could not hold.

I said the DOJ was complicit in the goverment's agenda. You're just regurgitating talking points that aren't relevant to my point, allthewhile retaining your King of Straw Men title belt. It's getting old.

"The DOJ was complicit in the government's agenda" is a meaningless statement. The DOJ is ALWAYS complicit. Their JOB is to be complicit, by enforcing the law.

However, the DOJ professionals have no particular interest in moralism or the religious right, and their crackdown on online poker had nothing to do with THAT agenda other than that they were following the law.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse while yet again regurgitating talking points that aren't relevant to my point.

None of these problems got solved, and they still aren't solved today, yet you still sit here bloviating the same justifications for problems that still aren't solved. And lol @ saying the door was open to money laundering when it's crystal clear the UIGEA is the door, and prior to that, everyone knew where the money was coming and going.

There's a problem here-- you are either being deliberately obtuse or you are woefully uninformed. The measure of a government's action is not whether it magically "solves" every problem. The government's action certainly REDUCED the amount of underage gaming, tax evasion, fraud, and potential money laundering associated with offshore unregulated online poker. That's what they were trying to do. Never has any prosecution in history "solved", completely, any problem. The point is to make it harder to do things that are harmful. The DOJ made it harder to do things that are harmful.

lol @ Strawdude calling an analogy bad because your response is merely a true statement that has nothing to do with the point of said analogy. Regardless of history and interpretation of law, the fact remains that we as a country continue on a path to move mountains to cover up molehills.

On gambling, we are the same country we always were. Champion v. Ames upheld a ban on interstate lotteries over 100 years ago. In contrast, we were not groping travelers 100 years ago.

Black Friday is simply the continuation of longstanding government policy. The TSA searches are something new (and unlike BF, impinge on constitutional rights). There is no comparison.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by CountingMyOuts

Whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the night, lawDOJ.

I have no association with the DOJ and have criticized them on many occasions.

They are not, however, our real problem, unless you think that online poker should not be regulated or taxed at all. They will enforce whatever set of statutes they are given.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by lilwhaldo

The only reason any of this happened was to clear the way for our own American companies to own the poker industry in America. They missed the boat, and when they finally figured it out, they made all of this happen. The only reason this flew in this country was because of all the moralists that they could use to back it. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's legal in almost every single other country in the world, but illegal here. The main difference between us and a lot of other countries? We have tons of bible thumpers who still think it's 1850.

As far as the money laundering thing goes, the justification politicians used for the UIGEA was that terrorists were using poker sites to launder money. If this was the 1980s they would have switched the word terrorists with communists. Did they ever come up with any actual evidence to back those claims up?

This isn't true at all, with the exception of the UK, offshore licensed online poker isn't any more illegal (federally) in the US than most other developed countries, the UIGEA is only an enforcement (of state gambling law) statute.

The actual 'main difference' between the US and other countries is that the US considers making anything that involves risk inconvenient, whether it be obtaining weapons or depositing money on gambling sites, to be a government responsibility.

The only justification the US government needed was the old 'click a mouse, lose your house' slogan, giving them a duty to protect us from ourselves, whereas if it had just been 'click a mouse, burn in Hell' the UIGEA wouldn't have passed as a self standing bill (by a landslide) in the House.

Yes it was attached to the Safe Port Act in the Senate, but that had more to do with conservatives wanting coverage for approving such a liberal bill (Horseracing and Fantasy carve-outs) than it did money laundering.

[lilwhaldo]

I don't remember the exact wording of the UIGEA, but I remember it referring to any outcome that is subject to chance, so technically since most hands are not 100%, the outcome is subject to chance, therefore making poker illegal. Of course, it was worded terribly and the original interpretation said that they would only go after processors, not individual players.

And to the lawdude's point saying that the constitution does not specifically say we have the right to gamble, you can say that for anything the constitution does not specifically say, like breathing and eating. I don't remember any clauses about food or breathing. So we don't have the right to do that either?

[tamiller866]

It doesn't make any form of gaming illegal, it makes it illegal for companies which rake or bank those types of games from accepting deposits from American financial institutions; PS and FTP would still be operating in the US today had they not chose to circumvent the inconvenience imposed by the UIGEA in order to attract new deposits.

As to the constitution, the right to bear arms is number two in the bill of rights, but that doesn't stop the government from passing waiting periods, background checks, etc., so even if gambling in your home truly was a 'right', the government would intervene if they thought they were somehow saving 'one child'.

In most states you can still buy a gun if you jump through enough hoops just as you can still play online poker, you just may not be able to buy the type of gun you want or play on the offshore site that you wish.

[LT22]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

PS and FTP would still be operating in the US today had they not chose to circumvent the inconvenience imposed by the UIGEA in order to attract new deposits.

you don't really believe what you just wrote, right?

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but you think UIGEA was an inconvenience? How were they supposed to accept legal deposits? Also, IGBA could still be used against them. The current US-facing sites are doing the exact same things as the Big 3 (miscoding transactions). The only major difference is they're not using echecks.

[lilwhaldo]

Yes but to define those transactions as being illegal the outcome had to be subject to chance.