Federal Reseve Board Statement on UIGEA regs

[crzylgs]

in b4 PS/FTP pull out.

[Zeldark]

Originally Posted by LirvA

For those thinking "well just as long as we can get money from the site"

Sure, we might be able to still play, and might still be able to get our money off the site. But what will that do to poker? Where's the new players coming from? That will make the games harder, and harder, and harder, as no new fish are depositing to play.

It's going to kill onilne poker in the U.S.

We'd get to hunt fish in other countries. ldo

[curtains]

I know this may sound crazy, but after reading the regs they seem generally well thought out by rational people who don't seem hell bent on destroying internet poker and also don't expect the banks to bend over backwards to stop everything.

In fact it doesn't seem to state anywhere that Online Poker specifically will be an illegal act. It sort of says that there is some possibility that some games that include some elements of chance will be deemed illegal but this will be determined at a later date. Of course I'm not a lawyer and not very experienced at reading and processing such things, thus I easily could have missed a ton of stuff, so someone let me know if I'm confused. However the people saying that the regs mean that online poker will officially be illegal in Dec 2009...I haven't found where it says that.

[LirvA]

Some people are being waaaaayyyy too optimistic about this IMO.

[Thinky]

Originally Posted by MasterLJ

Or overturned completely.

Also, how does Frank's bill that passed fit into this? I thought it was successfully voted to prolong the Regulations. What happened there?

Frank's bill still has to pass in the house or senate from what I understand.

[BigAlK]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Your bank isnt required to even restrict funds to gambling sites, as they basically say "people can just lie about where they are sending money and the banks can't figure it out". The enforcement lies elsewhere. Some people have gotten their account shut down and money temporarily frozen when they say they received money from a poker site, but that's been pretty rare and no one has had their money seized permanently or gotten in legal trouble. I imagine that won't change much. Getting you a check may get more difficult however.

You are correct. I should have said the law is designed to prevent you from sending money to gambling sites. Enforcement lies elsewhere.

My biggest concern is that the shell game that has happened thus far in deposit methods is going to now become worse because a bank where the transaction enters the US has an obligation to try and identify/stop it. A concern I raised in this or one of the related threads earlier was that someone at the DOJ or other enforcement could easily identify how transactions are getting thru by setting up an account, making a deposit, and then backtracking it to the first US bank. There is an area in the document that discusses a bank being informed by the government that transactions from one of their correspondent banks was a prohibited transaction. They then have to put forth due dilegence in shutting the transaction off. That really raises the stakes in the shell game.

[Zeldark]

Originally Posted by LirvA

Some people are being waaaaayyyy too optimistic about this IMO.

Brainstorming last resort options != optimistic

[Conan776]

::shrug:: so the banks have to perform "due diligence." Whippity do dah. It's still the same Pythonesque situation we're in now.

Cut to front door of a flat. Man walks up to the door and rings bell. He is dressed smartly.
Man Burglar! (longish pause while he waits, he rings again) Burglar! (woman appears at other side of door)
Woman Yes?
Man Burglar, madam.
Woman What do you want?
Man I want to come in and steal a few things, madam.
Woman Are you an encydopaedia salesman?
Man No madam, I'm a burglar, I burgle people.
Woman I think you're an encyclopaedia salesman.
Man Oh I'm not, open the door, let me in please.
Woman If I let you in you'll sell me encyclopaedias.
Man I won't, madam. I just want to come in and ransack the flat. Honestly.
Woman Promise. No encyclopaedias?
Man None at all.
Woman All right. (she opens door) You'd better come in then.
Man enters it through door.
Man Mind you I don't know whether you've really considered the advantages of owning a really fine set of modern encyclopaedias...(he pockets valuable) You know, they can really do you wonders.


I expect these regulations to end up like many, many others from Washington.
Being enforced by top men.


Top... men.

[Jussurreal]

It is just constant bad news. I'm so sick of this country and its hypocrisy. So I cant play poker or bet on a game, 2 events that I have a great shot at winning at, but I sure can go throw all my money away on scratch off tickets or the lottery. Internet gamblers never get a break. Bad news after bad news. Constantly. If I wasn't married I would be moving to Toronto as soon as they would let me in.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by curtains

I know this may sound crazy, but after reading the regs they seem generally well thought out by rational people who don't seem hell bent on destroying internet poker and also don't expect the banks to bend over backwards to stop everything.

In fact it doesn't seem to state anywhere that Online Poker specifically will be an illegal act. It sort of says that there is some possibility that some games that include some elements of chance will be deemed illegal but this will be determined at a later date. Of course I'm not a lawyer and not very experienced at reading and processing such things, thus I easily could have missed a ton of stuff, so someone let me know if I'm confused. However the people saying that the regs mean that online poker will officially be illegal in Dec 2009...I haven't found where it says that.

There is nothing saying poker will be illegal in Dec. 2009. You are absolutely correct, IMO, in saying it doesnt expect the banks to bend over to stop everything. Unless Im missing something, its not requiring them to block individual transactions (at least in checks, ACH, wires, CC's are different). Its basically strengthening "know your customer" laws and requiring monitoring of the cross-border transaction from the US into the account of an internet gambling business at a foreign bank. How much that increases costs and legal risks to sites is the wild card. If its prohibitive cost-wise or their home country banks tell them to knock off taking deposits from the US, its trouble.

[joeker]

I mean honestly....maybe they need to pull out to finally illicit the outcry needed from Americans who play online poker.

I have always been of the opinion that all the major sites NOT pulling out actually hurt us more than if they did. I mean if they had pulled out when party poker left, don't you think it would be legal by now? Only way we're going to get this reversed if is there is NO online poker options for America

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by joeker

I mean honestly....maybe they need to pull out to finally illicit the outcry needed from Americans who play online poker.

I have always been of the opinion that all the major sites NOT pulling out actually hurt us more than if they did. I mean if they had pulled out when party poker left, don't you think it would be legal by now? Only way we're going to get this reversed if is there is NO online poker options for America

I hope this is wrong but fear its true. Look at the response by players as a whole now vs. '06, or the number of comments left at the Fed this week vs. the comment period at the end of '07. If online poker is actually gone the response will go up by another order of magnitude. Sucks that there might be no other way to rile up enough support from the player base, but might be true.

[LetMeLive]

Originally Posted by MasterLJ

I quoted it directly from the released Regulations. This law is 100% about upping money to a site, and your right to receive funds even from businesses deemed as "unlawful gambling businesses," is protected.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I appreciate it.

[Gunth0807]

Originally Posted by LirvA

What the **** am I supposed to do now? I have no ****ing job. I have no ****ing car. All I do is play online poker all ****ing day long, that's my only ****ing source of income. What the **** am I supposed to do now?

Relax man, there are lots of us in the same boat. At least you should have this next year to make the money a car.

[BigAlK]

Originally Posted by curtains

I know this may sound crazy, but after reading the regs they seem generally well thought out by rational people who don't seem hell bent on destroying internet poker and also don't expect the banks to bend over backwards to stop everything.

In fact it doesn't seem to state anywhere that Online Poker specifically will be an illegal act. It sort of says that there is some possibility that some games that include some elements of chance will be deemed illegal but this will be determined at a later date. Of course I'm not a lawyer and not very experienced at reading and processing such things, thus I easily could have missed a ton of stuff, so someone let me know if I'm confused. However the people saying that the regs mean that online poker will officially be illegal in Dec 2009...I haven't found where it says that.

On this I agree. Possibly the legal advice the sites have received indicate the same thing. That would explain more sites pulling out of the 13 (or whatever the number is) states that are generally considered trouble states. If I lived in Washington I'd be much more concerned although I'm still pretty concerned living elsewhere.

There is another section that provides a safe harbor for the bank if the site provides competent legal opinion to the bank that they are not engaged in unlawful transactions. That *might* be a route for a poker only site although they'd have to address this on a state by state basis and exclude some states.