Quote:
"if the state where the bet is placed says internet gambling is illegal, then processing that payment is illegal"
I am a lawyer. You could try arguing that the anachronistic process this ruling sets up makes the UIGEA inapplicable to online poker.
You see, banks process deposits to internet poker sites before any money is wagered, thus the deposit occurs before any possible "illegal internet gambling" has taken place. It is the online poker site that shifts money around with each bet. The banks involvement is over with before the first wager, when money is initially deposited to the site.
The court made clear that a wager is not illegal unless there is some other law, other than the UIGEA, defining that form of gambling as illegal. In the absence of a federal prohibition against online poker, a poker bet is only illegal if it is made in a locality where online poker is illegal.
So what are banks to do? Hire a psychic to predict the geographic location their account holders will make poker bets from? Rather, since no illegal activity occurs until such bets are made from a prohibiting locality, no illegal internet gambling has occured with a mere deposit to a poker site. And as such, the UIGEA does not require banks to block deposits to such sites. The illegality of a bank's decision to allow a deposit to proceed must be resolved in the present, not made to depend on actions of a third party, yet to occur.
[...perhaps an argument like this is worth a shot if u got room in a brief]
Last edited by _D&L_; 11-26-2009 at 08:50 AM.