That was definitely not me

amazing article

The law is full of "definition of something by reference to a definition elsewhere". In the DOJ indictment, they specifically reference NY Penal Law 225.00 and 225.05 regarding state law violations. With respect to the "other laws" analysis, if the DOJ can prove that online poker is unlawful in any state where it accepted money from U.S. players, the sites are going to have a major problem on this particular point. New York state law is a bit different than other states as it relates to whether poker (and online poker) is legal.

+1 to this being a good article.

Congress is unlikely to do anything for Internet poker by the way. The GOP is in control of the House and their leadership is in no way inclined to help along any poker legislation. They will likely bottle it up completely.

But I have always thought, as the OP's article argues, that this UIGEA is vague......impermissibly vague. An anti-Internet gambling statute; but is doesn't even define what unlawful Internet gambling is. I think the best hope for poker is for one of the 11 defendants to mount an all-out challenge in court, with the result being that UIGEA gets invalidated.

We also talk about the big machinery of government ruining these defendant's lives. True, but in this case these defendants do have resources. Stars and Tilt have bucks. I would hope that they don't cut and run, and instead fight it out in court for the win.

There are several states where online gambling is prohibited off hand without researching further Washington, Nevada and Miss. come to mind. Here in Miss. I can't even play on clubwpt.

yea todd terry did, i didn't listen to the entire podcast but i assume thats who you're talking about. i'm pretty sure todd use to be a lawyer and now plays tournament poker for a living, i could be wrong though

Ok, yeah, that seems reasonable. And unfortunately fairly easy to prove, unless the sites stopped allowing people in Washington to play.

So if you're in a jurisdiction where online poker is legal (like DC), your bank can process payments to/from offshore poker sites without violating UIGEA?

AFAIK (and I am definitely NOT a lawyer), yes.

It's also my understanding that cashing out from a poker site never violated UIGEA, only depositing.

Many of the sites did pull out of Washington State after the WA Supreme Court decision.

If a state/jurisdiction passes a law to permit the activity, then it won't be a UIGEA violation in that state/jurisdiction. However, I believe that state enabling laws say that you can't legally provide online poker unless you are licensed by them. So the offshore poker sites would have to have a DC license.

Interesting. I bet Party Poker is greasing those wheels as we speak.

Any thoughts on which states would be willing to:
(a): legalize/license online poker; and
(b): issue a license to Stars or Tilt

I think a decent number of states would be willing to legalize and license. And if any state would license Stars or Tilt, I would expect it to be DE.

California one time?


Didn't realize how much I miss Stars after 6+ years playing there.

I miss rush poker more than anything. And FTP has a patent for it...fml

We are already aware of intrastate legalization efforts in NJ, CA, NV, etc., although it's tough to say whether any of those states will ultimately pass legislation.

Willingness to issue licenses to operators will depend, in part, on whether those states include language that would make it a basis of denial for anyone who has violated U.S. state or federal law. For example, the Frank bill (H.R. 2267) amendments included "bad actor" provisions for post-UIGEA violations of state and federal law. In addition, legislation may require that the licensee maintain significant business operations within that state.

Pretty much this.

Even if they can prove poker is a game of skill and that playing wasn't illegal this entire time all the sites are still ****ed because of the shady money processing they used.

Wow, poor poker strategy gets permabanned, but garbage like this sticks around. Nothing in the legal system is a slam dunk like this. While many people believe that there's a mountain of laws and any violation will get you the maximum sentence because The Man can, that's not the case. The courts will be receptive to the fact that even though the sites lied to banks, that the banks did not incur any loss nor were any illegal schemes enabled by their lying. I think the prosecutors in this case will get a promotion win and a PR win, but will come up way short in court.

You think any of the people named who are living abroad are going to willingly turn themselves in and fight this in court? LOL

The Federal conviction rate is well over 90% because they build good cases and don't take it to the grand jury unless they have something. Nothing is a slam dunk, but DOJ indictments are about as solid as they come.

I don't think this is anything like realistic.

Tossing out fraud if there's no victim and the illegality has to be established opens up a gigantic can of worms for prosecuting money-laundering cases. (If the underlying money is dirty, just set up a legal shell transaction or two prior to laundering to cloud its origins.) Money-laundering charges are one of the most important weapons in the so-called drug war.

Only a suicidal jurist is going to do anything that threatens to break one of the drug enforcers' favorite swords in half. This tempest in a teacup isn't worth the sh-tstorm that would ensue. Any such decision probably would be booted up to reversal in record time.

I think Frank has a good point. I believe it will be hard for a jury to send someone to jail over money laundering if they can overcome the "Poker is illegal" argument. If poker is not illegal, where is the problem? You can say, "Lying about the money being for golf balls, not poker." What is the harm then. If poker is not illegal, then none of the UIGEA matters, right? If poker is not illegal, then what is the problem with poker sites investing in a bank?

Wow, I have read both the OP article, and this above critique, and they are both wrong.

Page 34 of the indictment specifically states that Wire Fraud is a basis for Count Eight. OP was wrong since it is not "The Wire Act" (18 U.S.C. 1084) and the above article was wrong saying that the wire act is not in the indictment at all. Count Eight is a charge of "Wire Fraud" (18 U.S.C. 1343).

Think about it "raked" poker is illegal in all states unless licensed by that state or Indian gaming commission in that state. The sites were not licensed in any state but were doing business in there by way of the internet. Internet poker is illegal in many states. Even sites like clubwpt are illegal in some states.

Really??? Investing???

And by the way, how many people are in prison for "lying" during a federal investigation where it turns out there was no underlying crime?!? Money laundering and wire fraud exist without poker being legal/illegal/luck/skill. Violating UIGEA and money laundering/wire fraud are two different crimes.

In the past few days I have done a lot of reading. The indictment, UIGEA, Wire Act, and a bunch of posts. It just seems that the prosecution has a week case. I. Nelson Rose in the pokercast kept mentioning that everything came down to whether poker was illegal. People often talk about the 90% conviction rate, but I think that is bs in this case. This is not a normal case. The prosecution can lose every argument from now on and still win if his intention was to cripple and intimidate Full Tilt and Stars in the US.

Why would a prosecutor go forward with this if he felt he had a week case? There are a lot of reasons why.

Think about it "raked" poker is illegal in all states unless licensed by that state or Indian gaming commission in that state.