https://www.pokernews.com/news/2020/...date-37347.htm

Same lawyer as the plaintiff in the Postle suit. Of course this applies to USA players primarily. Interesting read, I'm the furthest from a law expert so I'll just post the source and not provide my own thoughts since they aren't worth a whole lot.

I'm a lawyer. He's correct.

There we have it! /thread

I disagree with the extreme approach Mac has taken regarding his blanket claim that playing poker online means you, as a player in the United States , are probably "breaking the law.

Federal against playing online poker ?

There is no federal law I know of that criminalizes mere poker playing.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-619.html#fn64

I formerly had respect for Mac's legal analysis in a number of matters, but he is flat out wrong regarding 18 USC 1955, a federal law which he bootstraps into applying against mere players of online poker.

By its express terms Section 1955, which adds a federal stamp to prospective State law cases applies ONLY to activities by a gambling business, and nowhere to any activities by mere poker players:

"(a) Whoever conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Mac, however oddly, tells everyone playing poker online beyond the few licensed US State sites

"Oh, and if you are breaking a state anti-gaming law, you are also in hot water with the feds: Section 1955(d) of Title 18 of the United States Code makes clear that all money used in games illegal under state law can be seized by your cranky Uncle Sam.
"

Mac is wrong as a matter of law about 18 USC Section 1955.

Contrary to Mac's theory of poker player federal liability under the Illegal Gambling Business Act, 18 USC 1955, the Supreme Court has stated that section 1955 "proscribes any degree of participation in an illegal gambling business, except participation as a mere bettor." Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 70 n. 26, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 2182, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978)

The forfeiture provisions of Section (d) apply only to, property used in violation of the provisions of this section . Players do not violate 18 USC 1955 merely by playing online poker,. It takes something more to rise to the level of an illegal gambling business business. Mere bettors do not violate 18 USC 1955. See, Sanbria, cited above.

Finally, Mac makes a magnificent veiled brag condescending slap at "lawyers " less familiar then he with gaming laws" , recommending players consult an attorney if they are really interested in a legal consultation about the actual local or state laws that might impact their being a mere player:

" (I'll skip the shameless self-plug; plenty of attorneys less familiar with gaming laws than myself can give guidance on this point. Just make sure you're working with an actual attorney and not an out-of-work barista who took a few classes on ancient Greek law while chasing a philosophy degree in college.) '

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2020/...date-37347.htm

There likely are plenty of attorneys more knowledgeable about either gaming law or, more relevantly, criminal law , than Mac appears to be, in my opinion , based on reading this article. I'll be frank, I formerly held his analysis in higher regard, but would never recommend any poker player looking for defense counsel to start with someone who already ""knows" a poker player is guilty merely by playing online poker in a game hosted somewhere outside his own State. Mac disclaims making a "shameless self plug "; I would hesitate to recommend a defense lawyer who is so disposed to throw a prospective poker player client under a Federal bus.
"

As Mac admits, "The problem, of course, is 50 states have 50 different laws, and not all are black and white..." That acknowledgment alone should have stopped production of an alarmist "click bait" feature article by an attorney about " cranky Uncle Sam" seizing poker player property under 18 USC 1955.

I'm a gaming lawyer and disagree. I do not practice criminal law, but have experience with poker-related gaming law.

I posted my critique above.

Gzesh absolutely masterful rebuttal. Precise, in depth but very understandable to even the thickest of individuals.

quite the smackdown. and i'll add that the article was written like ****. pokernews should at least have somebody proofread these "unpaid contributions."

Yeah that was a pretty thorough rebuttal, well done Gzesh. Easy to understand.

One lawyer can make a convincing case for one side and the other for the other. That is their job. I will worry about it being illegal when they start arresting people.

Yeah saw this article and it seemed like clickbait nonsense. If this were actually true why did I and thousands more get refunds from the government when FTP was shut down? It didn't seem he was citing any laws that had been written since 2011.

Yup. But in this case, only one lawyer made a convincing case; fortunately for you, that was for the side that says you're not getting arrested any time soon.

The article is typical lawyer click bait/"look at my site" stuff but IMO the title is still accurate but for a very simple reason. Gzesh -- you response about the Wire Act and application of federal law is much better argued than his but the fact is that the majority of states prohibit online gaming and online poker. The guy sitting on his couch playing on ACR will likely never be punished for it because of how hard it would be for states to prosecute, but if you live in a state that prohibits online gaming, (most states) you are probably breaking the law by playing.

That's not the Wire Act being discussed, it is the Illegal Gambling Business Act, and note the clue in the name that it does not apply to mere players. (Fwiw, however, were the Wire Act raised as an issue, the law is pretty clear that Act applies only to businesses and only to sports betting businesses, NOT mere bettors. There are numerous cases under the Wire Act about "mere bettors".

I didn't get into the laws of any specific state that might be argued in the context of the article's boogeyman. ANY arguable state law being claimed should not matter under the IGBA Act cited as the basis for Attorney Verstandig invoking his Section 1955 "cranky Uncle Sam boogeyman" to scare mere players. Mere players are not covered by the federal statute he summoned to raise his Federal boogeyman.

State laws regulating mere players ?

(In the past, I have looked at the laws in each State on a couple of occasions, re staking operations, but not re the issue of whether a "player" is breaking any State law merely by playing.

Based on my unrefreshed recollection from researching other issues in a survey of state statutes however, I doubt your claim that "the majority" of States criminalize merely playing online poker. Some States may do so, but I haven't done a survey. (I do not think your claim is correct, feel free to come up with State laws to support your "majority of states" claim

Speaking generally about criminal law 101, unless mere playing is criminalized by statute in a given state or local jurisdiction, mere playing is NOT a crime. There is no criminal common law in most States, Louisiana being an outlier I believe.

If you want to do so, you might check out one of the links I provided in my earlier post post or you may want to hire an attorney to give you an opinion on statutes that might be relevant wherever you reside or from wherever you play online poker.

Although I am a gaming lawyer, I am not your lawyer. and there is no attorney client relationship here. My posts are NOT legal advice.They are just a discussion of an article I feel was gravely erroneous in its claims, as to both a specific claim and a general approach to advising poker players.

Its a felony in Washington state to play poker online although no one has ever been prosecuted to my knowledge.

In my state (Tennessee), playing poker for money is blatantly illegal. And yes, if a player were to actually be charged then maybe a good lawyer could get that player off by arguing that the actual bet takes place in another country, but its not worth it to me to risk it.
Ive actually thought for quite some time that a lot of people incorrectly believe that online poker is legal when its actually illegal in their state, but ive only researched tennessee.
Im not a lawyer, and fwiw i used to live on full tilt. When they took online poker, it was like my best friend died lol, and i havent gone back to playing after 2011 and i still miss it.

Playing poker is slightly shady to begin with. Most online sites don't allow US players. If you want to worry about whether it is technically illegal to play online, go ahead.

Right now, any live play is definitely illegal, and my non poker business is a mess due to the crisis, so I need to play online.

As usual, the most misleading part of the article is the headline, which is rarely written by the actual author.

But I suppose "You’re (Probably) Breaking the Law" is catchier than "You're (Possibly) Breaking The Law, Depending On Your Home State." And in fairness, the people reading this article are more likely to be in jurisdictions where online poker is prohibited. So I guess it isn't THAT far off.

Don't go all, "in fairness" or "there are good points on both side" on us here. The topic is "players" and whether mere playing is illegal, federally or in the various States.
The misleading, wrong claims were NOT just some headline.

The entire discussion about the "cranky Uncle Sam" threat/boogeyman is just plain wrong. It is the aim of the article and its main point.

A better headline would have been: "Lawyer seeks to throw poker players under Federal bus"

There are a couple of states where the state statutes do make playing illegal, see above posts about Washington State and Tennessee. The references to Minnesota and Virginia may be accurate, I'd want to check the actual statutes however, given the egregious error Mr. Verstandig made re federal law. Any more populated examples ? (Keep in mind, Chris Moneymaker started the online poker boom by playing on PokerStars from Tennessee.)

Maybe I shouldn't have said playing poker for money is "blatantly" illegal in Tennessee, but im pretty freakin sure it is. My source on that is reading the TN gambling law online, as well as former TN governor bill haslam telling me it was illegal one time when i sent him some kind of anti UIGEA type email around 2008 or so lmao.

Anyway, Gzesh - if you find out that,im wrong, please let me know lol. But, i just dont think i am. This is quite the conservative state.

Will do.

I could not tell about Tennessean going online to play in an out of state game in some jurisdiction where that game is legal, like Chris Moneymaker did years ago...., and I am not admitted to practice in Tennessee. I looked at the statute and see that your certainly may be correct.

(I know that a very large % of Biloxi customers drive down from Memphis and there are no casinos in Tenn. In passing, I did notice that Tennessee had legalized sports-betting operations, albeit under poor required 10% hold terms. Applications for licenses will be offered up shortly.)

Tennessee is, of course, a conservative state, but theyve been surprising me. We were apparently one of the first states to legalize fantasy sports betting, and then they legalized sports betting like you were saying. We also have the lottery here and have for years now.

If we can get online gambling and get the state hooked on the money, and then get pokerstars here and link up with the other states, online poker will be back in my world.

Im thinking this could occur in about 10 years lol. Maybe.

If Gzesh is right, I feel bad for the players who go hooked by him for representation vs Postle.

This lawyer has a funny last name for Dutch speakers.

"Verstandig" = "Sensible" in Dutch

Not trying to correct you, but I think you may have meant Tunica. The Horseshoe has a really nice poker room.

Exactly, I was about to say it must be Tunica as only 40 miles away. Before Florida had casinos I used to drive to Biloxi often and that was 570 miles each way tho, so maybe a lot of people prefer the longer drive and going to Biloxi.