Quote:
Originally Posted by rwperu34
I'm not happy about this. What was clarified is no longer clear. This is terrible if it applies to the players. If it applies only to unlicensed sites, then it's not so bad. Regardless, we need not only clarification, but it needs to be spelled out much, much better.
The bill amends the IGBA to apply to internet gambling sites (curious, since they've been enforcing it as though it already did since 2009), allowing them to seize player money from withdrawal processors (again, like they have been already since 2009).
So while it looks scary in that technically they could go after money that has already reached a players bank account (or the assets he purchased with those withdrawals), in practice the bill will really only make what they've been doing since 2009 lawful.
To put it another way, think of it as if you were in an underground poker room that is in violation of the IGBA (large, continuous operation) when it gets raided, the Feds will seize all the money there even though you won't be charged as a mere gambler.
Technically they could also try to trace every dime you won previously as unlawful proceeds, just as they could do under this bill for internet gambling, but how exactly would they do that?
When the government seizes player money they do it at the point of the processor, because they have evidence that the poker site is the source of the funds, but once the money hits your bank account, they aren't going to bother trying to get a seizure warrant for each individual player whose name might be on a list held by the processor.
So this bill doesn't really add any penalties that didn't already exist - or at least the DOJ has been pretending they already existed since 2009.