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.

What I can't quite grasp about this provision is that the referenced US Code ties the listed civil forfeitures to criminal proceedings. Yet, there is no provision in the draft bill which relates the Bettor Forfeiture to any criminal act by the bettor. How does this resolve, legally?

I thought part of the stars/ftp deal was that they didnt have to admit wrongdoing over UIEGA.

The bill speaks of violation of federal/state laws. The cutoff date is actually Dec 31, 2006 as well.

The most interesting part is these sites' player databases cannot be used.

+1 waiting for further explanation. I thought this section was removed from the bill.

So the white house has a cyber security order ready to go.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...ft-cyber-order

Is there are Cyber security bill tee'd up for the lame duck so we can get attached to it?

SEC. 103 appears only to applies to the sites:
But 'BETTOR' would obviously be the player:

SEC. 204. BETTOR FORFEITURE.
So they add the above section (I) to Civil Forfeiture, right after section (H):

Which effectively makes money traceable to unlicensed internet gambling equivalent to money traceable to financing terrorism:

18 USC § 2339C - Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism

So they aren't saying that it is a crime to play on unlicensed sites, you won't be charged, they are saying that money/assets traceable to play on unlicensed sites is guilty in rem.

Remember to thank the PPA for that if this bill passes.

I wouldn't worry about it though, it's been a crime to play on unlicensed sites in NV for 15 years, yet Vanessa Rousso testified about her play and winnings under oath before a NV senate committee and no one batted an eyelid - they'll never enforce this.

Thanks, everyone, for the detailed summaries and discussion. I agree that this bill looks about as good as it might have.

Wait, I thought player penalties were removed, the asset forfeiture stuff is in there? Can the PPA clarify that this is only related to money still on the sites?

Yes, in my state you'd write a check for like 50k.

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.

If that is what that section does I'd be back to opposing this, but want clarification from the PPA legal team because forfeiture laws are awful and a painful fight. I can't support some poker players assets being piggy banks where they only dont lose everything subject to government benevolence.

The IGBA analogy would mean money still on the site is subject to forfeiture. I could live with that even though I don't like it.

No, the IGBA is what they began using in 2009 to seize player money from withdrawal processors, what they want to avoid is dealing with players contesting processor forfeitures as 'innocent owners' as at least one did after the black Friday seizures.

So this bill effectively says that you might not be criminal, but you aren't 'innocent' either - so you will have no claim to the money they seize from processors which again doesn't matter since they denied those claims previously for lack of constructive trust.

Besides, no one is going to be offering unlicensed poker to the US if this bill is passed, because there will be no more 'grey area'.

PX,

Thanks for your input!

• "The States and Tribes share gets split, 70% to the location of the players, 30% to the location of the corresponding Qualified Bodies of the sites."
  
• "Anything left at the end of the year in the federal share is paid out to the States and Tribes, in the same 70%/30% split."

Are these bullets incentive for states to opt in? If so, is the incentive significant enough to propel states to opt in? I’m concerned about my state not opting in.


By the way, that forfeiture part for illegal site participation is brutal! If you have $10 in an illegal site, police with confiscate every-fing!

If money that reaches players is subject to forfeiture then I'm out and working against the bill. If its just money on the site or with the processors, then congress should make that clear in the bill. Im not comfortable relying on government restraint on forfeiture laws given their history of abusing them.

From PX's summary, I am understanding this would be after the bill goes into effect if someone plays on an off-shore site.

"Blackout Period

The first licenses will go into effect 450 days (15 months) after enactment. Existing sites must cease US operations within 30 days after enactment and return funds to US players. Criminal penalties for violation are fines up to 3x player balances and/or up to 2 years imprisonment."

I don't think current off-shore sites will be offering US play once this bill goes into effect. With great empathy to ppl still grinding these sites for a living, I would support this as a trade off to begin the process of a federally-regulated market in the US.

That's better. PX, can you please comment?

How would you propose they clarify it?

The only way to do so would be to say that players are immune, but if you say players are immune, they would still have legitimate innocent ownership claims to seized funds, and people would still try to file remission claims, besides, surely part of the reason for the provision is so that players do not feel like they are immune as a deterrent.

There are already statutes on the books right now that they could use to go after player assets if they so choose (18 USC § 1952, 1956 and 1957), so this provision doesn't add anything, and again, no one is going to be offering unlicensed poker to US players if this bill is passed.

The 70% for a non-regulating State will work out to be ~5% of each deposit made by their players, which doesn't sound bad on the surface - it's free money - but that means the other 95% of each deposit is leaving the State (minus whatever comes back as winnings).

So States won't look at this as a free 5%, they will view it as millions of dollars that could have been taxed over and over again if they stayed in state; you spend it at the casino or theater, the owner pays his employees with it, they spend it on something taxable, etc, etc.

It's going to be a hard sell for any State that doesn't have a large commercial casino presence.

If there is no way to do it then I'll join Lirva and oppose all Federal regulation :shrug:

I don't get what the problem is? If this bill passes and the offshore sites have to pull out then there won't be any players playing on these sites anyway so it's not going to matter what the penalties are. Unless you think there will still be sites trying to circumvent the law and players will still try to play on them?

Offshore sports betting still happens, right? There will be sites out there if there is a big enough market i.e. few states opt-in

Yeah I dont think it's at all clear there will be no games offered.

But those sites won't exist if there is no gray area anymore and the penalties on the sites are harsh enough.

If not then I see your point.