It isn't this simple either.

The legal opinion, as I said, probably said "it's probably legal but you are running a risk".

Bringing a challenge would have meant (1) shutting down deposits and withdrawals until you could get a court order stopping enforcement actions against the payment processors, which could have cost them a lot of business, and (2) Stars and Tilt executives perhaps having to travel to the US for a trial, which would have subjected them to US jurisdiction.

Obviously, given what happened Friday, they should have done it. But they had reasons for not doing it.

Also, on point (1), it makes it especially tricky for Stars, for instance, to bring a challenge if Tilt didn't also do it. Because the one that DIDN'T bring the challenge would get all the business while the one that DID would have to shut down its deposits and withdrawals.

French legislation says that you can play with us :

http://www.pokerstars.fr/

http://www.pokertableratings.com/poker-rake-analysis/no-limit-hold'em

Just for curiosity's sake - can one of you lawyer types decipher the stuff in the parenthesis above, including the squiggly double-S thing? What is that thing called?

My guess is sub section for squiggles

1 squiggle = Section
2 squiggles = More than 1 section

Are they really called squiggles? What do the various numbers and U.S.C. stand for exactly?

The squiggly thing is the symbol for "section." These are references to the United States Code (U.S.C).

So 18 U.S.C. § 1955 is Section 1955 of Title 18. You can find the text of these laws with a quick Google search.

lawdude, of course their lawyers said to the sites your run a risk. The sites weighed those risks and decided to continue to operate. The did the same thing in WA state when they passed the law banning play, the site decide it was "worth the risk" to continue to allow play from WA, saying they don't violate any law. They waited till the state supreme court found the law constitutional before leaving but by then it was too late.

The sites are the one that weighed the risks and took the gambol. The sites benefited for all these years and the risk payed off,until it didn't. The sites knew it could happen and were willing to take the risk where others wouldn't.

Hi Poker lovers,

I have a question that seems to elude me and I would be very happy if someone could enlighten me with a good answer....

Why is it that Pokerstars and Fulltilt are portrayed as the villains of the internet gaming/gambling world, and sites such as Carbon Copy or Bodog get away with the same activities?

Last time I heard the UIGEA bill was imposed is that they deemed any gambling sites accepting deposits or withdrawals from its US customers to be a breach of Federal Law and therefore a crime.

Ok so Pokerstars and Fulltilt setup "shell companies" and made dubious arrangements with payment processors in order to carry on their "illegal activities". So they get caught and get charged accordingly.

But just because Bodog and Carbon Copy do not even attempt to hide their illegal activities, doesn't mean its not a breach of the UIGEA bill. These sites keep on accepting deposits and withdrawals from US customers. They should all be made illegal in the US and all be shutdown. Its got nothing to do whether there is a state law allowing US players to play or not, its got to do with the COMPANIES COMMITTING CRIMES AS WE SPEAK.

I don't get this, it must be because Pokerstars and Fulltilt are foreign (therefore not taxable and prohibited) and the other sites are american (therefore taxable and allowed)? Or am I missing something here...

BAWS!

If only I could change my username to start with one.

Good thread from an experienced criminal attorney who knows of the judge hearing this case. He lays out the laws the sites were charged with:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...-tilt-1021636/

Anyone with Experience here please advise? Meaning if you travel to Asia or Europe or Canada can you play there? or are they freezing all americans accounts who ever played under an american account for good? Please advise if anyone has any information on this.

suuuuure


newsflash, we dont live in a democracy. we live in the United States of Corporations

JPFisher in another part of this thread or another called for the PPA to litigate this and file a declaratory action seeking a ruling that online poker is not covered by the UIGEA (at least in states where online poker is not expressly illegal). Did the PPA respond to this request at all? IMHO, this is what needs to happen ASAP.

You are missing something here. 1. UIGEA does not say Internet poker is illegal. 2. Bodog and Carbon (Merge Network gaming clients) are not based in the US. Bodog is in Costa Rica, Merge and Cake networks are in the Carribean, Canada, and Australia, none of which are in US territories. 3. Bodog, Cake, Carbon (Merge) are not involved in defrauding banks by saying that poker account deposits are made for the purposes of buying items such as t-shirts, golf balls, and jewelry and FTP, PS, and AP/UB are.

^That should answer the "bank fraud" arguments made on the past 2 pages too. The money laundering charge is based on the "illegal gambling" charge and whether online poker is illegal "gambling" or not, but the bank fraud charge stands not matter what.

Got FT loaded and running using the UK site, Still have the Rnd 2 free roll ticket I had earned, but the site won't let me register!

Really, Really Proud to be an American today ----NOT!

Btw does anyone know what happened to that $30 mill that the SDNY seized from the payment processors back in 2009? Was there ever a case? Did they just use that money to fund this case?

I havent seen anyone mention the possibility of collecting unemployment insurance. I believe laws vary by state but does anyone know if this qualifies? i file as self employed

Would it matter if the actions were not actually illegal, but the banks simply believed they were?

Actually, we don't. We live in a republic or more specifically, a democratic republic. In a democracy, the is the rule of the people, but in a republic, our representatives to the government do the voting FOR us. A "democratic" republic means that, yes the people rule, but what they rule over is who represents them, not what that representation is used for. That is at the sole discretion of the representative him/herself as to what they vote for or against. That is why we need to pressure our representatives in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to change, amend, or strike down the UIGEA or add a clear poker legislation. We also need to pressure our local and state level representatives and elected officials to define it on their own, so that their actions will also affect federal precedent.

I've read that the self employed cannot file for unemployment.

Ok, so why did pokerstars and fulltilt claim that poker deposits were made for the purpose of buying t-shirts, jewelry etc in order to disguise their true income stream? There must be a reason for this fraudulent behaviour. I tell you why... they did it because its a crime by federal law to accept deposits for poker and other gambling uses as stipulated by the UIGEA- so they tried a way to circumvent the problem in order to keep their US customers

So aren't banks accepting payments and deposits from Bodog and Carbon Copy for the use of playing poker? If so, isn't that ILLEGAL? Because if its not, then I don't understand why Neteller pulled out from providing payment services for Pokerstars and Fulltilt, but Bodog and Carbon Copt accept credit cards to fund their sites.

Answer me this

Thanks for the link

Interesting idea regarding this. All these sites have some type of player rewards program. These reward programs all offer t-shirts, golf balls and jewelry. In a round-about way, it might be argued that they are indeed in that business and no fraud actually occurred.