This was three and a half years ago, but I believe it's relevant (emphasis mine):

CONGRESSIONAL TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Nov. 14, 2007
House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Online Gambling Law Enforcement

(Catherine Hanaway was United States Attorney Eastern District of Missouri from 2005 to 2009)

COBLE:
Mr. Chairman, if I may ask one more quick question to the U.S.
attorney, Ms. Hanaway.

Ms. Hanaway, have any Internet gambling sites been linked to money
laundering? I don't know the answer. I am wondering if that has come across
your desk.

HANAWAY:
There have been some cases, congressman, that have been linked to
money laundering, but it has been to date within the context of laundering
proceeds of gambling. It hasn't been proceeds from other illegal activities
that were laundered through these Internet gambling companies.

Good point. A bit of hyperbole by me here. I am not defining and won't define severly destructive. I look at the studies and see the distinction between problem and chronic gambling. I did not/have not looked into these definitions or what the distinction is.

**A caveat to my statements that might make people feel better. My statements has to do with ALL forms of online gambling. Poker is not mutually exclusive in this scenario (although I do clearly recognize poker as a game of skill). But for the sake of the government, online gambling is online gambling, and does not differentiate between games. So these numbers would probably be alot different if poker were the only game included.**

One problem here is that the UIGEA is a symptom as well as a problem.

It is a symptom because the problem is for all sorts of reasons, the US political system, including the DOJ, Congress, and the courts, is not going to support unregulated offshore online poker. The UIGEA is one manifestation of that. The Rousso case is another. April 15 is a third.

Total agreement. Because if the US is not in charge of regulating it, there is no PROFIT for the US political system.

I'd ask you the same question. I read your initial analysis of the indictment that you posted on your blog. While, I didn't agree with it completely (and now I understand why => Bias from your Libertarian viewpoint), I did think that your blog post would help poker players understand the fact that the bank fraud and money laundering charges against Stars and FTP are grave and likely hard to beat.

The rest of your reply here just crumbles into nonsense in the same fashion when Skallagrim responds to people that he doesn't like criticizing his point of view. Assuming the allegations in the indictment are true, Stars and FTP were not honest and ethical service providers. If they thought they were doing no wrong by "bribing" SunFirst, then why didn't they just come out and say what they were doing? Why not advertise for SunFirst on their sites? I'm sure hordes of US players would have opened accounts there if they knew a US bank was "sponsored" by the poker sites. But they didn't do that, now did they...maybe because they had an inkling of a clue that they were breaking the law.

And, if you want to put convicted felons (that tried to bribe and buy a bank) up on a pedastel, then have at it. What they did, if convicted, is not a badge of honor and your average American (and potential juror) will likely feel the same way. 80% or more of the people on this website are looking through extremely rose-colored glasses when it comes to the poker sites and need a serious sanity check.

And my "slogan" wasn't "like it or leave it". Try reading my post. The point I was trying to make was that players are on here complaining (which will accomplish nothing) and disaparaging the government. Yet these same "patriots" haven't lifted a finger to participate in the system of government we have here in the United States. Maybe if they tried to work within the system to change laws they don't like, they might actually see something positive happen. Since they aren't willing to put in any real effort other than complain on a poker forum, then I think the USA would be better off if they left. We could easily do without a bunch of lazy degenerates.

I hope your reply in general is based on complete tilt. If it isn't, then I think it's probably a good thing that you now longer practice law. You are doing the country a service by staying out of courtrooms.

Fair enough, but that distinction (and your caveat) is huge. Most here are not advocating for online roulette or craps or slot machines. Competing in a skill-based game for money against other like-minded competitors cannot be equated with pulling a virtual slot machine handle knowing you are getting on average 90 cents back on every dollar you wager.

Very true and I should have stated this from the beginning. Unfortunately however, most people and the government do not differentiate the two, and until the government decides that Ipoker and Igambling are separate issues, we must treat them as 1 in the same. The government prohibits online gambling, and poker is not mutually exclusive. So we in the poker community, are not separate from online sports bettors or blackjack players until the government says we are. Thus, we should work with those other games and gamers, rather than trying to differentiate ourselves.

This is an unacceptably poor misread of this paper and this needs to be pointed out. Apologies for further derail. But you don't make an extremely illogical and offensive statement under the false heading of FACT without pissing me off.

The only FACT reported by this study is that, among the group of people who choose to gamble online, the percentage who fit a certain classification of problem gambling is 3x higher than the percentage among people not in that group.

The study made no efforts into explaining the causation. It is possible and quite plausible that people who are predisposed to problem/chronic gambling choose to gamble online, due either to sheer volume (a problem gambler will gamble on many different things, so he or she is likely to partake in internet gambling) due to various relative advantages of internet gambling for a problem gambler: convenience, speed, lack of social interaction, anonymity, etc.

Inferring any causation, especially that the mere act of playing online would have a causal effect, is incorrect and has no basis in the study you cite.

I am deliberately holding back from further comment on other statements made.

Back to the thread at hand.

You seem to be under the illusion that this country is free and that by participating in the system that we can make a difference.Our founding fathers thought that too but our government has done everything in its power to sidestep the checks put into place to guarantee freedom.And although I have respect for people who join the military to serve their country,as opposed to just doing it for fun or money or to kill people,I question the sanity of anyone that would give the government control of their lives.The government will gladly dispense of you for economic reasons,such as oil or just because it can and then when they are done with you they could care less what happens to you.

Besides that,your ego makes it hard to take anything you say seriously so Ill just shut up now and stop wasting my breath.

I'll be sure to contact the Slot Machine Players Alliance immediately.

Why don't you ban soda drinks too since they are absolutely proven to cause tooth decay. Drinking soda water is destructive behavior. Ban alcohol. Clearly it is destructive. Victimless crimes are crimes of personal choice that do not directly harm unwilling participants. Drinking soda water and alcohol harm "families" just as much as playing poker.


What the hell are you talking about??? Not only do I litigate against the DOJ EVERY DAY but I have friends there as well. They pick and choose exactly which cases to prosecute at their discretion. They are not an omnipotent all seeing eye that is instantly aware of every single violation of federal law as it occurs such that they instantly prosecute. The get case referrals, the cases go into a big box, AG's review the cases and decide whether to prosecute or not. They are completely independent. They do not prosecute every single violation of federal law - they pick and they choose. And they pick and they choose based on many factors including but not limited to political pressure, chance of victory, seriousness of offense, publicity and the chance for career advancement.

Now that you know about me bud why don't you tell us about yourself. I would love to know where you came up with this garbage you write.....

As for who I am personally, I am a political science student at Northeastern University. Nothing more and nothing less. However, I have done substantial work on poker/gambling/internet gambling, so that is where I come up with most of my information.

I will address the simple thing I care about in what you said. You are making my argument. What they choose to prosecute is dependent on many things, most important the laws and political pressure. All I said originally was that the DOJ does not get to exclusively choose what they enforce. I am not talking about litigation. That is dependent on casework, and amount of information. I was solely talking about enforcement. And the DOJ is subject to enforce whatever they are told to enforce. If Obama wants online poker to be legal, hell instruct the DOJ to not enforce it. If congress wants online poker to be legal, they will pass a law regulating online poker. Until then, as you said, seriousness of crime and political pressure are a few factors. Money laundering, fraud, and bribery (if the sites conducted in this, I have heard that they did but have seen no charges on it) are pretty serious crimes. Once again, THE DOJ HAS TO ENFORCE WHAT LAWS ARE PUT IN FRONT OF THEM.....

I am sorry but I could not disagree more. Because the study does not provide causation then problem gambling is clearly not an issue? I am not sure what you are trying to say. It does not change the fact that those who gamble online are 3 times more likely to be problem or chronic gamblers than their on-ground counterparts. That is the fact. There are other studies that show this as well, so knocking the study will not change anything. All I am saying is that there are certainly issues associated with internet gambling. To pretend like it is a fun activity with no consequences is misrepsenting the facts

Whoever you are, thank you for responding to this jackass. I have read several posts from military folks on this forum that make me sick. I'm trying to not be cynical, but there seems to be a lot of arrogance from these folks.

You left off potential size of seizure (money and/or property).

I worked for a police department and heard numerous discussions where the Feds had declined prosecution (usually drug cases) and had told the local agency to handle it in state court. This was even on cases where the Feds had members on the task force that did the investigation. They do this routinely.

Wow, even the abstract of the paper sings a different tune:

Thank you, this explains a lot.

No, they don't, and TYPING IT IN CAPS DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. Go back and look at my post, #141.

In Mpeth's defense, the sites are definitely innocent until proven guilty. Bank fraud is a serious charge and the government will have to prove the elements of that charge. And I will also say that Stars and Tilt have generally been honorable companies in their dealings with poker players, and that counts for something. If the government proves they committed bank fraud, their honorable conduct towards poker players will not excuse that, but the government does have to prove it.

reading these posts it's pretty easy to figure out who the conservative big-government apologists are, and who the libertarians are. often we think we're on the same side in these fights, but in general we're very ideologically opposed.

fwiw the people that are trying to justify why this had to happen, the problem is that our system encourages/forces/allows these kinds of actions in the first place. We're developing into system where our government can and will track every significant thing we do in our lives. The fact that our government thinks it should infringe our rights in order to monitor our monetary transactions to make sure we aren't terrorists is appalling. but then I shouldn't be surprised considering the Patriot Act was passed and continues to be supported by congress and the executive branch.

we may not have been the land of the free for a long time, but we're quickly becoming the land of the watched.

US Govt Hating Veteran here (9 years US Army 21B & 38B). I am also a very proud and vocal libertarian thanks to my experiences in the military. I voted for G Dubya twice, but now I wake up in a cold sweat every night wishing I could go back and change that.

Any servicemember that spouts off blind love for their country is simply a robot that can't fight the mental programming they've been spoonfed for years. The US Military is a prime example of everything that is wrong with this country, but the good little sheople soldiers are usually too blind to see it. Just look at the Vet homeless epidemic or the recent difficulties in getting the "Death Benefit" paid, or the trillions of dollars that go unaccounted for every year in the DoD budget. While there are a few honorable and intelligent servicemembers out there, unfortunately the vast majority of the rank and file are there simply because they can't do anything else with their life.

Anyone that uses phrases like "You didn't wear the uniform so you don't understand" or "I served my country, did you?" is a complete waste of genetic material IMO. Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what your country has done TO you.

Also one thing that is lost in this "skills vs. chance" issue is that poker players, just like everyone else, tend to support measures to help problem gamblers and addicts. I don't know anyone on 2+2, for instance, who doesn't think that self-exclusion policies and gambling addiction hotlines and the like are not good ideas. Indeed, I doubt even the most government-skeptic of our posters would really object to regulatory requirements to back that up (by, for instance, penalizing a site that allows a player to play after he or she asks to self-exclude).

In other words, nobody denies that this game can be bad for some people. The question has always been about punishing responsible players rather than trying to make sure the ones with problems get help.

thought i had logged into the wrong forum when i started to read all this ridiculous dribble about who loves the country and who's to fault for global warming (ok, maybe not that but everything else for gods sake)

lets get real here folk

- whether you served in the military is 100% irrelevant to teh events of april 15. i personally dont care if you did or didnt (i did for 10 years for the record)
- whether you love the US or hate it doesnt quite frankly matter to me.
- the DoJ had every right to enforce the law as they see it. i dont like that and think its a stupid law but they had the right. They didnt have to focus here but they did for some reasons we can guess and for probably numerous others we dont have a clue about
- blaming the republicans or democrats, obama or bush, etc is just quite frankly stupid. its a waste of time -
- what matters is what we do now. two priorities - getting our money and changing the law/perceived law


all this other crap just makes the DoJ folk reading this forum laugh at what a bunch of . . . . - ahhhh nevermind

My take on this:

1. UIGEA passed in response to a far right moral crusade to stop gambling.

2. UIGEA could have been stopped by the big gaming players (Harrahs, MGM, etc.) but was "supported" by a non-response. These companies didn't want off-shore competition should they decide to enter the market and hated to see Party, FT, and Stars making all kinds of money if they didn't. (my speculation is that nobody was sure what online gaming could become in 2005/2006 and these casinos worried that Americans would start enjoying playing blackjack online with these offshore companies instead of brick and mortar.)

3. The DOJ is acting out of a responsibility to prevent money laundering, bank fraud, and collusion, NOT TO STOP ONLINE GAMBLING. There is an indirect correlation between UIGEA and the seizures but not a direct correlation. These banking crimes would have never been committed if UIGEA didn’t exist.

4. Still….Pokerstars and Full Tilt skirted these banking requirements willingly and had to be stopped. They also lied to poker players by saying they were doing nothing unlawful. Some of us rejoice in their fraud, some of us condemn it, but the fact is that they lied to us…we should be upset.

In regards to us not having anywhere to play online poker, all parties are to be blamed: lawmakers, big casinos, and FT/Stars.

I am upset at FT/Stars/UB for lying to us and committing all kinds of fraud. I am more upset at these big casino companies for not pushing for regulation 5 years ago and becoming so greedy that they let the last 5 years happen. I am most upset at members of the far right who snuck UIGEA into law on their out-of-touch moral grounds.

+1 exactly.

The government has been making claims that they are protecting it's citizens by doing X. Then the arguments come "well if you have nothing to hide, why do you have a problem?"
Democracy runs because everyone has independent ideas and can voice those independent ideas. If the government continues to "protect the citizens" these independent ideas are going to diminish. National Security comes with compromising what you do in your free time, at home, etc.

We're a nation of a false sense of security. As I hope to God an event like 9/11 will never happen again, do you really think the U.S government has all the intelligence it needs to stop this from happening? The only way to have all this evidence to stop an event like that from happening would be to intrude on everyone's personal rights and "know everything" (Patriot Act.) Point proven now even online poker "could sponsor terrorism" so "we have to stop that."

It truly saddens me how divided some people are on an issue we should be agreeing about, how brain washed some people are, and how unwilling people are to listening to others ideas. I try to understand what someone disagreeing with me is trying to say and why their point of view is the way it is.


Others say "well do something about it. Vote others into office."
News flash: A politician will say/do anything to get votes. Once in office they are going to do what they want to do. The only accountability they have is when the next election comes up when then all they do is stuff that will get them votes, and avoid all the MAJOR topics.

/Off topicish Rant

Reasonable minds understand this. But this isn't the point. The point is THE UIGEA WAS THE CAUSE of this problem. Furthermore, the UIGEA WAS NOT passed for the sole purpose of protecting our borders ("Port Security" lol) and stopping the possible money-laundering loophole online poker created. Not one iota of evidence for terrorist funding during the entire existence of online poker has been produced.

All you need to do is look at who lobbied for the UIGEA, and how it was snuck into legislation. There was clearly an ulterior motive then, and there is clearly an ulterior motive behind Black Friday now.

We're not short-sighted, we're seeing through the bull**** smoke and mirrors.

The UIGEA was passed because PartyPoker and other sites were making money. Between horce-racing, Frist's (or Kyl, I can't remember which atm) relationship with Harrah's, and the lobbying of Harrah's and the NFL, and Indian Gaming interests, it's pretty obvious the UIGEA was all about protectionism from the competition of online poker.

If the government truly cared about knowing where the flow of money was headed and tax revenue, regulation would've been the clear and only choice. Not any of this other bull****.

The NFL originally opposed all online gambling as a blanket policy. They actually do not oppose online poker specifically like they used to, but they lobbied for the UIGEA back in '06 because of fear that any online gaming would take away from their bottom line.

They may care about the integrity of their game as far as protecting their bottom line goes, but that's really just bull****. We all know the NFL is huge from sports betting and fantasy football, two things they originally believed online poker was a threat to.

The only thing the UIGEA did before Black Friday was stunt the growth of an industry that was growing exponentially every year since Rounders and Moneymaker's WSOPME run.

QFT

If the gov't wanted tax revenue, they'd have regulated it a long time ago. FT & PS would've been the first two in line in asking for a license and gladly paid taxes if they'd have gotten one. Black Friday was about something else.

No, it was a stupid law. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have needed to be snuck into legislation the way it did. If the UIGEA were openly debated upon, it might never have seen the light of day.

I can't quantify the stress UIGEA regs put on an already struggling banking industry, or how much the DOJ spent seizing processor funds and building a case for Black Friday, but this is NOT how government and law enforcement is supposed to operate. It was ABSOLUTELY NOT the way to go about spending tax money, yours and mine. It was a collossal waste of time and money, all over events which had exactly zero victims.

And no, PokerViceRoy, gambling addicts are not victims of online poker. They are victims of an addiction to gambling. If placing a bottle of wine in front of an alcoholic makes an alcoholic a victim of wine, then your logic is seriously flawed imo.

FT and PS didn't grab anything but become the #1 competitors in a new market shaped by the UIGEA. It's no different than when PartyPoker became #1 in the pre-UIGEA market.

In addition to being publicly traded, PartyPoker left because they offered gambling in addition to poker which would've clearly been in violation of the UIGEA. FT and PS offered ONLY poker, and so they deemed risk vs. reward worth serving us in a legal gray area. But...

...It doesn't matter which site came out on top at any point, PartyPoker would've gladly paid taxes too. The point is all gov't had to do was regulate online poker and any site would've chomped at the bit to get in on the action. Instead they passed the UIGEA at the behest of B&M casinos, horce-racing, and etc.

No UIGEA, no "massive black hole."

It's that simple.

Jay Cohen deserves a badge of honor as well.

If the DOJ doesn't freeze a ****load of money, we all would have our rolls in our bank accounts right now.

The only difference between Full Tilt and PokerStars is the quality of customer support and efficiency of management decisions. That said, I have always been treated fairly by and trust both sites.

Yeah, we know, it's "Tough ****!"

First of all, the only things anyone in this country is required to do for it is pay taxes and follow the law. Hence, "land of the free (lol)."

Now, I appreciate the service all men and women give us in the armed forces, and whole-heartedly thank you for yours, but don't act like you did it for free.

You're entitled to an opinion, but you can seriously go **** yourself if you think you can waltz on in this thread on a high horse just because you served your country.