Sooooo, obg is not fear-mongering then? Got it, thanks.

Maybe he is staking his professional reputation on it, rather than a hard cash guarantee ?

(FWIW, I happen to think he is correct with respect to players, and I do have relevant experience with forfeiture law, "tainted assets", and online gaming.

OTOH, the Reid/Kyl bill creates a whole category of "tainted assets", such as player data, that can taint any licensee who uses them. ...... to the direct benefit of certain prospective licensees who already own a large organic database, and to the direct anti-competitive detriment of any other prospective operators. This 73 page Act is a testament to Protectionism, rather than the "open, competitive market" about which some naive cheerleaders wax rhapsodic.)

Obviously, I wasnt asking for a cash guarantee. Just thought trying to label forfeiture fears as fear-mongering was a pretty strong statement and wanted to clarify whether that meant what obg was saying couldnt happen.

While we are discussing "fear mongering" seems like a good time to go back and address the idea raised by Haley Hintze that if the Reid/bill passes US citizens who play on sites not licensed by the US can have their money forfeited.

Lets first exclude a discussion of the extent R/K allows forfeiture of player money as that has been extensively discussed elsewhere.

It is a basic principle of law that a nation's laws generally only apply within its own territory.

There are exceptions to this rule. "Extraterritorial jurisdiction" is an increasingly used principle. However, in the US for a law to be considered extraterritorial, it must be written so that such an intent is clearly established.

A recent official legal article discusses all the areas in which extraterritorial jurisdiction of US law as been as asserted by the US Congress. It does not mention a general law asserting that US citizens must abide by all US criminal laws while in foreign jurisdictions. It does list all the areas where a specific law has been enacted covering the applicability of US law overseas and not anywhere does it mention gambling offenses. See: Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law by Charles Doyle (Senior Specialist in American Public Law) published February 15, 2012 by the Congressional Research Service. It can be found online at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf

So, point 1: the idea that there is a law that says every US citizen must obey every US law while overseas is wrong. If Haley (or anyone), knows of such a statute enacted that states differently, please provide a link to it (and please send that link to the author of the article too).

Point 2: the Reid/Kyl bill does not make playing online poker a crime, even on an unlicensed site while within the jurisdiction of the US . Accordingly, extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction does not even come into play. Even if I am wrong about point 1 (and I am not), if it is not a crime in the US there is little point in worrying about laws that make US citizens criminals for violating US criminal laws while overseas.

-aside: some state laws do make playing online poker a crime. No such state law has ever even been suggested to have extraterritorial reach and it would almost certainly be unconstitutional for a state to try and make such a law extraterritorial.

Point 3: An operator of a site not licensed by the US is not prevented from accepting play from US citizens. Here is the exact text from the bill:

For Haley's concerns to be anything more than imagined, that exception would have to have an additional clause which says: "except by those bets or wagers made by US citizens outside the United States" - it does not.

Finally, point 4: for funds to subject to forfeiture, where ever else they may be found, they must first have to have been used in a transaction which violates section 103. Given the specific exemption in section 103, funds deposited, used, won, lost, and/or returned to folks totally outside the US do not violate section 103 and are therefore not subject to forfeiture under this bill.

If you are a US citizen playing on Stars while residing within the UK (or any other place where it is legal to do so) the Reid/Kyl bill does not affect your legal ability to play in any way.

Somehow I doubt that this will be the last time we hear about that "threat" however.

Skallagrim

No, you don't get it.

OBG suggested the feds could take your whole bank account because some funds in it came from play on an unlicensed site. That is wrong.

Saying that this or that evil could happen without bothering to check whether in fact it really could, that is fear mongering.

And now for your next snide remark ....

PX, you raise a political point that TE tried to sidestep earlier when he posted that no State asked for a simple multi-State-compact authority bill ....

Politically, keep in mind that No State has asked for this bill, except maybe Nevada.

It will be a tough road to get this passed, as structured,now or in future sessions. I will NEVER bet against Harry Reid, but it seems highly unlikely this will pass, it having seen the light of day.

So when will we find out if this Bill got passed?

I am not a lawyer, so excuse my ignorance as I am just looking for some clarity here. How can we be sure that they do not intend the forfeitures to include more than the money on site or with the processors? Could that be explicitly in there this time to deter US citizens from playing on the offshore sites? i.e. If they can't prosecute those sites, maybe they think they can win by attrition if they dry up the customer base by making it far too risky to play there

This is where my confusion lies. It says involved in. So somewhere back in this thread where it was stated that your laptop, etc. was safe doesn't seem to really fit here as that would be real property involved in the transaction. How far that definition extends to your entire bank account or the building you were in when making the transaction, etc. I have no idea, but just for now let's keep it simple.

The reason this stands out to me is because in my state, Texas, violators of Fish and Game laws are subject to having any of their related equipment confiscated if convicted. Guns, boats, tackle, etc. are all fair game and I do not think it restricts it to only those used in the commission of the crime (I could be wrong on the reach here and that could lead to my confusion). Is there some kind of criminal versus civil distinction here on why this bill would not allow the seizure of assets other than online balances? Obviously besides the fact that it would not be worth it for them to come after each player to take laptops, phones, etc.

Good question .... The answer may lie in whether or not a player, as such, is involved in a transaction, as opposed to being a player. Sort of like PStars and FTP being both involved in bank transactions and running poker games.

Skall, you certainly don't consider this poster to also be a "jackass" for asking what appears a good question, ...... can you enlighten us as to the answer ?

Haley Hintze presents an odd case, as he both bashes offshore sites and concurrently promotes them as an affiliate.

You quoted OBG saying that the DOJ could go after all of the fruits you've harvested from the site, called it fear-mongering...then said the worst thing that could happen is the DOJ taking all of the fruits you've harvested from the site and property you are still in possession of. Then you strawmanned OBG and the mysterious "some people" for two sentences.

Play the anger card if it makes you happy though.

EDIT: I guess "certain folks" not "some people", before I get lawyered to death there.

I saw a number of nit posts about the word "socialist versus socialism, as if that were relevant to anything.....

Take my word for it, it is a standard PPA-sanctioned tactic of avoiding substantive discussion of inconvenient issues, practiced now by both Skall and TE... but it ain't "lawyering" anymore than is calling you a "jackass" was earlier.

socialism vs socialized

Sorry, but I believe actually being able to play online poker IS a realistic expectation for an online poker bill.

I guess Im just a dreamer.

I know you're just being sarcastic here, but I think it's worth pointing out that a bill that instantly makes things like April 14, 2011 is just a dream. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to have a nationwide online poker market in the United States. IMO, this bill shortens the wait immensely...even if it means the only place to play for the next 15 months is an even more shady black market than we've got now.

The good news is, this bill is being passed irrespective of the few extremists in this forum who actually think Cake/Merge/Revolution are viable today and tomorrow. Absurd in the extreme to me but we'll leave it at that.

IMHO this bill is the nuts as it bans all the other predatory games that suck money out of our community and into the house while legalizing pari-mutuel games like poker.

Nothing is going to overnight recreate Party Poker circa 2004. Right now we have the absolute opposite of that environment.

I'll be in a wheelchair by the time the state by state "compacts" form and even that is no guarantee. I'm more likely to be 6 feet underground. And even if they do form, the games will likely be MUCH less player friendly equating to worthlessness.

Here is the OBG post:

The part in bold is wrong. What players have that is arguably subject to forfeiture under this bill is still far less than what "those running illegal gambling" have that is subject to forfeiture. Perhaps you only read the first few words or maybe forgot the rest.

I post a substantive reply about the distinction in what is subject to forfeiture when we are talking players and when we are talking operators - you reply wanting me to "personally guarantee" there is a distinction; I lay out a lengthy explanation of how the distinction works, and you respond snidely again. I am not angry, just disappointed.

Skallagrim

At least be realistic. It will most likely be longer than 15 months. I posted in the pole thread a couple of hrs ago but there have been no responses. Although it is only a guess it would seem around 2 years might be more realistic and then there is the question of what needs to be done after a state opts in in order for cards to be in the air and how long that would take. I have absolutely no clue as to the process but imagine it would vary state to state depending on how things are currently set up. I understand any fed or state bill will have these issues but as this question has not been asked as far as I know I am asking it in order to have a better idea of the timeline if KR gets passed.

Not sure if you had the time to read my post just before yours, but the answer is contained therein. The basic distinction is between the criminal and the assets used in the crime. VERY SIMPLISTICALLY (as there are lots of legal technicalities involved): a criminal suffers forfeiture of all the items he uses in the crime, all the stuff he gains as a result of the crime, and all the stuff he gains as a result of using all the stuff he gained from the crime (that may be loosely called "derivative forfeiture"); the actual property the criminal forfeits does not carry the same effect, the property itself MAY be subject to forfeiture, but its associated items and attendant proceeds are not.

NOT PERFECT REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE: I use a car to rob a bank. That car, being used in a crime, is now forfeit to the government. I then sell that car to you before the government gets their hands on it. You then use that car as a taxicab. It depends upon a lot of things whether the government can take the car from you once you have it, but under no circumstances (except where you also qualify as an accomplice in the robbery) can the government take the money you earned as a taxi driver.

There is no general law of forfeiture. Each forfeiture is dependent upon the specific laws of the state and/or a specific federal law. Different law allow for different levels of forfeiture. And in each specific case the details of the specific law at work make all the difference. That is why the illegal hunter may have to give up a lot more in forfeiture than a forger or an assaulter.

Skallagrim

So what if this bill passes and I already have funds on a foreign online poker site. Now if I do a bank wire to get these funds off are they subject to forfeiture?

Why do you have this fantasy that everyone who responds to one of your posts looks like this:

I actually had two years typed at first, but I didn't want anybody to have a heart attack.

30 days to get it out of there. So I'd start now....

This language is similar to the language they use regarding age and location verification, where "BIOMETRICS" and "GPS" is mentioned, but clear reading of the text doesn't actually make either required.

This way the politicians can claim to have voted for something that was much more strict than it actually is.

As to "BETTOR" forfeiture, it would be impossible for a mere player (or any property on the players end of the connection) to be involved in a violation of the crime created by section 103 of this bill - OPERATION OF INTERNET GAMBLING FACILITIES.

So the politicians get to say they voted for a tough anti-gambling law, including player asset forfeiture, but the only asset subject to this CIVIL forfeiture (Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code) is the one the government has probable cause to seize in rem - money touched by the dirty hands of the site.

So to simplify the explanation Skall gave, if the unlicensed site never touched it, it can't be seized. Period.

But those suggesting that it could aren't 'fear mongering', they are simply reading the bill the way Reid/Kyl intended for it to be read by their colleagues - as a complete crackdown on unlicensed internet gambling.

Thanks for trying to explain, Skall, and I get what you are saying, but there is still confusion. The new part says "BETTOR FORFEITURE" and then goes on to describe the forfeiture. So this seems to me that it is not as it was in the past where the site operators were the criminals and we were just operating taxi cabs with a purchased stolen car. Rather, this time it reads as if they are saying we are driving the get away car in your robbery.

Also, you keep focusing on funds on the sites and I don't get that. What does "Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 103..." actually mean? It sure reads to me as if they want any property involved in the transaction, not just online funds, and since the amendment is titled "BETTOR FORFEITURE," it sounds like players are being lumped in with the site operators.

I am not trying to be argumentative, I really want to understand this. When I read it, it reads like the players are now classified as criminals or at least subject to the same type of forfeitures as the sites

If this bill passes cards will be in air on day 451. Never thought I would say this, but you guys are giving the federal government way too little credit here. These regulations will not be that complex or lengthy to produce, plus there's a fail safe in place in case they don't get the regulations done; check out section 104(d)(3). No matter what, regulations will be in place on day 270, leaving the department of commerce 6 months to issue licenses. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but that is plenty of time to get licenses issued.