Is this true?

[Stu_Ungar]

That's what I've been trying to work out. According to everything I've read, the closest I could find was that the DoJ said that it "may" apply to online poker and everyone panicked.

5th Court of Appeals in Lousiana said it didn't apply to online gambling company, and the words of the 1961 Wire Act talk about sporting events.

Its not rocket science.

The pokersites have a lot of money.

They took legal advice and were obviously told that UIEGA could be a problem for their business. They then structured their payment processes in such a way as to try and avoid that problem.

They obviously felt that they were far more likely to get busted on UIEGA charges than on being found out for running dummy companies.

 

[Pascal-lf]

FTP were granted an Alderney license after proving to the board that their operations were entirely legal...

 

[Stu_Ungar]

FTP were granted an Alderney license after proving to the board that their operations were entirely legal...

Im lost, Alderney is in the Channel Islands.

Whats that got to do with payment processes within the US?

 

[Pascal-lf]

Because if they were an "illegal gambling company" within the US then their operating wouldn't have been entirely legal?

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Because if they were an "illegal gambling company" within the US then their operating wouldn't have been entirely legal?

Where is the ruling that states their activitys were legal in the US?

There isnt one, there has been no test case.

So arguments can be made both for and against the legality.

 

[Pascal-lf]

There haven't been any, but given it was held that online gambling companies don't fall under the Wire Act I think there is a decent precedent for poker companies to not do so either.

Arguments can be made for and against anything in a court of law, it's about which comes out on top on balance of probabilities.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

There haven't been any, but given it was held that online gambling companies don't fall under the Wire Act I think there is a decent precedent for poker companies to not do so either.

Arguments can be made for and against anything in a court of law, it's about which comes out on top on balance of probabilities.

Last time I checked Alderney wasnt subject to US law and the US didnt have to take into account decisions made in the Channel Islands when deciding how to interperate their own laws.

So whilst the legality is uncertain its entirely feasible that Alderney issued a licence yet the US considered it illegal.

 

[Pascal-lf]

5th Court of Appeals in Lousiana said it didn't apply to online gambling company, and the words of the 1961 Wire Act talk about sporting events.

I'm talking about US laws and US decisions here.

A statement from Alderney Gambling Control Commission:

AGCC notes that its licensee, trading as Full Tilt Poker, denies all of the allegations. Upon the grant of its licence Full Tilt Poker identified that it had obtained specific legal advice relating to its proposed activities. AGCC is concerned that appropriation of Full Tilt Poker’s dotcom site is hampering and potentially adversely affecting its lawful operation elsewhere in the world. AGCC remains committed to providing a well regulated lawful environment for worldwide eGambling based in Alderney.”

Read more: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2011/...-releases-statement-full-tilt-poker-10248.htm

​

Why might you need a license?

So, if you effect gambling transactions remotely from a server or servers based in Alderney or Guernsey, you must hold a licence from the AGCC and you must locate your gaming servers in a hosting centre approved by AGCC.

I doubt Alderney would grant one of their companies a license which it knew would break the law in America by providing a service; I imagine that would cause them a ton of problems.

Not sure Alderney is really relevant here regardless, just trying to make the above point; that lawyers must have presented a convincing argument to the Alderney board that their US operations were not illegal.

 

[Egon Towst]

I agree with Pascal that it seems highly unlikely that FTP could be convicted of doing anything illegal in terms of hosting poker games for US players. It`s very doubtful whether that is prevented by legislation such as the Wire Act and UIGEA.

In any case, the WTO have ruled that UIGEA is in contravention of world trade treaties and should not be used to prevent legitimate foreign operators from offering a service to US citizens. The US government has paid damages to foreign complainants because of that ruling (which they seem to have kept very quiet).

Also, the Channel Islands is essentially an appendix to the UK and is a fully regulated environment. Government agencies there certainly don`t knowingly license businesses to carry on criminal activities from their territory.

Where FTP do seem to have created a genuine legal problem for themselves is not in the provision of poker games but in the highly irregular arrangements they seem to have adopted for banking and for making payments and receipts.

 

[Nexus6]

I don't really get the point of what your saying.

If they had no need to set up dummy companies in order to process payments, then why did they set up dummy companies to process payments?

I was not trying to make a point. I just stated a small part that was in that video. I was just sharing this with you to get your feed back about what they where saying. It seems like they are not saying the same thing's that the poker community are saying about the government. Usually the media is not afraid to say negative things about the government. So I guess they just don't know. Anyway just sharing that video.

Again not trying to make any point to you. This is tough talking here lots of people here on defensive tilt lol. I shared with you the video cause you seemed open minded and thoughtful.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

@Pascal, Egon & Nexus

I dont think any of you are taking into account there has been no test case.

It may very well be that FTs activities were 100% legal, however that dosent prevent some US government agency freezing all of FTs activities under UIGEA.

Then the whole matter has to be sorted out in court, which is a lengthy process.

My feeling is that the pokersites were attempting to avoid detection of their payment processors until such time as there was no legal ambiguity.

This is why I keep questioning sources like videos of people saying they dont think its enforceable / covers online poker. Until there has been a test case, no one really knows. Not one of their opinins takes prescience over a test case.

A test case defines the interpenetration of the scope of a law. No test case = no practical understanding of the scope of a law.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

So Stu I was watching the news and the Wynn said it would be impossible to regulate the online poker sites.

Check it out.

YouTube - Rep. Barney Frank Introduces Legislation to License, Regulate US Internet Poker

Wynn is stupid. If it wasn't for online poker, i probably never would have gone to Vegas and I did spend a shitload of money there - luckily paid for by the fishes at my tables.

 

[Pascal-lf]

@Pascal, Egon & Nexus

I dont think any of you are taking into account there has been no test case.

It may very well be that FTs activities were 100% legal, however that dosent prevent some US government agency freezing all of FTs activities under UIGEA.

Then the whole matter has to be sorted out in court, which is a lengthy process.

My feeling is that the pokersites were attempting to avoid detection of their payment processors until such time as there was no legal ambiguity.

This is why I keep questioning sources like videos of people saying they dont think its enforceable / covers online poker. Until there has been a test case, no one really knows. Not one of their opinins takes prescience over a test case.

A test case defines the interpenetration of the scope of a law. No test case = no practical understanding of the scope of a law.

Often in law there won't be a perfect test case, ever. You have to apply previous cases which are likely to apply, and there has been one such one - http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions\pub\01/01-30389.cv0.wpd.pdf

"Because the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports internet gambling, any debts incurred in connection with such gambling are not illegal."

 

[Nexus6]

Often in law there won't be a perfect test case, ever. You have to apply previous cases which are likely to apply, and there has been one such one - http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions\pub\01/01-30389.cv0.wpd.pdf

"Because the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports internet gambling, any debts incurred in connection with such gambling are not illegal."

@Pascal, Egon & Nexus

I dont think any of you are taking into account there has been no test case.

It may very well be that FTs activities were 100% legal, however that dosent prevent some US government agency freezing all of FTs activities under UIGEA.

Then the whole matter has to be sorted out in court, which is a lengthy process.

My feeling is that the pokersites were attempting to avoid detection of their payment processors until such time as there was no legal ambiguity.

This is why I keep questioning sources like videos of people saying they dont think its enforceable / covers online poker. Until there has been a test case, no one really knows. Not one of their opinins takes prescience over a test case.

A test case defines the interpenetration of the scope of a law. No test case = no practical understanding of the scope of a law.

I hear ya Stu and Pascal thanks for posting the Great stuff Stu and Pascal I enjoyed reading, "mastercard INTERNATIONAL INC. INTERNET GAMBLING LITIGATION" that was a very cool read !