Overview of the United States Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

ive written an article on the usa gambling bill

the article can be found here

Please feel free to comment on the article in this thread
(im happy to add more links/resources to the article if needs be)

__________________
Texas Holdem Resources : Hand Rankings Terminology Pre Flop Odds Odds Chart
Poker Odds Calculator - Find out if you were right to make that call!

You know what I think?
The government is just pissed that they can't regulate it and make money off of it.

This is stupid.
I'm sorry, fonz, but you wanted opinions.. this is just my opinion. This entire thing is stupid.

There is a lot of confusion as to what exactly this bill means. First and foremost, it does not define illegal internet gambling. It states that it makes it illegal to transfer funds to a site that engages in illegal gambling as defined by state and federal law. The fact is, there are few laws regarding internet gambling. Washington state has a law that makes gambling online a class C felony punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and up to five years imprisonment. This is the same type of crime and punishment that is defined by Washington for some degrees of rape and child molestation. So someone playing $.01/$.02 poker online is considered by the state of Washington to be as much a criminal as some child molestors. Most states, however, have no laws regarding internet gambling. A few states consider it a misdemeanor offense. Nevada was one of the first states to enact legislation covering internet gambling, undoubtedly to protect their land based casinos.

So since this act does not attempt to further define illegal gambling and most states don't have any such definition, then this law really has no applicability in most areas of the US.

__________________
Nobody is always a winner, and anybody who says he is, is either a liar or doesn't play poker. -- Amarillo Slim

You say how could I make that call? How could you make that bet? We're playing poker, not solitaire. -- Doyle Brunson

What Grumbar has said seems like something that should be forwarded to all sorts of places, sundry authorities and the poker rooms for starters.

The proceeds of any other form of financial transaction as the secretary of treasury may precrscribe by regulations which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of the other person,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years.

Does that mean that once this is signed the secretary of treasury can outlaw anything else he sees fit?Basically shuttting everthing down?

Liked that video of the Democrat from Nevada,she pretty much summed it up.

The other video had a sad story in it about what gambling did to an elderly lady Im sorry to hear.(Was it true ?They picked the most helpless defenseless person any one could imagine)

Ive gambled since was 12 or so.Never had more than 2k in the bank and Im 38.Once I found online poker it saved me and taught me control,now I have a bank account.Its not from the money I made online its from the change it made in me.
On a side note my brother was the same way,he gambles online on horses now,unlimited tracks,but he doesnt lose or spend near what he did.Online for us has had a positive effect

__________________

Just to clarify Grumbar just because a state has not enacted a law specifically to deal with internet gambling does not mean that it is legal. Prexisting laws relating to gambling apply to the internet so it is quite conceivable that gambling online in some states of america is actually against the law already. There is a degree of ambiguity due to applying old laws in radically different ways but there is a good chance that people gambling in certain states of the USA are doing it against the law.

It is highly unlikely that prosecutors in the USA would take action against millions of people but the fact that we have this Act and the prosecution of the Sporting Odds man within a short space of time is indicative of a possible turn of the tide in the way that online gambling is treated.

It was a while before the Napsters of this world were attacked (due to copyright infringements) and it is just possible that online poker is next. It is true that the mass panic that is happening is TOTALLLY OTT this legislation is not too significant (aside from not being in force for a good while yet) other than making some providers feel they have to leave the US market due in no small part to the extreme protectionist policies that this Act does enact.

Just to put it in context -someone with 2k or so in online accounts is pretty safe but say that in a state it is believed that online gaming is actually illegal. Lets say a pro has made 100,000$ through online play. That could well count as confiscatable earnings etc so that could well be worth prosecutors time.

I will say this much , The IGPA Infringes Upon the Right to Free Speech

The first step is to determine if the law in question, the IGPA, infringes upon any right. The answer is yes. The IGPA restricts the publishing ability of web sites. The Court in ACLU v. Reno held that the Internet was similar to print publication, and therefore was entitled to First Amendment protections.

The Right to Free Speech is a Fundamental Right and Therefore Requires Strict Scrutiny
The second step is determining if the rights in question are fundamental, thus requiring strict scrutiny. There is no doubt the law has the effect of censoring a web site owner's right of free speech and freedom of the press. The IGPA provides for the total blocking of all content on the Internet that concerns Internet gambling. The Supreme Court in ACLU v. Reno stated the publishing over the Internet is a fundamental right which should not be restricted. Because Internet gambling web sites contain more information than merely illegal gambling, they are publications. The effect of the IGPA is to infringe upon the rights of the owners of web pages to publish. Therefore, there is a fundamental right to free speech and to publish over the Internet. The IGPA should therefore be subject to strict scrutiny.

You are correct Ben, the legality of online gambling has been questionable for some time. And it hasn't been tested in the courts yet. The two sports book CEO's that were arrested were arrested under the Wire Act. That act specifically applies to wagering on sporting events, not engaging in games of chance. It was enacted to provide a means to combat organized crime. Attempts have been made to modify that act to cover internet gambling, and they have not passed.

What I'm saying is that this bill that did pass does not make it any more legal or illegal to gamble on the internet. The federal government has typically left the determination of gambling laws up to individual states. Every state with the exception of Utah and Hawaii have some form of gambling legalized, casinos, lotteries, horse racing, bingo, etc.

In order to prosecute an individual for gambling on the internet, it would require that the prosecution be able to prove precisely which computer was connected to the gambling site and the exact date and time of the alleged offense. With all gambling sites being off shore, obtaining cooperation from those entities to turn over there records would be highly unlikely. Further, they would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who was at the computer when the alleged offense took place. This would require that the alleged act was witnessed. So even if you won hundreds of thousands of dollars online, getting prosecuted for gambling online is unlikely. Getting the money out of the site and to your bank will raise some questions about the source of those monies, but prosecution even after an investigation is doubtful.

__________________
Nobody is always a winner, and anybody who says he is, is either a liar or doesn't play poker. -- Amarillo Slim

You say how could I make that call? How could you make that bet? We're playing poker, not solitaire. -- Doyle Brunson

As much as everyone can point at the law's ambiguity and say it doesn't mean much, yada yada yada - Poker rooms are still pulling out of the US, Neteller's stock price on the London Exchange fell 66% the day the bill passed, and now Firepay is not going to allow transfer of funds to Pokersites (the way I figured everyone would get around the new bill, well, not so).

Even if you can't be prosecuted for playing online, getting the money online in the first place is soon to become a real hassle. What should I do, start writing checks to Pokerstars? Haha

__________________
Steven ["Toothlus"] Vorholt