UB/ AP Bankruptcy?

The problem I see is that online poker is explicitly illegal in a number of states in the US (e.g. - Washington, Illinois, Iowa). Similar to handicapping horse racing under the Wire Act, in these states it does not matter whether poker is a skill-based activity. If the sites allowed players from those states to play, I can't see how they avoid (at a minimum) the money laundering charges short of showing those state anti-online poker laws are invalid. Further (and more broadly), I think the Feds can easily back door the money laundering/structuring charges via those winning online players that did not declare income from poker.

Tss, it's not at all clear to me, "According to the Supreme Court in Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000), an actual monetary loss represents a threshold consideration in determining whether an individual or entity defrauded, or attempted to defraud, a victim. In short, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is obligated to demonstrate that the poker sites not only intended to dupe the financial institutions but deprive them of property – or more plainly, money."

Having them send money they were a custodian of to a poker site, which they (if they had known) would not have sent money to, could certainly meet this definition. I'm not saying there are no defense arguments, but the DOJ likely thinks they have a strong case.

The bank fraud charges can hold up even if internet gambling is not illegal. Again they're being accused of defrauded FDIC insured banks, the ones we use all the time. They are alleging they lied to those banks to get them to process payments they otherwise wouldn't have processed.

Certainly none of this is clear. If it were all clear, all the [obvious overdubbing voice] spit [/obvious overdubbing voice] would be cleared up and we'd be on with our lives. The fact in itself that it isn't clear is kinda indicative of how messed up our government is. I listened to Holder's entire testimony before congress and listened to him whine how they didn't have enough resources and so they had to choose which issues to pursue and his offices utmost commitment in choosing what to pursue was to protect american citizens. I listened to him laugh - [obvious overdubbing voice] flocking [/obvious overdubbing voice] laugh as he said he'd answer every question a house member asked him except whether poker was a game of skill. Let the bankers that bankrupted us and human traffickers and drug dealers and Wachovia freaking bank laundering money for drug dealers off easy (a small fraction of what they are fining the poker sites for) or go unpursued and prosecuted so you can go after people that maybe 10% of americans at most want gone after / have any problem with in the poker site operators (probably so american campaign contributors, I mean companies, can get in on an advanced footing at expense of the American citizens.

But hell, if the rumors are true it is so MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than that. I forget the name of the gentleman off the top of my head, but if it is true then the government's top witness and informant if a gentleman that stole 100's of millions of dollars from the poker sites and poker players in running the payment processors. This scum of a human being that actually stole millions of US citizens dollars gets set free so that the people that are harming no one and paid for this gentleman's theft and made sure the US citizens were paid are being persecuted? Aren't we letting the murderer go free for turning evidence on a shoplifter.

Ah hell... Now all this [obvious overdubbing voice] spit [/obvious overdubbing voice] is in my head. I need to go back and find the clearer information on this guy to verify if what I said above is right...

Here's the article on the thief we let go free to go after the poker sites instead. http://www.businessinsider.com/boy-genius-online-poker-scandal-2011-4
So we let legitimate thieves go free to prey upon people who were at worst operating in the grey area of the law.

Mike, I can't speak for every instance / state, but I know for example as soon as things were made illegal in Washington State, the sites stopped people from playing there. As best I can tell, they tried to stay on the legitimate side of the law.

I have not read any of the blogs or articles nor have I read the UIGEA law .. but my understanding is that the US government made it illegal to transfer funds to and from offshore gambling sites. Of which they included poker specific web sites.

Then isnt the fraud against the US government for trying to skirt this law? Even to the extent of buying up a US bank when they knew it entailed transfering funds that were explicity excluded. thats also money laundering I think as well.

h

No offense, tss, but no lawyer with 2 brain cells to rub together will make that argument and risk being laughed out of court. I understand that you are struggling to find anything illegal about what was done (including bank fraud and money laundering), but things are not looking good for the U.S.-based folks who view Internet poker as their "right."

No offense Nighthawk, but everyone from lawyers to congressmen ARE making that argument. Not quite so simply as my addled brain made it at 4 am, but everyone is arguing the gambling bit on the skill line including the sites themselves and thus is not in violation of UIGEA.

End of story is i'm not qualified to make any argument here (according to a court room, anyway) and I AM SURE there are lots of arguments being made behind the scenes to try to resolve this thing. I just wish I could see them and know the status of progress.

And finally, I would say that things ARE looking good for US based folks looking to play poker. This move is most likely a money grab to shut down the popular sites and get people's money off of them so US based companies can open up sites and grab the market share. But anyway you look at it, the momentum is in place to legalize poker.

Who it doesn't look good for are people who relied on internet poker to pay their bills. Apparently those citizens aren't as important as the big conglomerates.

I'm agree with TSS that as a skill game, the UIEGA should not apply to online poker.

I'd even go further and argue that in all states other than UT and HI state laws against any kind of online gambling are themselves illegal restraints of free trade and in violation of US treaty law. On this I am supported by the World Trade Court and, well, the US Constitution (Federal laws > state laws FTW).

Maybe I only have one brain cell left, but I assure you it is quite edumacated.