'Black Friday' and associated fallout megathread

[WVHillbilly]

What are you talking about? Seriously I haven't the slightest clue. Are you drinking?

 

[beantownmaniac]

The only prohibitions in the UIGEA are:

§ 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling
No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling-


Gee if the DOJ wants to really split hairs then they can claim that a Federal Reserve Note is a financial instrument. So no matter what you are dead in the water.

The thing is, the UIGEA doesn't clearly define what unlawful internet gambling is, that's why they make the law to prevent the transfer of money illegal.

 

[beantownmaniac]

i will never be dead in the water

also for the people saying just play live...a lot of players (like me) are under 21 making it difficult to play live with the occasional indian casino thats is like 10hrs for me to get there

Hell, with today's gas prices, not to mention wear and tear on my car, I don't want to have to drive the 1-1/2 hours to Foxwoods casino when I should be able to sit in the comfort of my own home and play. I mean isn't that what the president want, Americans to find ways to reduce the amount of energy, aka gas, we use?

 

[arahel_jazz]

armchair lawyers ITT

Oh, so you get your sheepskin, and now you are quietly philisophical???
ROFLMAO. You need a drink.

 

[OzExorcist]

That paragraph is under DEFINITIONS of a bet or wager. The only prohibitions in the UIGEA are:

§ 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling
No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling-

(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);

(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;

(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any finanvial institution; or

(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction, as the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may jointly prescribe by regulation, which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of such other person.

Bold is mine.

Sorry, but can someone please translate the above into plain English for the stupid Australian?

No matter how many times I read it I can't see how it affects banks at all, given that they're not "engaged in the business of betting or wagering*". All I can see is a prohibition against poker (and other gambling) sites accepting the transactions.

(* obviously we have to ignore the fact that day trading is most definitely a business of placing bets and wagers LOL)

 

[ALL IN CLUBS]

We all knew this would happen sooner or later. Now we wait to see what happens , a month ,6 months or a year who knows how long it will take them to sort this all out, but im sure we will prob get our money back.

 

[Pascal-lf]

Not sure that section is relevant though?

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term 'unlawful Internet gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

So if the thing the bet is made regarding (i.e. online poker) isn't illegal under Federal or State law, it doesn't matter what type of game it is, the UIEGA doesn't apply.

 

[Charade You Are]

No matter how many times I read it I can't see how it affects banks at all, given that they're not "engaged in the business of betting or wagering*". All I can see is a prohibition against poker (and other gambling) sites accepting the transactions.

(* obviously we have to ignore the fact that day trading is most definitely a business of placing bets and wagers LOL)

OMG you're right. BBL have to go read the whole thing - YET AGAIN.

I think trading on stocks and bonds is in the exceptions.

 

[OzExorcist]

I think trading on stocks and bonds is in the exceptions.

ROFL - they seriously had to make that exemption?

 

[Charade You Are]

The original UIGEA did not prohibit banks and financial institutions from accepting or processing transactions from poker sites. It was a joint ruling by the department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.​

In the Governments own words: Bulletin 2009-3 March 9, 2009, The Effect of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 on Wide-Area Progressive Systems and Networked, Multi-Site Bingo Games.​

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), 31 U.S.C.
§§ 5361- 5367; Pub. L. 109-347, Title VIII, § 802(a), does not itself prohibit Internet gaming.​

From the FDIC:​

UIGEA defines a "participant" as "an operator of a designated payment system, a financial transaction provider that is a member of or, has contracted for financial transaction services with, or is otherwise participating in, a designated payment system, or a third-party processor." The term "participant" does not include a participant's customer unless the customer is also a financial transaction provider participating on its own behalf in the designated payment system.

 

[hique0411]

Can anyone tell me how long it will linger.
and if I log into my real money account in the U.S. will have problems too?

 

[dj11]

One would think all Republicans would support 3rd party processors. After all, aren't they really in to promoting privatization?

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), 31 U.S.C.
§§ 5361- 5367; Pub. L. 109-347, Title VIII, § 802(a), does not itself prohibit Internet gaming.​

From the FDIC:​

UIGEA defines a "participant" as "an operator of a designated payment system, a financial transaction provider that is a member of or, has contracted for financial transaction services with, or is otherwise participating in, a designated payment system, or a third-party processor." The term "participant" does not include a participant's customer unless the customer is also a financial transaction provider participating on its own behalf in the designated payment system.

Where did this come from? nvrmnd,,,,,http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035.html

 

[dj11]

AH HA !

The feds forgot a method!

Private couriers carrying cash!

 

[the Styb]

amidst the arguing anyone else notice that fulltiltpoker.com is back up and running?

Because they struck a deal with the DOJ. They promised to keep US players out of cash games and refund our money and they got their site back.

Hate to pop ur bubble WV;

sections 5362, definitions used in the UEGIA

``(D) includes any instructions or information
pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by
the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with
the business of betting or wagering; and...blah blah blah

bold is mine.

Again, as others have pointed out, that paragraph is in the definitions section. It is not a law. It is a definition of betting or wagering intended to clarify that action for the most dense of politicians and lawyers.

Naivety abounds here!!

I think you mean naivté, and yes, you have it in abundance. Unless you meant nativity, in which case you need help.

Here's a link so you can check it out.
HR 4411: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.

Remember that HR4411 is the bill that failed. Parts of it were cannibalized for use in HR4954, the SAFE Port Act, (scroll to the very bottom) which included the language that would become the UIGEA.

Sorry, but can someone please translate the above into plain English for the stupid Australian?

No matter how many times I read it I can't see how it affects banks at all, given that they're not "engaged in the business of betting or wagering*". All I can see is a prohibition against poker (and other gambling) sites accepting the transactions.

(* obviously we have to ignore the fact that day trading is most definitely a business of placing bets and wagers LOL)

Since online poker is not illegal, the Fed decided to attack the payment processes. Pretty much all the listed methods, credit cards, EFT's checks, drafts, etc are all processed by banks. By outlawing these methods, the Fed forced the sites to use third-party processors, which are also outlawed in other parts of the bill. By processing my deposit into Tilt or Stars, the bank becomes "engaged in the business of betting or wagering".

And yes, Day Trading is a huge online gambling adventure, but one which is regulated, taxed and controlled by the US Government, so it's OK.


The UIGEA Board by M Styborski, on Flickr

 

[OzExorcist]

Since online poker is not illegal, the Fed decided to attack the paymnt processes. Pretty much all the listed methods, credit cards, EFT's checks, drafts, etc are all processed by banks. By outlawing these methods, the Fed forced the sites to use third-party processors, which are also outlawed in other parts of the bill. By processing my deposit into Tilt or Stars, the bank becomes "engaged in the business of betting or wagering".

IANAL but terrible wording IMO if that's the intention - you've got to take a very broad definition of "engaged in the business" get that meaning from it.

 

[the Styb]

(1) The ONLY way to get our monies is going to be for the poker sites to beat this in court.

(2) …under an ultimate Libertarian system, someone would own the boulevard your street connects to, and would charge you every time you used it.

(3) Give me Liberty, or give me someone who will give me liberty.

Others have pointed out the flaws in this rambling post so I'll stick to three points.

(1) Unless the sites strike an agreement with the DOJ in which they are allowed to return our money. This happened on Tuesday. While Stars and Tilt are claiming they're looking for a way to refund us, I'm beginning to think that what they're really doing is printing out lists of customer accounts for the IRS. When you get your money, you better make certain you claim it on that 1040A form, kids!

(2) Last time I checked, the city and state in which I live owned not only the boulevard, but my street as well. While I'm not charged every time I use them, I do pay taxes every year for their upkeep.

(3) So, you'd rather place your Liberty in the hands of someone else? Have you tried a politician?

 

[the Styb]

IANAL but terrible wording IMO if that's the intention - you've got to take a very broad definition of "engaged in the business" get that meaning from it.

By processing the payments, they become "engaged" in the business. Not actually "in" the business. It's kind of like prostitution in the old days. When they raided a whorehouse, they took everyone in and charged them with being "engaged in prostitution". The pros, the cashier, the madame, the jazz band and the janitor who changes the sheets and wipes the floors. While the band and janitor aren't turning tricks, (we hope!) they is facilitating others to do so. Or similarly, in any illegal deal where goods are traded, (drugs, stolen merchandise, etc) and a courier is used as a go-between, the courier is "engaged" in the transaction even though he may not be aware of wht he is transporting.

 

[OzExorcist]

OK - but then how does that not also include the players?

 

[the Styb]

OK - but then how does that not also include the players?

Ya got me on that one, but American law usually goes easier on the end-user in certain situations. Prostitutes go to jail, Johns go home, sometimes with a fine. Buying drugs carries a less severe charge than selling them.

I think in this case it boils down to a handful of poker sites and a few hundred tightly controlled banks being easier to prosecute than millions of players. If they were to actually make online poker illegal, the cost of prosecuting players would be so much more than any fines they could recoup, including seized accounts, that they'd go broke in a month.

 

[Stick66]

List of frozen accounts:

http://www.gambling911.com/poker/re...erstars-full-tilt-poker-ubcom-now-042311.html

Someone please tell me how the US Feds have the authority to freeze accounts in switzerland, Luxembourg, germany, etc??

 

[Pascal-lf]

By processing the payments, they become "engaged" in the business. Not actually "in" the business. It's kind of like prostitution in the old days. When they raided a whorehouse, they took everyone in and charged them with being "engaged in prostitution". The pros, the cashier, the madame, the jazz band and the janitor who changes the sheets and wipes the floors. While the band and janitor aren't turning tricks, (we hope!) they is facilitating others to do so. Or similarly, in any illegal deal where goods are traded, (drugs, stolen merchandise, etc) and a courier is used as a go-between, the courier is "engaged" in the transaction even though he may not be aware of wht he is transporting.

As I understand it, the UIEGA makes being engaged with illegal gambling operations to be illegal. Therefore, the gambling operation in question must be outlawed in a separate piece of legislation to the UIEGA, as that does not outlaw any types of gambling operations in itself. And that is where the sites think they are not affected by the UIEGA, because the oft-quoted Wire Act has been held not to apply to online gambling companies and is thus unlikely to apply to online poker providers?

If the DoJ can't prove that online poker providers are illegal companies, then the UIEGA is completely irrelevant.

At least that's how I've understood the law from what I've seen...

 

[OzExorcist]

Someone please tell me how the US Feds have the authority to freeze accounts in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany, etc??

Again IANAL but I'm pretty sure it's allowed for by international anti money laundering agreements.

Remember that the serious charges here are bank fraud and money laundering, not just violating the UIEGA.

 

[Charade You Are]

OK now my head is spinning. Congress makes a law that only prohibits transactions by a business engaged in wagering. And use that law on foreign businesses and corporations to prevent them from serving U.S. customers.

So then, the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, in March of 2009, make a joint ruling that prohibits U.S. financial institutions from engaging in transactions through third party processors that process transactions from these sites and puts the onus on them to KNOW that. Wow. There are some backroom lists going around.

Even lawyers say the UIGEA was a badly written law and didn't really do anything. So apparently the DOJ got the Treasury and Fed to make law for them. So much for separation of powers.

The feds extorted $136 million from neteller and $9 million from ewallet in 2006. $300 million from the co-founder of party gaming in 2008 and $105 million from party gaming in 2009. Apparently party gaming thought it was buying itself a repreive from being banned from the U.S. in the future if the UIGEA is repealed or online gaming allowed. Good luck with that.

 

[OzExorcist]

OK now my head is spinning. Congress makes a law that only prohibits transactions by a business engaged in wagering. And use that law on foreign businesses and corporations to prevent them from serving U.S. customers.

That paragraph is under DEFINITIONS of a bet or wager. The only prohibitions in the UIGEA are:

§ 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling
No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling-

(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);

(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;

(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any finanvial institution; or

(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction, as the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may jointly prescribe by regulation, which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of such other person.

Bold is mine.

Just to finish spinning our heads around, if what we've just discussed above is indeed the correct interpretation of this passage* then I'm not seeing the bit where it's OK for transactions to go one way but not the other. It would seem to me to apply equally to all transactions. Am I missing something?

(* ie: that banks are "engaged in the business of betting and wagering" by facilitating the transactions in the same way that a drug courier or brother band leader is engaged in those respective businesses)

 

[Charade You Are]

Remember that the serious charges here are bank fraud and money laundering, not just violating the UIEGA.

They are serious charges, but the underlying acts were not.

bank fraud/money laundering = "oh, that money was for flowers"

Gimme a break. It's one thing to call it money laundering when its gun runners or terrorists trying to "clean" their money, but my $20 deposit? The money was never "dirty" to begin with.

Take a bad law and try to enforce it using other laws and scary terms and fool the public into thinking - wow these guys are really bad.