'Black Friday' and associated fallout megathread

[PlayedYou73]

You must be very selective with your reading.

Do a google search in the news on this topic and count the number of stories vilifying the "big 3" vs. the number of stories that discuss the need for regulation or how this will push a regulatory agenda... When I typed "'black friday' poker" in the news section of Google, the majority of the articles were pro-legislation to say the least.

It doesn't matter how many stories are on Google covering the subject.
Legislation is created and passed by politicians, and politicians are going to be pretty loathe to get anywhere near this subject while the 'big three' companies are under federal indictment. It's the whole perceived guilt by association thing.
A few days after the indictments were announced, it was announced there were several elected Congressional members that had received campaign contributions from a poker site. (I believe it was Stars). As soon as it was reported, the members returned all the money and distanced themselves from the subject entirely.
Don't get me wrong...I'm all for regulation and legalization. However while the indictments stand, any media attention on the regulation issue is going to be overshadowed by the indictments.
It's also an election year in the USA next year, and combined with the indictments, it just makes online poker a potentially radioactive issue that politicians are more likely to stay away from. (And I understand the whole idea that it could be a great tax generator, but as we all know, rational decision making rarely has a place in politics).

 

[gefishy]

Poker News Daily: Absolute Poker Reaches Agreement with U.S. DOJ
http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/absolute-poker-reaches-agreement-with-u-s-doj-19104

"The active week for Absolute Poker continues. On Tuesday, the member of the CEREUS Network announced that it, along with sister site UB, has come to an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, a preliminary step in hopefully getting frozen funds back into U.S. players’ bank accounts."

I want to get off the roller coaster! But could this be a good sign? I almost hate to even hope.

This agreement focuses solely on unfreezing Absolute's funds so they can pay their players back. If I understand correctly, part of the stipulation was that they removed all of their U.S. operations, which they have done already.

These agreements are similar to the ones that Full Tilt and pokerstars had already announced. Nothing to get too excited about though yet... I wish though.

 

[gefishy]

It doesn't matter how many stories are on Google covering the subject.
Legislation is created and passed by politicians, and politicians are going to be pretty loathe to get anywhere near this subject while the 'big three' companies are under federal indictment. It's the whole perceived guilt by association thing.
A few days after the indictments were announced, it was announced there were several elected Congressional members that had received campaign contributions from a poker site. (I believe it was Stars). As soon as it was reported, the members returned all the money and distanced themselves from the subject entirely.
Don't get me wrong...I'm all for regulation and legalization. However while the indictments stand, any media attention on the regulation issue is going to be overshadowed by the indictments.
It's also an election year in the USA next year, and combined with the indictments, it just makes online poker a potentially radioactive issue that politicians are more likely to stay away from. (And I understand the whole idea that it could be a great tax generator, but as we all know, rational decision making rarely has a place in politics).

Valid point. I still think that any attention in this field is good attention. Though I don't think this will immediately lead to great news in the field of regulated and taxed poker, i think the fact that it is being discussed is very positive.

 

[pokerchris]

Rake is a 'part' of all the financial transactions. ..... The alleged illegal part of all of this is related to the UIGEA. ........
"Rake" could be considered a proceed of crime, since the banks are prohibited from conducting financial transactions under the UIGEA with poker sites, and since the transactions are being "hidden" under a different name, it can be considered tainted then. Coding the transaction differently from what it really is, is a crime in itself, hence the money that is part of it, can be considered dirty.

Rake has absolutely NOTHING to do with financial transactions under the UIGEA, because no US financial institutions are involved in rake collection. "Rake" could NEVER be considered a proceed of crime under the UIGEA because again no US financial institutions are involved in rake collection
Why didn't the DOJ's indictments mention rake? The DOJ is so dumb to see it?
I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about.

 

[OzExorcist]

If I can just clarify something...

If you take the position that online poker has never been illegal in the United States you're taking it because poker is a game of skill, therefore not gambling, and therefore not covered by the UIEGA, right? It's the presumption that poker is a game of skill that stops it from being "illegal internet gambling"? Is there anything else to it?

 

[pokerchris]

If I can just clarify something...

If you take the position that online poker has never been illegal in the United States you're taking it because poker is a game of skill, therefore not gambling, and therefore not covered by the UIEGA, right? It's the presumption that poker is a game of skill that stops it from being "illegal internet gambling"? Is there anything else to it?

The UIEGA uses the phrase "illegal gambling" but it did not define what "illegal gambling" is. There is no federal law which says online poker is illegal.

 

[OzExorcist]

The UIEGA uses the phrase "illegal gambling" but it did not define what "illegal gambling" is. There is no federal law which says online poker is illegal.

But if it were deemed illegal gambling then maybe the money is dirty and the money laundering charges have a good chance to stick, right?

 

[pokerchris]

But if it were deemed illegal gambling then maybe the money is dirty and the money laundering charges have a good chance to stick, right?

If online poker is illegal gambling by federal law, then the US federal government can just simply block the poker sites IPs so that no US players can access it. There is no need for UIEGA and no need for blocking financial transactions.

 

[the Styb]

Sorry Played, Charade and others are correct. You're… living in another world.

Rake has nothing to do with any of this and Charade's initial logic stands. Money laundering specifically targets illegal funds. UIGEA targeted the sites by making it illegal to do business with US banks because the Republican brain trust on Capitol Hill couldn't find a way to make poker illegal and still allow a clear the field for their buddies in the B&M casinos.

 

[OzExorcist]

If online poker is illegal gambling by federal law, then the US federal government can just simply block the poker sites IPs so that no US players can access it. There is no need for UIEGA and no need for blocking financial transactions.

Can they? They've demonstrated that they can take the website away from the whole world but I don't know if they can do it just for Americans - at least not without the input of the sites themselves. I honestly don't know, but I know similar proposals have been put forward in Australia to do this kind of thing without the site's involvement and they've been demonstrated to be 1: costly / difficult to implement and 2: hilariously easy to bypass. Plus the real "problem" with poker sites is that the actual gambling is done on a separate client, not a website.

Anywho, my point is that for whatever reason the US government chose the UIEGA path and if the courts decide to set the precedent that poker is indeed "illegal online gambling" then the money laundering charges really have a chance of sticking. And the DOJ, whatever else they may be, aren't stupid so they'll have thought about this and they obviously like their chances of getting that precedent set.

At the moment, if I'm not mistaken, both sides think their postion is right because a court's never ruled on it either way. Is that correct?

 

[pokerchris]

It's very easy to do. Just google "kentucky block poker sites". Kentucky is a state of US and it had done it before.

Can they? They've demonstrated that they can take the website away from the whole world but I don't know if they can do it just for Americans - at least not without the input of the sites themselves. I honestly don't know, but I know similar proposals have been put forward in Australia to do this kind of thing without the site's involvement and they've been demonstrated to be 1: costly / difficult to implement and 2: hilariously easy to bypass. Plus the real "problem" with poker sites is that the actual gambling is done on a separate client, not a website.

Anywho, my point is that for whatever reason the US government chose the UIEGA path and if the courts decide to set the precedent that poker is indeed "illegal online gambling" then the money laundering charges really have a chance of sticking. And the DOJ, whatever else they may be, aren't stupid so they'll have thought about this and they obviously like their chances of getting that precedent set.

At the moment, if I'm not mistaken, both sides think their postion is right because a court's never ruled on it either way. Is that correct?

 

[OzExorcist]

It's very easy to do. Just google "kentucky block poker sites". Kentucky is a state of US and it had done it before.

Done. Unless I'm reading wrong they tried to wholesale sieze website domains the same as the DOJ did with Stars / Tilt / UB in April. For actual blocking of traffic they relied on the sites themselves to enforce IP bans on players. So again, unless I'm reading it wrong it really isn't that easy for a government to wake up in the morning and decide it's going to block just US traffic to a website unless the site in question helps them to do it.

I did come across an interesting quote from the Kentucky governor at the time though:

"Unlike casinos that operate on land or on riverboats in the United States, these operations pay no tax revenues, provide no jobs and yield no tourism benefits," Beshear said at a Monday afternoon Capitol press conference. "They are leeches on our communities."
​

Note the basis of his objections - they're all about money. Something for those pushing the rights angle to think about.

This is all beside the point though. My main point is that the DOJ isn't stupid and for them to be bringing these kind of charges they obviously believe they're going to come out on top in the "poker = illegal internet gambling" argument. I know poker players have been saying what they do isn't illegal for years but how confident are you about that, really, if the matter goes up for a judge to decide? The DOJ obviously thinks you're drawing thin...

 

[pokerchris]

Read this http://www.aintluck.com/poker-beginners/poker-legal/

Done. Unless I'm reading wrong they tried to wholesale sieze website domains the same as the DOJ did with Stars / Tilt / UB in April. For actual blocking of traffic they relied on the sites themselves to enforce IP bans on players. So again, unless I'm reading it wrong it really isn't that easy for a government to wake up in the morning and decide it's going to block just US traffic to a website unless the site in question helps them to do it.

I did come across an interesting quote from the Kentucky governor at the time though:

"Unlike casinos that operate on land or on riverboats in the United States, these operations pay no tax revenues, provide no jobs and yield no tourism benefits," Beshear said at a Monday afternoon Capitol press conference. "They are leeches on our communities."
​

Note the basis of his objections - they're all about money. Something for those pushing the rights angle to think about.

This is all beside the point though. My main point is that the DOJ isn't stupid and for them to be bringing these kind of charges they obviously believe they're going to come out on top in the "poker = illegal internet gambling" argument. I know poker players have been saying what they do isn't illegal for years but how confident are you about that, really, if the matter goes up for a judge to decide? The DOJ obviously thinks you're drawing thin...

 

[tpb221]

My main point is that the DOJ isn't stupid and for them to be bringing these kind of charges they obviously believe they're going to come out on top in the "poker = illegal internet gambling" argument...

Oz, the charges against the site have nothing to do with poker...i.e...as in there running a illegal gambling ring or such. There being changed with money laundering and assorted crimes. I think the DOJ has avoided anything that says poker is illegal. In the USA gambling is generally considered a state's right and not federal. Hence, it's up to the states if they allow gambling(casinos,lottery's, sweepstakes and such) and not the federal governments responsibility.

 

[OzExorcist]

Read this http://www.aintluck.com/poker-beginners/poker-legal/

Again, done. Though there was really no point reading past this IMO:

"We would like to preface this discussion of online poker legality with a simple statement admitting we do not know 100% whether online poker or Internet gambling is illegal in the US. We are not lawyers or United States congresspersons."​

They're at least admitting what I don't think a lot of other people are - that until the issue goes before a judge and gets settled one way or the other the question of whether or not poker is "illegal internet gambling" isn't 100% settled. We may believe we've got some very strong arguments on our side but that's a long way from being a legal slam dunk.

Instead of posting links to opinion sites or directing me to Google can anyone direct me to the binding legal precedent that says that poker is definitely not "illegal online gambling" in the United States?

Oz, the charges against the site have nothing to do with poker...i.e...as in there running a illegal gambling ring or such. There being changed with money laundering and assorted crimes. I think the DOJ has avoided anything that says poker is illegal. In the USA gambling is generally considered a state's right and not federal. Hence, it's up to the states if they allow gambling(casinos,lottery's, sweepstakes and such) and not the federal governments responsibility.

The money laundering charges pretty much imply that the DOJ thinks online poker is illegal internet gambling - otherwise like someone pointed out before the money woudl be clean and you can't charge someone with laundering clean money...

 

[jaymfc]

can some of the computer pro's start working on an unstoppable internet please . no more censorship period ip addresses blocked and passed only by word of mouth . separate networks .com .poker .pervert . lol no clue how anything really works but sounds fun .
but really if we don't come up with something , someday down the line the gov. will shut us completely off when they need to . headlines read " INTERNET shut down in US during poker riots " .

this is no doubt what motivates DOJ .when this changes then poker will be legal .

"Unlike casinos that operate on land or on riverboats in the United States, these operations pay no tax revenues, provide no jobs and yield no tourism benefits," Beshear said at a Monday afternoon Capitol press conference. "They are leeches on our communities."
​

 

[pokerchris]

can some of the computer pro's start working on an unstoppable internet please . no more censorship period ip addresses blocked and passed only by word of mouth . separate networks .com .poker .pervert . lol no clue how anything really works but sounds fun .
but really if we don't come up with something , someday down the line the gov. will shut us completely off when they need to . headlines read " INTERNET shut down in US during poker riots " .

The Egypt government has done it, that is, shut down internet within Egypt a few months ago. I saw on CNN the US government is very interested how the Egypt government did that and like to set up US internet that way so that the US government can shut down the internet within US when they want to.

 

[dj11]

The money laundering charges pretty much imply that the DOJ thinks online poker is illegal internet gambling - otherwise like someone pointed out before the money woudl be clean and you can't charge someone with laundering clean money...

Not sure the DoJ has to think anything about the legality of OLP. It appears (IANAL) that they think disguising payments in either direction is the issue. And even we must admit that when we got money we were a bit surprised at what it appeared to be for or whom from.

The sites might be able to beat this in court, with a logic along the lines of the law being so fuzzy that any rational human, or lawyer even, could not understand and comply. The joke will be if it was legal all along for the sites to simply send the checks and process the transactions as a normal business. The check I am looking at clearly states it is from PokerStars. But FUD (fear, uncertainty and dread) reign supreme in fuzzy laws. And it seems clear to us on this side of the issue, the sites needed to service their customers, and seemingly had to invent ways to do it. Which is the Capitalist way IMHO.

The thing about the Stars payouts that strikes me odd is that the DoJ seemingly has told them....'OK, for this one time we will allow you to break the law (as the DoJ sees it)".

Something weird about that isn't there?

 

[dmorris68]

The thing about the Stars payouts that strikes me odd is that the DoJ seemingly has told them....'OK, for this one time we will allow you to break the law (as the DoJ sees it)".

Something weird about that isn't there?

Not at all, and this is what folks were trying to get across to you and others who presenting this argument before.

First, it has been pretty well established that UIGEA did not block player withdrawals, only deposits to those organizations engaged in the business of "illegal online gambling."

Second, law enforcement agencies have much discretionary leeway when it comes to enforcing and prosecuting crimes. If they determine it is in the best interests of the public that players be able to receive their funds, it is certainly within their power to allow it. Remember, the DOJ essentially looks at us poor poker players as victims of the evil gambling empires, who preyed on our weaknesses for profit. Seriously, that's how much of the legislation and arguments from the anti-gambling crowd tend to be framed. Nanny state, anyone?

Given those facts alone, I fail to understand any cynicism or doubt as to whether players would ever be allowed to withdraw their funds. It's perfectly logical that the DOJ would allow player withdrawals. I can reasonably assure you that any balking at doing so is coming from the sites themselves, and not the DOJ.

 

[PokerPete]

The Egypt government has done it, that is, shut down internet within Egypt a few months ago. I saw on CNN the US government is very interested how the Egypt government did that and like to set up US internet that way so that the US government can shut down the internet within US when they want to.

..but I'll bet they were real interested in how to take down Egypt's internet at will

The thing about the Stars payouts that strikes me odd is that the DoJ seemingly has told them....'OK, for this one time we will allow you to break the law (as the DoJ sees it)".

Hmmm...what makes more sense: They could seize all the money and keep it. Or they could try to give it back by themselves. Or they could let the players come and get it through their secure accounts....seems to me the best solution is to let the sites allow withdrawals

 

[LarkMarlow]

Has anyone heard news of the impact this is having on the poker magazines? I'm thinking mainly of CardPlayer and Bluff, of course...

Replying to my own post here, with an update. The May 24 CardPlayer arrived today. Maybe I'm naive, but I expected the FBI seize to be on the cover, along with a number of stories covering the broad range impact this is having on the industry.

Instead, there is a photo of Gus Hansen, with the tag "Climbing out of the HIgh Stakes Dungeon". Inside the issue (which has 66 pages as compared to 82 in the May 10 CardPlayer) there is a one page article in small print about the indictment. That's all.

There is only one ad for an online site: cardplayer.com. There are no articles about online play or players.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Replying to my own post here, with an update. The May 24 CardPlayer arrived today. Maybe I'm naive, but I expected the FBI seize to be on the cover, along with a number of stories covering the broad range impact this is having on the industry.

Instead, there is a photo of Gus Hansen, with the tag "Climbing out of the HIgh Stakes Dungeon". Inside the issue (which has 66 pages as compared to 82 in the May 10 CardPlayer) there is a one page article in small print about the indictment. That's all.

There is only one ad for an online site: cardplayer.com. There are no articles about online play or players.

I briefly thumbed through 'bluff' & same sort of thing.

 

[OzExorcist]

Replying to my own post here, with an update. The May 24 CardPlayer arrived today. Maybe I'm naive, but I expected the FBI seize to be on the cover, along with a number of stories covering the broad range impact this is having on the industry.

Instead, there is a photo of Gus Hansen, with the tag "Climbing out of the HIgh Stakes Dungeon". Inside the issue (which has 66 pages as compared to 82 in the May 10 CardPlayer) there is a one page article in small print about the indictment. That's all.

There is only one ad for an online site: cardplayer.com. There are no articles about online play or players.

Content-wise it's possible that they're deliberately avoiding the issue but it's also possible (and more likely IMO) that they didn't have time to write anything longer than the small article - print magazine lead times are pretty long so for you to be getting the magazine now it probably had to be locked off for printing two or three weeks ago. Pulling something out (like ads) is one thing but writing something new then finding somewhere in the layout to put it is another entirely.

 

[tpb221]

The thing about the Stars payouts that strikes me odd is that the DoJ seemingly has told them....'OK, for this one time we will allow you to break the law (as the DoJ sees it)".

Something weird about that isn't there?

No, not really. To give you a example. In the state of PA it is not illegal to make a bet with a bookie, though it is illegal for the bookie to take/make the bet. poker stars was holding people's money, that money was the players not porker stars so it should be returned to the players. As I stated before, the DOJ busted them on money laundrying charges because the tried to hide were it was coming from/going to, not for running a illegal gambling ring.(though who knows that might change).

 

[tpb221]

I'll try this again

Instead of posting links to opinion sites or directing me to Google can anyone direct me to the binding legal precedent that says that poker is definitely not "illegal online gambling" in the United States?


There is none. They have not had any precedent yet. Washington D.C. just pass a law allowing it and other states are considering it. As I said it's a state right not a federal right. This is why the federal law was written vague and only applied to banks which are under the federal government.

The money laundering charges pretty much imply that the DOJ thinks online poker is illegal internet gambling - otherwise like someone pointed out before the money woudl be clean and you can't charge someone with laundering clean money

The DOJ has said they were hiding/tricking the banks into thinking this money was coming from somewhere else and not a poker site. Hiding where money is comming from and where it's going is consider money laundering even if the money was gotten by legal means.

...