US votes yes to ban internet gambling!!

Scotty #

http://news.com.com/House+votes+yes+on+Net-gambling+crackdown/2100-1030_3-6092852.html

Library of Congress wrote:

Sec. 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 financial 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.

Library of Congress wrote:

Sec. 5366. Criminal penalties

(a) In General- Whoever violates section 5363 shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Permanent Injunction- Upon conviction of a person under this section, the court may enter a permanent injunction enjoining such person from placing, receiving, or otherwise making bets or wagers or sending, receiving, or inviting information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers.

Sec. 5367. Circumventions prohibited

Notwithstanding section 5362(2), a financial transaction provider, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service, may be liable under this subchapter if such person has actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers, and--

(1) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; or

(2) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made.

UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2006

ChipLdr

Ok after taking a quick glance it is ok to still back Horse racing on the Internet but not play poker e.t.c.

This is an absolute disgrace.

Scotty #

Aren't you glad now you didn't spend all that profit on shares in Party!!

It's still legal to gamble it seems. Just illegal for anyone to put money in your account.

Lafortezza

So (from the other thread) does this mean it'll be August before a final decision is made and there will be any impact on poker sites?

jtsuited

oh good jesus. So will this effect the big guaranteed wsop guaranteed satellites on stars and full tilt this weekend.
Slightly OT: reggie and I were talking about some disaster that could happen that would somehow prevent US players from playing thus causing a massive overlay.

I'm sure it won't make any difference whatsoever to this weekend's proceedings however.

Any U.S Law experts have any idea how this goes from here: Senate etc?

This could be absolutely mental!!!

carrigeen

jtsuited wrote:

oh good jesus. So will this effect the big guaranteed wsop guaranteed satellites on stars and full tilt this weekend.
Slightly OT: reggie and I were talking about some disaster that could happen that would somehow prevent US players from playing thus causing a massive overlay.

I'm sure it won't make any difference whatsoever to this weekend's proceedings however.

Any U.S Law experts have any idea how this goes from here: Senate etc?

This could be absolutely mental!!!

iT now goes to senate and has to be passed by october I think, this is highly unlikely as they dont sit in August so most likely the bill will fall and its back to scratch they have to start from the beginning in jan should be ok til then

Scotty #

jtsuited wrote:

Any U.S Law experts have any idea how this goes from here: Senate etc?

This could be absolutely mental!!!

Today it was passed in the House of Representatives, It has to be passed in The Senate (next step) to become law.

Bloomberg News wrote:

The Bush administration supports the House legislation, as do U.S. professional sports leagues, including Major League Baseball and the National Football League, U.S. financial- services firms and 48 of 50 state attorneys general, Leach said.

jtsuited

nice reply.
If it gets passed, we can say goodbye fishies.
On the other hand. It could cause a massive uproar creating heaploads of publicity, not get passed, and then loads of fishies decide to see what all the hype is about, and then we're laughing!!!

Ste05

My understanding of it is, that, it now goes to a Committee in the Senate where they look at the Bill and make changes etc. (but they have to keep it basically in-line with the Bill passed by the House). It then needs to pass a similar Vote in the Senate, if it passes there, Bush signs it and it becomes Law, effectively Killing Internet Poker. There can then be Court challenges to the Constitutionality of it, etc., but that'll take 2-3 years, by which time it'll be too late.

The only hope now is it gets caught up in the Committee stage of the Senate and doesn't get called up for a vote in time, (I think this is Oct'ish) or dies there,

This is hugely bad for Internet Poker IMO, with no US fish playing, they won't bother jumping through all the loops that I'm sure will crop up to circumnavigate this legislation, and I can't see there being enough European Fish to feed all the sharks. Hence the end of Internet Poker...

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, (and I really hope I am) because I'm not completely knowledgeable about US Constitutional/Legislative procedures....

EDIT: But it won't have any effect at all for a couple of months at worst....

MadsL

On the upside, an end to muppet outdraws? Maybe not.

hotspur

This probably isn't going to make through the Senate, the American Gaming Association is no longer in favour of prohibition of online gambling and they are powerful in the Senate.

Anyway online poker has always been illegal in America, it would just mean more Neteller type firms making a killing. You really think *anything* can stop that amount of people who actively want a product or service?

karlh

there are plenty of eurofish.

wayfarer

and canadian-fish!

DeVore

not to mention the home grown variety

I dunno how relevant this is but poker *has* been classed as a game of skill in the US.

DeV.

Nalced_irl

jtsuited wrote:

On the other hand. It could cause a massive uproar creating heaploads of publicity, not get passed, and then loads of fishies decide to see what all the hype is about, and then we're laughing!!!

I like your way of thinking I cant see it going through but you`d never know. If it does, im sure there will be some loophole found that allows them to play. Or like Partypoker, they may just completely ignore the rule and accept US customers

BrokenArrows

may god have mercy on us all. lol.:mad:

Culchie

wayfarer wrote:

and canadian-fish!

'Canadian' is the new substitute for Cod.

mewso

Has anyone opened a book on whether it will pass?

I know groan etc.

luckylucky

karlh wrote:

there are plenty of eurofish.

Defo - Yeah the USA provided plenty of fish but let's be fair there are plenty of top players from there too.

From what I've seen online the french are probably the biggest fish and the south americans are not far behind them, and let's be honest here there are plenty of decent irish players but jeez when our lot suck do they suck big time!

Now wouldn't it be great if they banned online gambling in Scanadanavia:)
respect where it's due after all!

One thing of which I think e.one can agree on though in regards to USA players being banned.... let's put it this way ahem- If I had shares in arse-holes in online poker I'd be very frightened right now

fixer

online gambling has been mostly illegal in the US for years. All this bill does is adds the ability to enforce it thru the banks & credit card companies. Neteller will still be fine, as it's not US based (just like all the poker sites). A lot of US-based credit card companies already block transactions to online gaming sites, so nothing is really too new here.

Wait until they start holding ISP's responsible to monitor & block this traffic, then the **** will hit the fan.

Scotty #

It hasn't effected share price anyway. Partygaming went up 4% yesterday.

sendic

From cardplayer.com



published on: Wednesday Jul 12, 2006
CardPlayer.com Explains Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
Amended Bill Doesn't Mention Online Poker Players
Confusion in the Press

There seems to be some confusion in the press regarding what bill just passed in Congress. It has been reported that the “Goodlatte” bill passed in the House. Actually what is referred to as the Goodlatte Bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, is H.R. 4777, which was fraught with problems previously reported by CardPlayer. Click here for that article. The common name of that bill was the “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.”

Another milder bill was introduced by Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican. That bill, commonly known as the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” is H.R. 4411, which basically prohibits credit card companies and financial institutions from sending payment to gaming sites.

The bill that passed was an amended version of H.R. 4411, which is the Leach bill that added some of Goodlatte’s proposals. Before this bill becomes law, it must pass both the House and the Senate. Currently, there is no commensurate bill pending in the Senate.

Poker Players Are Not at Risk

The first thing to note is that the bill does not prohibit a poker enthusiast from playing online poker. One Democrat introduced such an amendment to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the bill, but the amendment failed. There is no mention of the poker player in the bill nor any penalty associated with playing poker.

H.R. 4411

After almost four hours of debate, the bill passed by a vote of 317-93. In a nutshell, here’s the meat of the statute and the predictable problems associated with each section of the bill.

Online gaming sites are prohibited from accepting payment from a United States financial institution. Since all online sites are outside of the United States, our government has no jurisdiction to enforce this part of the law. Simply stated, the United States cannot make laws or enforce laws regarding business outside the United States.

Financial institutions are forbidden from delivering funds to online gaming sites. However, most banks and credit card companies already refuse to send money to offshore sites. Therefore, offshore third-party companies have already been set in motion to handle United States financial transactions.

The amended 1961 Wire Act modernizes its language by including the Internet and prohibiting games “predominantly subject to chance.” This will be the start of expensive and time-consuming litigation regarding whether poker is predominantly a game of skill or chance.

A burden is placed upon Internet service providers and other technology providers to block access to online gambling sites when requested to do so by a law enforcement agency. This will prove to be an unenforceable nightmare for all involved.

The bill directs the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to issue regulations outlining policies and procedures that could be used by financial institutions to identify and block gambling-related transactions that are transmitted through their payment systems. If the bill ever becomes law, these entities have 270 days to write such procedures. The implementation is mind boggling.

The bill contains carve-outs for such things as lotteries, horse racing, and the stock market. Every opponent of the bill criticizes the bill because, while it attempts to legislate morality, it prohibits only certain forms of gambling while allowing others.

As a matter of fact, although the proponents of the bill say that online gaming is destroying the moral fiber of society, the bill allows a state to house an online gaming site for its citizens.

Political Motivation

The bill was clearly politically motivated by Republicans who are worried about losing control in the House after the November election. Last month, House Republican leaders announced that this bill would be part of a 10-part “American Values Agenda,” which consists of 10 unrelated pieces of legislation, including a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, tax cuts, a flag burning law, and extensive restrictions on stem cell research.

Furthermore, this is a way our legislators can separate themselves from the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who lobbied against previous versions of this bill using bribes, fraud, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist in the bill’s defeat.

The Future Players

As I see it, there are a number of players and organizations to be watching in the near future. Although Senate leaders have not identified the bill as a top priority, Arizona Republican Jon Kyl has pledged to pursue a similar bill in the Senate.

Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the American Gaming Association president, recently announced that the AGA supports a study of the feasibility of regulating online gaming.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget said that although it supports the House’s vote, it has concerns about the bill.

Sam Vallandingham, vice president for the First State Bank in West Virginia has said, “Our concern is that the added burden of monitoring all payment transactions for the taint of Internet gambling will drain finite resources currently engaged in complying with anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering regulations, and daily operation of our bank.”

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, continue to vocally oppose the bill: “Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, and it won’t work for gambling,” Frank said. Paul agreed, adding, “the only thing (prohibition) does is increase the price.”

U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nevada, offered an amendment that would have eliminated what she called the “hypocritical exemption” by completely banning all forms of Internet gambling. It failed by a vote of 114-297.

My favorite Representative, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, also offered such an amendment. He called all the exceptions and carve-outs “loopholes as big as a barn door.”

The Poker Players Alliance is another group to be watched. Reuters reported that regulating Internet poker instead of banning it could bring the U.S. government $3.3 billion in taxes annually, according to a study by the Poker Players Alliance. Income taxes on winnings from Internet poker alone — which is estimated to have attracted $60 billion in wagers worldwide in 2005 — could amount to $2.5 billion each year. The study also said that a 1 percent user fee on online poker transactions would generate another $800 million to $1 billion in revenue per year for the U.S. government.

Finally, Rep. Jim Kasper from North Dakota should be watched as well. I had the pleasure of speaking with him this morning. He informed me that he was in contact with AGA president Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., discussing possible ramifications of the bill.

Rep Kasper told me: “I intend to draft the Legislation to allow any Internet company located in North Dakota to be able to do business worldwide, not just in North Dakota. If the DOJ or the Congress try to stop us, it is my intention that the state of North Dakota initiate legal proceedings in federal court, to have the courts rule on the Constitutional issues. And, I am looking for input and help from the gaming industry in the drafting of the new bills.” Representative Jim Kasper can be reached at jmkasper@amg-nd.com.

In conclusion, I will reiterate what I have predicted every year for about the last 10 years. My prediction is that no law will pass in 2006 banning online gaming. The attempts are more complicated but no more feasible than they have ever been. Online gaming is a $12 billion a year business that is here to stay. Show your support for the right to play online by going to www.CardPlayer.com/link/savepoker and sending a letter to your Congressional representatives opposing this legislation.

Ste05

Scotty # wrote:

It hasn't effected share price anyway. Partygaming went up 4% yesterday.

Well I'd say the news has already been incorporated into the share price as it's gone down quite substantially since January this year...

I think the analysts were well aware of this Bill and had fully expected it to pass. So they weren't suprised by it.

roryc

All in favour say aye...

Im probably the only boardie 100% in favour of online ''poker'' being banned.... will probably never happen though