17
   

Today the USA killed the online poker industry

 
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 06:50 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
I am a libertarian and just don't think that online poker causes enough societal harm to merit its proscription.

I agree. Likewise for any kind of gambling.

I'm sorry for your loss, Robert. Looks like you'll have to play the derivatives market now. It's definitely more of a game of chance than poker is, but they'll never close it down because the players have the politicians in their pockets.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 07:00 pm
@Butrflynet,
Okay, I'll correct it a little bit.

It sounds like online gambling companies can provide the venues and money processing anytime they wish as long as they don't use US phone systems and technologies within the US to do so and as long as they don't ever visit the US.

It isn't necessarily correct that they don't want competition with the profits of brick and mortar gambling companies in the US because according to your link, there is still no risk on the user/player end. They can place bets anytime and anywhere on the internet.

Here's the risk chart that was at your link:

Quote:
Most Risk

Taking sports bets over U.S. phone lines
Taking bets on a server located in the U.S.

Taking bets on a foreign server, and then visiting the U.S.
Facilitating the transfer of funds to online casinos (payment processors), and then visiting the U.S.

Facilitating the transfer of funds to online casinos (payment processors), whether in the US. or not.

Taking casino / poker bets from U.S. customers on a website outside the U.S.

Helping people make bets on a website

Accepting advertising for Internet gambling, in the major media

Accepting advertising for Internet gambling, smaller media

Buying advertising in a U.S. publication as a casino, poker room, or affiliate

Placing bets yourself on the Internet
Least Risk




It looks to me that our government is doing the opposite of protecting US citizens with Puritan nanny-state regulations in this case. Nothing is stopping citizens from continuing on with their online gambling. It looks to me as if the government is trying to block non-US companies from profiting from the gambling of US citizens and using US infrastructure to do it while not paying anything to the US in the form of business taxes.


Is my understanding of the summary at your link correct?

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 07:00 pm
@JTT,
I've read some more. It's starting to look a lot like the good ole Banana States of America.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 07:44 pm
@Robert Gentel,
So you're not convinced by the money laundering and other ill practice they are accusing the sites of?

(I only had a brief look at the story online, so other than money laundering I am not clear about the charges).

Seems to me that online gambling would be a prime place to manage all sorts of criminal transactions, though.


I have never thought of online poker as an industry before...though you're right, of course, it is.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 07:45 pm
I really haven't followed any of this, but gambling is legal in the US at the federal level, it is only certain states that outlaw certain types of gambling. I'm not sure why anyone passed a ban on electronic gambling in the first place.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 07:48 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

No, I think the absurd part is that gambling is illegal if done over a phone or the internet.

Isn't the government going after criminals a good thing? Well it all depends on what they consider criminals doesn't it?



Are you saying that the only criminal activity alleged is that of using the phone or the internet for gambling and thus illegally getting the money online to do so?

I had thought that there were also allegations that criminals simply found online gambling an even easier way to launder their money than off-line gambling?

I have sympathy with your views about the former, but not about the latter. Bugger the online companies if they were knowingly allowing money laundering...and bugger the off line places as well.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 07:50 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
I am a libertarian and just don't think that online poker causes enough societal harm to merit its proscription.

I agree. Likewise for any kind of gambling.

I'm sorry for your loss, Robert. Looks like you'll have to play the derivatives market now. It's definitely more of a game of chance than poker is, but they'll never close it down because the players have the politicians in their pockets.


Indeed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:01 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

I really haven't followed any of this, but gambling is legal in the US at the federal level, it is only certain states that outlaw certain types of gambling. I'm not sure why anyone passed a ban on electronic gambling in the first place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling#United_States

The language here talks about the dangers of money laundering, but what is unsaid is that there was a large push from the social conservative wing of the Republican party to pass this law, because many of them believe gambling is immoral, and want to ban immoral behaviors. This was compounded by several big Vegas casinos lobbying to have online gambling banned, to protect their status when it comes to betting on sports in the continental US.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:39 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
So you're not convinced by the money laundering and other ill practice they are accusing the sites of?


The money laundering that they are talking about is basically to take bets online but say it's not for betting but for something else.

A 2006 law just went into effect to ban online gaming more explicitly but previously there was just an old law about betting over the wires and wire fraud. The justice department had taken the position that this covered poker while poker sites argued that poker was a game of skill not chance and that it was legal.

In that climate the justice department avoided going after the sites themselves in court but would go after banks and payment processors who were easier to threaten. The poker sites started using different payment processors and instead of saying the charges were for gaming they would say they were for online purchases.

So yes, they are guilty of money laundering in that they continued to operate after the justice department decided it was illegal but they aren't being shut down because of money laundering, that is just a side effect of the attempt to shut down online gaming.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 08:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
How do you do money laundering with a game that is mostly credit card based? Maybe Im just too naive but doesnt a credit card imply "transactional contract"?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:03 pm
@farmerman,
Credit cards aren't allowed to provide payment processing for online gaming. So the sites would process a charge for "online shopping" as an example.

This is what is being called the money laundering. That they were prohibited from operating but continued to under different payment processing schemes.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:14 pm
More info:

http://blogs.forbes.com/nathanvardi/2010/08/17/feds-grab-online-poker-cash/
http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/06/01/will-online-poker-in-the-u-s-stop-today/
http://blogs.forbes.com/nathanvardi/2011/04/15/founders-of-worlds-biggest-online-poker-companies-indicted/
http://blogs.forbes.com/stevenbertoni/2011/04/15/steve-wynn-cuts-ties-with-embattled-online-poker-site-pokerstars/ (links to some interesting articles as well).
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:38 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Credit cards aren't allowed to provide payment processing for online gaming. So the sites would process a charge for "online shopping" as an example.

This is what is being called the money laundering. That they were prohibited from operating but continued to under different payment processing schemes.
A nice lesson for you in how the laws are now written so loosely and interpreted so broadly that just about citizen on any day can be made into a criminal if the state decides that person needs to be stepped on.

Please tell me again how nothing has changed in America over the last decades....
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:48 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
In that climate the justice department avoided going after the sites themselves in court but would go after banks and payment processors who were easier to threaten.


In a rule of law country, a "justice" department doesn't operate on the basis of threats. Something is just not kosher here.


Quote:
The poker sites started using different payment processors and instead of saying the charges were for gaming they would say they were for online purchases.

So yes, they are guilty of money laundering in that they continued to operate after the justice department decided it was illegal but they aren't being shut down because of money laundering, that is just a side effect of the attempt to shut down online gaming.


How is that money laundering?
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
I hear ya, back in the good ole days America wouldn't ever stupidly prohibit something would they?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:53 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
In a rule of law country, a "justice" department doesn't operate on the basis of threats. Something is just not kosher here.


So, you are a comedian tonight I see......
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 09:57 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

I hear ya, back in the good ole days America wouldn't ever stupidly prohibit something would they?
America used to set clear standards, based upon at least a thread of reason, and then execute them without favor or prejudice. That is all gone now......the moral crusaders and the crooks use the law as a hammer on the citizens an alarming amount of the time.....the "law" has been turned into a tool for the thugs, it is no longer the framework for a democracy owned by the people.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 10:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
I see. Well you should probably look for one of those demise of society threads and let them know your concerns cause this one's about recent events in online poker and might not have an audience for that prophet of doom gig.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 10:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
No, I'm being completely serious. Credit card companies don't take kindly to being excluded from making money, least of all on tenuous legal grounds. Where are their lawyers, who also don't shy from taking on dubious legal grounds to fill their pockets.

Something about all this seems really screwy.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 10:19 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Something about all this seems really screwy.
I think what happened is that Bush had no interest in taking these guys down, and it has taken Team Obama this long to getting around to inventing new law to stomp on them with.

The lawyers have been getting paid all along, so I dont know what you are talking about there...
 

Related Topics

Poker Celebration - Discussion by Nick Ashley
Poker game of skill, not chance, NY judge rules - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
POKER!!! - Discussion by OGIONIK
I can't win unless I am willing to lose. - Discussion by maxdancona
i started playing poker again.... - Discussion by og617m4ch1ne
poker Hands - Question by 5112ap
How much would you tip a poker dealer? - Discussion by ebrown p
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:41:17