The Poker Carveout
In my last post about the futility of the PPA proposed carveout one of the comments was
I think at one time the online poker industry could have done that without a carveout.
But I think that most of the online poker industry really wanted poker to be considered illegal online to at least create the appearance of a barrier to entry. I'm not sure about that but I think that's at least partially true.
Today, I don't think so.
And, even if it did get a carveout and then convince banks it was okay to fund the poker sites (at this point I'm not so sure banks won't block them even if there is a carveout), it would create an implication in a statute that poker online was an illegal activity covered by the wire act. That would not be good in the long run.
One thing you might not be aware of is that banks have recently gotten multimillion dollar finds for money laundering for things clients do, not things they do. So they won't really want to climb on board real fast with a carveout because even without that new anti-gambling law they are at risk.
Right now the 5th circuit has ruled that it money is deposited out side the US and in a completely separate transaction that money is used to make a bet out side the US then the wire act doesn't apply.
A statute that says online poker is illegal but it's not illegal to fund accounts at online sites doesn't really help if you want to argue the position of the 5th circuit.
Right now the US doesn't want to push that issue with poker or other forms of online gambling other than sports betting.
If they can get it to the SC and get the ruling they expect from the authoritarian SC then they might move on to poker. The carve out suggesting by PPA helps them in that future move against online poker.\
I'm not sure why PPA wants to support the Justice Department attitude against online gambling and oppose the rulings of US appeals courts (none has ruled the wire act does apply to the internet, not one) and rulings of international courts.
But I do know that's the position PPA takes.
They don't deserve your trust. They have someones best interests in mind, but not yours.
Lou Krieger told me he doesn't understand why PPA won't respond to my emails. He says he doesn't understand, but of course he does. They don't want to answer any actual questions. They only want to talk to people who won't actually ask questions, but will give them publicity with softball interviews.
Drizztdj said...
Why wouldn't poker move over to the same payment processor as online horseracing does with an exemption?
I think at one time the online poker industry could have done that without a carveout.
But I think that most of the online poker industry really wanted poker to be considered illegal online to at least create the appearance of a barrier to entry. I'm not sure about that but I think that's at least partially true.
Today, I don't think so.
And, even if it did get a carveout and then convince banks it was okay to fund the poker sites (at this point I'm not so sure banks won't block them even if there is a carveout), it would create an implication in a statute that poker online was an illegal activity covered by the wire act. That would not be good in the long run.
One thing you might not be aware of is that banks have recently gotten multimillion dollar finds for money laundering for things clients do, not things they do. So they won't really want to climb on board real fast with a carveout because even without that new anti-gambling law they are at risk.
Right now the 5th circuit has ruled that it money is deposited out side the US and in a completely separate transaction that money is used to make a bet out side the US then the wire act doesn't apply.
A statute that says online poker is illegal but it's not illegal to fund accounts at online sites doesn't really help if you want to argue the position of the 5th circuit.
Right now the US doesn't want to push that issue with poker or other forms of online gambling other than sports betting.
If they can get it to the SC and get the ruling they expect from the authoritarian SC then they might move on to poker. The carve out suggesting by PPA helps them in that future move against online poker.\
I'm not sure why PPA wants to support the Justice Department attitude against online gambling and oppose the rulings of US appeals courts (none has ruled the wire act does apply to the internet, not one) and rulings of international courts.
But I do know that's the position PPA takes.
They don't deserve your trust. They have someones best interests in mind, but not yours.
Lou Krieger told me he doesn't understand why PPA won't respond to my emails. He says he doesn't understand, but of course he does. They don't want to answer any actual questions. They only want to talk to people who won't actually ask questions, but will give them publicity with softball interviews.
Labels: PPA
posted by Gary Carson at 2:07 PM
1 Comments:
Thank you Gary.
Post a Comment
<< Home