Will the U.S. try to stop online gambling

[Bluff1]

I'm just wondering if the U.S. is making any current attempts to stop online gambling?

[scotnt73]

they cant stop online gambling since the sights arent in the US. They can make it difficult to put money into the sights which would kill the fish pool pretty fast.

[CrackerZack]

To quote Colin Montgomerie in one of the funniest interviews I saw, "Have you been away?"

They've been making it more and more difficult as they find ways. Poker hasn't been a direct target yet but sportsbooks and other sites have.

[sumdumguy]

Couldn't they simply make it illegal for American citizens to gamble online?

Couldn't they also simply order that American ISP's block access to offshore gaming sites?

[CrackerZack]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't they simply make it illegal for American citizens to gamble online?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in many states under strange old laws. Wake_up_CALL, this is right up your alley. I know you have the info on this and how the wire act applies if it applies at all, etc.

[Wake up CALL]

Thanks for the endorsement CrackerZack. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The Federal Wire Act of 1960 applies specifically to "any sporting event or contest". This has been further clarified to not include the person placing the bet but only the person accepting the bet and according to the the US 5th Circuit of Appeals to sports betting only. Although the US Attorney Generals Office publicly disagrees with this interpretation the only recourse left is to appeal the relevant 5th Court decision to the US Supreme Court (which they have declined to do) or for the US Congress to either modify the current statute or write new laws specifically with internet gambling as it's focus (which they have attempted to pass the last two sessions of Congress).

As I believe someone mentioned above Congress has focused on the transaction aspects of internet gambling, so far refusing to distinguish between games of skill or chance.



See Title 18 Part I Chapter 50 Sec. 1084 of the US criminal code for further information.

As CrackerZack wrote this act does not preclude States from enacting more restrictive laws. As far as I know Nevada is the only state to modify their laws with specific language that includes the word "internet".

Wake

[Clarkmeister]

Speaking of Nevada, what is the exact law? Is it sports betting only or does it apply to poker as well?

[J.R.]

Although the US Attorney Generals Office publicly disagrees with this interpretation the only recourse left is to appeal the relevant 5th Court decision to the US Supreme Court (which they have declined to do) or for the US Congress to either modify the current statute or write new laws specifically with internet gambling as it's focus (which they have attempted to pass the last two sessions of Congress).

....or wait for a nice set of facts (involving allegations of money laundering, drugs, terrorism, etc) in any of the 11 other circuits (who don't have to follow the 5th Circuit's ruling- the 5th circuit encompasses TX, LA and MS) and bring a case there hoping for a more favorable interpretation.

[wayabvpar]

Washington state may be going the other direction (http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/148949).

Another article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/150418_betting29.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff= 81).

Can any lawyers or other informed folks tell us if this would naturally extend to poker? I see a lot of parallels (especially the specific mention of 'account wagering').

[TimTimSalabim]

So, Nevada is the only state to ban this particular type of gambling? Does this qualify for our "irony" discussion?

[J.R.]

I can tell you laws aren't often interpreted with an eye towards naturally extending their meaning (unless you are dealing with the modern Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdprudence), so the short answer is no, unless it the law mentions something specifically about poker or uses a vague word like "gambling" instead of referencing horse racing. Laws the permit generally prohibited activities are often construed as narrow exceptions to the staus quo and strictly interpeted.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
....or wait for a nice set of facts (involving allegations of money laundering, drugs, terrorism, etc) in any of the 11 other circuits (who don't have to follow the 5th Circuit's ruling- the 5th circuit encompasses TX, LA and MS) and bring a case there hoping for a more favorable interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ] by JR

Good point JR, the Circuit courts do ocassionally disagree, but since I live in Texas I am fine with the current ruling. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wake

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of Nevada, what is the exact law? Is it sports betting only or does it apply to poker as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough Clarkmeister what (I believe) Nevada has done is to partially legalize internet gambling within the confines of the State (intrastate) which by it's wording also outlaws internet gambling commerce interstate. The regulations are not yet written just the basic law so when The Gaming Commission enacts regulations the specifics will be more clear. Keep in mind this is just my present interpretation and may in no way resemble the final result.

[BNO]

That 5th Circuit case is interesting. You can find it at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0130389p.pdf

It wasn't brought by the Justice Dept. It involved RICO lawsuits brought by 2 internet gamblers looking to avoid their losses and, actually, these 2 were chosen as test cases from 33 identical suits that were pending in Louisiana at the time.

I guess internet poker players' greatest enemies are themselves. We might see more of these types of suits, perhaps brought using general state anti-gambling laws, which are much more vague than the Wire Act.

[ThaSaltCracka]

interesting read, everyone should check it out.

[tboneman]

To quote Colin Nearmyass in one of the fartiest interviews Ive ever smelled, "When trying to be funny, is best to know if target of humor will take it in manner hoped." Cracker, if you took a moment and checked this guys profile youd find he has been a memeber of this forum for all of 2 months. He hasnt been gone....he just got here. As one who enjoys the massive growth Ive seen of this wonderful thing called poker, as well as the growth of this forum, Id hope you could find a nicer way to welcome a new guy who was obviously asking a "newby" kind of question. The only stupid question is the one that doesnt get asked.
By the way Bluff1, welcome to the forum. I read here all the time, but rarely post. I just couldnt hold back this time. Call it "a soft spot for the new guy" syndrome.

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
So, Nevada is the only state to ban this particular type of gambling? Does this qualify for our "irony" discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually if you think about it, it is not ironic at all. Internet gambling takes revenue away from land based casinos and no other state has more to lose than Nevada.

[SlyAK]

A little off-topic here, but does anyone know what the online gambling laws are for Kansas?? I made a small amount of money in 2003, (like 50 dollars), and I wont be claiming that. I am honest but not THAT honest. I am up about 1400 this year, and playing more seriously. 1st of all is online gambling legal in Kansas? If no, will I be putting myself in any risk by claiming it on my tax returns next year??? From what I understand, the federal IRS will not report you, they just want the tax money, does the state work the same way? I appreciate any answers... you can post them here, or PM me.

As for my thoughts on the original post. Why doesnt the government get their greedy hands into online gambling? Completely legalize it and then take a certain % from the online casinos based in the U.S.... Just a stupid thought I guess.

Sly

[PuffsNutz]

If no, will I be putting myself in any risk by claiming it on my tax returns next year??? From what I understand, the federal IRS will not report you, they just want the tax money, does the state work the same way?]

You are 100% correct on the IRS's point of view.
States may differ state from state..
California for example takes the same position as
the IRS..
It is unlikely you have anything to worry about by
claiming it.

In fact, Id be far more worried about not claiming
it that claiming it.