ARTIKEL: Nätpoker på väg att förbjudas i USA

[DaPine87]

Är lagen så att man inte får spela om just pengar? Kan man inte kringå det med att man får köpa säg 10 playmoneychips av sidan för säg 10$, sen när man lirat klart kan man växla in dem till $ igen, för då spelar man ju inte med $ utan med playmoney? Låter ju allafall som nått sånt 888 kmr jö..

[rickie]

Är lagen så att man inte får spela om just pengar? Kan man inte kringå det med att man får köpa säg 10 playmoneychips av sidan för säg 10$, sen när man lirat klart kan man växla in dem till $ igen, för då spelar man ju inte med $ utan med playmoney? Låter ju allafall som nått sånt 888 kmr jö..

 

Nja, tror nog inte det...

[DaPine87]

 

Nja, tror nog inte det...

 

Vi får hoppas på nått sånt allafall!

[Ziggy]

Är lagen så att man inte får spela om just pengar? Kan man inte kringå det med att man får köpa säg 10 playmoneychips av sidan för säg 10$, sen när man lirat klart kan man växla in dem till $ igen, för då spelar man ju inte med $ utan med playmoney? Låter ju allafall som nått sånt 888 kmr jö..

Eeehh....Vad är skillnaden mot hur det fungerar nudå menar du?

Spelar nog ingen roll vad chipsen kallas så länge de är värda pengar.

[Gyre]

Är lagen så att man inte får spela om just pengar? Kan man inte kringå det med att man får köpa säg 10 playmoneychips av sidan för säg 10$, sen när man lirat klart kan man växla in dem till $ igen, för då spelar man ju inte med $ utan med playmoney? Låter ju allafall som nått sånt 888 kmr jö..

Det handlar inte över huvud taget om att de inte får spela med pengar eller inte, det är att banker i USA inte längre får ta emot insättningar till spel-siter.

[DaPine87]

ställer mig i hörnet med dumstrut

[Torsus]

Nu har vissa banker i USA redan börjat att blockera överföringar till neteller och Firepay

[Myssion]

Var läser du nu?

[Torsus]

http://www.blackjacktournaments.com/bb/showthread.php?t=2408&page=7

 

Av Pokernut:

Oh well more is coming: one of my banks just blocked a transfer to Neteller and Firepay.

[spinner]

Vad jag har förstått så är det för det första inte troligt att det går igenom.

För det andra så bör det inte få några direkta konsekvenser, då alla amerikanska nätkasinon bara flyttar utomlands. Party har väl redan gjort det, tekniskt sett?

 

Spelar ingen roll var servern står eftersom de amerikanska bankerna inte får behandla transaktionerna...

 

Det var ett tag sedan det var mindre troligt att det skulle gå igenom... Nu ser det annorlunda ut.

[me_too]

Vad jag har förstått så är det för det första inte troligt att det går igenom.

För det andra så bör det inte få några direkta konsekvenser, då alla amerikanska nätkasinon bara flyttar utomlands. Party har väl redan gjort det, tekniskt sett?

 

Spelar ingen roll var servern står eftersom de amerikanska bankerna inte får behandla transaktionerna...

 

Det var ett tag sedan det var mindre troligt att det skulle gå igenom... Nu ser det annorlunda ut.

 

Spelar ingen roll vart i världen som pokerbolagen är placerade, enligt lagstiftarna i USA (sen har världshandelsorganisationen en annan uppfattning - de stödjer pokerbolagen placerade i carribien och menar att USA bryter mot internationella avtal om de straffar bolagen). USA anser sig dock ha jurisdiktion och rätt att stoppa allt onlinespel som riktar sig mot amerikaner. För att stoppa spelet har de förbjudit banker att göra transaktioner till spelbolagen. Om jag förstått det korrekt kommer de även att blockera ip-adresserna till spelbolagen från amerikansk mark för att hindra att bolagen ändock tar emot spelarna (lagen är endast inriktad på bolagen - lagen gör det inte olagligt att spela för en amerikan). Om ett spelbolag fortsätter erbjuda spel till amerikaner är det troliga att de vidtar kraftiga åtgärder liknande vad som hänt för Betwins vd och nån till. Mot bakgrund av att USA har punitive damages för att stoppa olaglig verksamhet i framtiden lär det också följa mycket höga skadeståndskrav mot bolag som fortsätter erbjuda spel till amerikaner.

 

Så långt i vart fall i teorin. Sen är ju inte allt lagstiftning när "brottsligheten" finns i annat land -mycket handlar om politik o.d. så vad som händer på lite längre sikt (1-6 månader) är väldigt svårt att sia om.

 

Att färre amerikaner lär spela poker framöver på de stora siterna är nog dock de flesta överens om.

/Åklagaren

[Gerhard]

published on: Thursday Oct 05, 2006

 

Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed

 

Analysis From CardPlayer's Legal Counsel

 

Misleading news stories abound both online and in print regarding the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The completely incorrect interpretation states that the new bill essentially outlaws most forms of Internet gambling. The new bill absolutely does no such thing.

 

I have been analyzing legal issues for 25 years. I have gone to court thousands of times interpreting statutes and I have taught new lawyers the correct method by which a statute should be analyzed. For over 15 years I was part of a legal hotline where California attorneys would call me with a legal question. As this is my field of expertise, I am flabbergasted at the misinformation being perpetuated regarding the new bill.

 

The New Bill Does Not Make Online Poker Illegal

 

The new bill attempts to make it more difficult to get money into a site by forbidding US financial Institutions from funding the type of online gambling that the law has previously made illegal. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal where it was not illegal before. Let me say that again. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal. The bill merely speaks to the mechanism by which an online account is funded. I am going to spend some time in this article explaining the accuracy of my reasoning.

 

The Bill Constitutes Enforcement Legislation

 

First and most simplistically, the bill is called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The operative word is enforcement. It is a bill whose goal is to enforce laws that already exist.

 

The bill begins in section 5361 by discussing congressional findings. In that section the bill states that Internet gambling is funded by credit cards, etc. Section 5361(a)(4) states in relevant part:

 

“New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional … mechanisms are often inadequate…”

 

The Bill Does Not Change Existing Gaming Law

 

Next, section 5361(b) specifically states that nothing in this new law shall be construed as “altering, limiting, or expanding any Federal or State law… prohibiting, permitting or regulating gambling within the US.” In other words, the language of the statute confirms that this new law does not change existing gaming law. It does not speak to the legality of online gaming. It only applies to the mechanism of funding any Internet gaming that has already been deemed to be illegal.

 

Even Senator Frist said about the bill, “Although we can't monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.”

 

The Definition of Unlawful Internet Gambling

 

Of extreme importance in a statute is the definitional section that sets forth the parameters of a bill. The term “Unlawful Internet gambling” is given a definition. Section 5362(6) defines unlawful Internet gambling to mean placing or receiving a bet “where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law.” This raises the question regarding what type of online gambling is already illegal. That will be discussed below.

 

First, let’s move on to the meat of the bill. This is the section that states just what is prohibited. Section 5363 begins by saying that “No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept…” electronic transfers, credit cards, etc. where a person is engaged in “unlawful Internet gambling.” This new law applies, if and only if, the gambling is already illegal under current law.

 

This brings us directly to the issue of what has been deemed illegal in the last 10 years since the first online casino opened its virtual doors. In a nutshell, sports betting is made illegal by the 1961 Wire Act, but poker is not.

 

Remember please, that the Attorney General’s office has not brought one lawsuit in 10 years against a poker site, even though it takes the position that online poker is prohibited by the Wire Act.

 

How the Law Works

 

In order to explain this discrepancy, I must digress with some rudimentary background about just how the law works. You probably remember from your high school civics class that the legislature makes laws that the judiciary construes. That means that our representatives in Congress draft the laws that judges then interpret.

 

Legislators are not wordsmiths, which is why there is a whole body of law called statutory construction. The first rule of statutory construction says that if the words of the statute are clear, the court may rely upon the common language. But if the language is not clear, the court must construe the language using a complicated legal process.

 

If a law is unclear, a depuy attorney general (the prosecutor) will take one position and often a defense attorney will take an opposing position. They go to court and a judge makes a determination. So when the Attorney General makes a public statement about what a law means, he might or might not be correct. It is ultimately the decision of a court.

 

When the Attorney General’s office takes the position that the Wire Act prohibits online poker, the court ultimately decided whether that opinion is accurate. Senator Frist incorrectly believes that all online gaming is illegal. He said: “or me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal.”

 

However, in order for Internet poker to be illegal, there must be a specific statute that forbids such activity. For years I have posed the question: What statute prohibits online poker? And if it is illegal, why has there not been one lawsuit filed by the government against an owner of an online poker site?

 

Online Poker Is Not Illegal

 

Even though the Attorney General’s office has publicly taken the position that the 1961 Wire Act forbids online poker, in 10 years they have not put their money where their mouth is. Why? The judiciary (that is, the interpreting body) has already held that the 1961 Wire Act doesn’t speak to poker. It only applies to sports betting.

 

The case in point to which I refer is “In Re Mastercard International,” decided by District Court Judge Stanwood R. Duvall, Jr. in 2001. Among other issues, Judge Duval was faced with the question of whether the Wire Act applied to online gambling. The posture of the case was interesting because many deadbeat gamblers attempted to avoid online gambling debts they had incurred by alleging that the money they owed their credit card companies amounted to illegal gambling debts in violation of the Wire Act. As a matter of fact, there were so many similar suits filed by so many gamblers who did not want to pay their losses that the lower court consolidated 33 such similar charges.

 

Judge Duvall ruled that the Wire Act only prohibited wagering on sports events and he dismissed all 33 cases, noting that “Comparing the face of the Wire Act and the history surrounding its enactment with the recently proposed legislation, it becomes more certain that the Wire Act's prohibition of gambling activities is restricted to the types of events enumerated in the statute, sporting events or contests.” In other words, online poker was not within the reach of the Wire Act’s prohibition. The District Court of Appeal agreed with Duvall’s ruling that the 1961 Wire Act does not apply to online poker.

 

I must mention one caveat. District courts are permitted to disagree with one another until the Supreme Court steps in. However, in this case Judge Duvall’s reasoning is so sound that it is close to irrefutable. There is a well established body of law regarding statutory construction and Judge Duvall followed the procedure to a tee.

 

Even Representative Goodlatte, who authored one of the online gaming bills in the House, acknowledges the limitations of the Wire Act. “We need to modernize the Wire Act, which is 45 years old, and does not apply to all forms of gambling,” says Goodlatte, adding, “It clearly applies to sports betting.”

 

Hysteria Is Completely Unfounded

 

Since this new law does not change what is legal or illegal, the current hysteria is completely unfounded. This legislation attempts to make it more difficult to get money into a site. Besides a few wrinkles that will be the topic of another article, that’s about it.

 

The statute is primarily no big deal since poker players stopped using credit cards a few years ago and found other ways to get their money into their favorite gaming sites.

 

I am not saying there won’t be lawsuits construing the meaning of the statute, but ultimately, the statute will only be deemed to affect the method by which online sites are funded.

 

Correct Analysis

 

There are a few very insightful people out there correctly analyzing this new legislation. For example, the president of the American Gaming Association, Frank Fahrenkopf is one such person. “This bill did not make anything legal or illegal,” says Fahrenkopf. “What it did was affect the mechanism by which Internet gambling takes place…and there is some question as to whether or not that will be effective.”

 

Bloomberg correctly reports that “Congress passed legislation that curbs financial payments from banks to offshore Internet casinos that are illegal under US law.”

 

Consumer Affairs seems to have gotten it right as they report that “The legislation does not criminalize the placing of bets by consumers. Rather than outlawing online gambling, the bill prohibits banks and credit card companies from making payments to online gaming websites… However, it's unclear just what is covered by the bill. Internet sports betting is plainly outlawed but what about online poker and other popular games?”

 

I urge our readers to use care in accepting the opinions that one site gets from another site where no legal opinion is being presented. Please, read the statute yourselves. Read the words carefully and think about my analysis. The statute can be found by clicking here. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement section starts on page 213.

 

Jurisdiction

 

Another area I have written about extensively is the area of jurisdiction. Libraries of books have been written on the varied and complex meaning of jurisdiction. One of the simplest meanings of “jurisdiction” is legal power.

 

For example, a New York court doesn’t generally have jurisdiction (legal power) over a problem in Texas. A federal court doesn’t have jurisdiction over a violation of most state laws. A municipal judge doesn’t have jurisdiction over a felony trial.

 

Our government doesn’t have jurisdiction to make rules for a company that resides offshore. Our rules do not apply in other countries, as they have their own sets of rules.

 

This bill prohibits a gaming company from accepting payment that violates US gaming law. Besides the fact that no law makes online poker illegal, all the gaming sites are offshore and not subject to US laws.

 

A law that tries to control an offshore company is considered a law with no teeth, because it cannot be enforced. In the US, when a law is broken, a person is arrested. The government subpoenas records and a case moves forward. What it means not to have jurisdiction is that US laws do not apply offshore, nor can the US arrest a person in another country nor does our government have subpoena power to command an offshore company to turn over records. NETeller, an online money transfer service, is also an offshore company, not subject to US laws.

 

The Future

 

First of all, nothing is going to happen for 270 days. The Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System have 270 days (after the bill is signed by the president) to come up with enforcement policies and procedures. Those procedures are directed to the behavior of banks and credit card companies. The procedures will be a nightmare.

 

Representatives of the financial services industry worry about a heavy regulatory burden being placed on banks. “The bill sets up banks to police a social issue,” said Laura Fisher, spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association. “It's not something we want to encourage.”

 

The bill passed by Congress could allow regulators to exempt checks and money transfers because they are more difficult to track. “Analyzing 40 billion checks a year would be a largely manual process,” Fisher said.

 

If checks are not exempt, this would break our banks as it would be too costly to enforce. If checks are exempt, players could simply send a check to an online site. If checks are not within the purview of the law, what about e-checks?

 

The rules won’t even be figured out for nine months during which time, all the clever sites will have legally circumvented this new law by other legal procedures to fund the sites.

 

Some Online Sites Are Overreacting

 

I am surprised to see some online sites overreacting and posturing as if they will pull out of the market. Any company that just pulls out of the market deserves to lose a lot of money because it is receiving bad legal advice.

 

Offshore companies are not bound by US antigaming laws. But the most persuasive reason why offshore companies shouldn’t pull out is because the laws of online gaming have not changed. A few years ago when the government was beginning to subpoena news networks, offshore sites didn’t pull out because the movement by the government couldn’t affect them. Similarly, a law that directs itself to the mechanism used to enforce current laws, does not change the legal landscape.

[baloobas]

Långt, men intressant.

 

Han säger väl ungefär vad alla andra verkar tro med. Frågan är ju varför så många jättar drar sig undan? Helt utan fajt.

[me_too]

Långt, men intressant.

 

Han säger väl ungefär vad alla andra verkar tro med. Frågan är ju varför så många jättar drar sig undan? Helt utan fajt.

 

Jättarna riskminimerar innan de vet hur de skall agera. Agerar de fel kan de äventyra hela spelsajtens framtid då de riskerar miljardskadestånd.

 

Även om han verkar väldigt insatt i ämnet kan jag inte avgöra om det är en partsinlaga eller en seriös oberoende analys. Stämmer vad han säger har i vart fall jag haft fel vad gäller jurisdiktionen på detta området och implikationerna för spelbranschen i USA. Den som väntar får se.

 

Tack Gerhard. Dina inlägg gör skillnad.

[Okok]

Vad jag har förstått så är det för det första inte troligt att det går igenom.

För det andra så bör det inte få några direkta konsekvenser, då alla amerikanska nätkasinon bara flyttar utomlands. Party har väl redan gjort det, tekniskt sett?

 

Spelar ingen roll var servern står eftersom de amerikanska bankerna inte får behandla transaktionerna...

 

Det var ett tag sedan det var mindre troligt att det skulle gå igenom... Nu ser det annorlunda ut.

 

Notera att jag skrev det i början av juni...

[Mogge13]

(inte läst hela tråden)

 

hur kan bankerna i usa stoppa överföringar till neteller ??

 

man kan väl använda det till annat än nätpoker

 

 

nån som vet ?

[KimHartman]

USA PLAYERS

 

 

 

 

We just wanted to let everyone know that the proposed legislation in the United

States will have little to no affect on the operations at Poker.com. We will not be

stopping US based players from playing at Poker.com and all player account balances

are 100% safe and will always be readily accessible. Our business is licensed and

regulated, perfectly legal under international law and we follow all laws in the

jurisdictions where our operations are based (Canada, UK, Netherlands Antilles &

Australia).

 

 

Poker.com has actually been recording record numbers of new player signups from the

USA since the announcement of the proposed law. A lot of players seem be choosing

Poker.com as their new site of choice, which is great news for everyone and we look

forward to the day when US politicians realise their errors and decide to regulate

one of their country's favourite pastimes - playing poker with their friends online.

[spinner]

(inte läst hela tråden)

 

hur kan bankerna i usa stoppa överföringar till neteller ??

 

man kan väl använda det till annat än nätpoker

 

nån som vet ?

 

De stoppar inte överföringar till neteller från en persons privatkonto... Däremot kommer det inte gå att sätta in pengar på en spelsajt från ens Neteller-konto.

 

"Vanliga " banker får inte behandla transaktioner från privatpersoner till spelsajt, samma bör gälla för Neteller då det kan ses som en online-bank.

 

Det blir helt enkelt olagligt för ett företag att föra över pengar till konton som är kopplade till onlinepokerspel, men naturligtvis kan man använda exempelvis Neteller till en rad andra transaktioner.

[Myssion]

"Vanliga " banker får inte behandla transaktioner från privatpersoner till spelsajt, samma bör gälla för Neteller då det kan ses som en online-bank.

 

NETELLER continues to operate its business as normal.

[Gyre]

"Vanliga " banker får inte behandla transaktioner från privatpersoner till spelsajt, samma bör gälla för Neteller då det kan ses som en online-bank.

NETeller är noga med att själva påpeka att de inte är en bank.

[Flodan]

För övrigt kan tilläggas att Neteller inte är ett amerikanskt företag och alltså inte omfattas av detta överhuvudtaget.

[KungLouis]

PartyPoker informerade igar alla amerikanska spelare, inklusive mig sjalv eftersom jag ar bosatt i USA - detta ar saledes forstahands information -, att Bush sannorlikt kommer skriva pa forbjudslagen pa fredagen den 13:e Oktober. Passande datum...

 

Vi amerikanska spelare har ocksa genom PP ombetts att emaila var delstatssenator genom fardigformulerade formular genom PP och begara ett lagundantag for just poker.

 

Alla spelare som ar uppkopplade till PP inom USA kommer darefter icke ges tilltrade till real money poker, enligt PP. Jag antar darfor att de pa nagot satt blockerar amerikanska IP-adresser. Antalet inloggade pa PP kommer med stor sannorlikhet falla markant pa lordagen och det stora amerikanska fiskstimmet som vi alla alskar sa mycket kommer forsvinna, i alla fall fran PP.

[Champion]

....och det stora amerikanska fiskstimmet som vi alla alskar sa mycket kommer forsvinna.....

 

Jag kommer sakna dig brorsan

[MajkTheBike]

PÅ siten http://www.pokerlistings.com/pacific-poker

 

står det en notis angående pacfic (Note, US players not allowed since Oct 1, see more below).

Due to the recent US legislation to prevent credit-card companies from collecting payments for bets, Pacific Poker has determined to suspend all their real money gaming business with US residents starting Oct 1st.

 

 

Doooooooooh! Såg just att detta redan har varit på tapeten. SåååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååRY!

[pennypacker_]

Från pokerstars.com

 

"PokerStars.com - Our business continues as before

 

 

Dear PokerStars Player -

 

As you are probably aware, the United States Congress recently enacted the Safe Port Act which contains provisions relating to Internet gambling.

 

PokerStars has received extensive expert advice from within and outside the U.S. which concluded that these provisions do not alter the U.S. legal situation with respect to online poker. Furthermore it is important to emphasize that the Act does not in any way prohibit you from playing online poker.

 

Therefore, our business continues as before - open to players worldwide including the US. You may play on our site as you did prior to the Act.

 

PokerStars believes that poker is a game of skill enjoyed by millions of players and we remain committed to providing you a safe and fun environment in which to play. We value your loyalty to PokerStars, and look forward to continuing to serve you with the best online poker experience, as we have for the past five years, six billion hands, and 40 million tournaments.

 

 

PokerStars Management "