Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
The UIGEA has no "gray area" for actually being the one placing a wager or playing poker - the bill specifically carves out exceptions for the player, and does NOT make it illegal to play/wager.
The bill is "supply-side" but not in the player sense - instead it makes it illegal for banking operations to allow transfers to known Internet gambling operations. The legality of these operations the "gray area" being referenced, but the US Gov't, for all of its bluster and talk, has consistently shown its belief that the players are not doing anything illegal, but rather the site operators are.
So yeah - continue your respective rants, but to call Internet gambling a "gray area" makes it seem like you get your information from 60 Minutes instead of the actual bill itself, which should likely be repealed about 15 minutes after a new President takes office.
|
I get my information from the primary source; I simply realize that not everyone on this site is an attorney. While the bill expressly prohibits those "in the business of betting or wagering" from knowingly accepting credit, EFT, or (basically) commercial paper; it excepts from that term only financial transaction providers, interactive computer services, and telecommunications services. I have never seen the "specifically carved out exception" in the text of the bill for the individual player. If it is there, I apologize for misspeaking. I note that it seems very possible to indict an individual player. However, I do agree that the intent of Congress was to close the websites and not to take legal action against the individual players. The vagueness in the language of the bill, combined with the failure to establish the directed policies and procedures, leaves a great number of questions unanswered. That is why I simply called it a “gray area.” Additionally, this is not a type of law I practice regularly and, because I live in a state where gambling is legal; it has only been a minor issue at my office.