Improve your fishing skills


fishtalkradio.net keyword stats



Most current MSN search phrases:

fishing recipes

Is Online Poker Legal?

First let me qualify myself as an ordinaryThe Appeals Court specifically cites Duval's
poker player. I am not an attorney, justicestatement: "[A] plain reading of the
department official, nor a Supreme Courtstatutory language [of the Wire Act] clearly
Justice. I am not giving legal advice norrequires that the object of the gambling be a
will I draw any conclusions. What I havesporting event or contest." This is very
compiled is a collection of the bestexplicit language. You would have to jump
information I can find on the subject of "Isthrough a lot of mental hoops to consider the
Online  Poker  legal?".playing of online poker to be "a sporting
event".
Several recent events in congress has brought
attention to the legal standing of onlineSo, while the US Justice Department recently
wagering in general. The first thing tostated that the Wire Act covers casino games
understand is the skill game of poker is notin addition to sports wagering, the Federal
the same as sports betting nor even "randomAppeals Court has directly ruled that that
chance" casino games like craps and roulette.interpretation is not correct. This is not a
It may be treated the same eventually, or itsmall disagreement. It is a direct
may not. Legal precedent for a lot of thiscontradiction that could well spur the
simply does not exist. As of this article, nocreation of new, 21st Century Federal
person has been charged, brought to trial,legislation that actually deals with these
convicted, or sentenced for playing onlineissues. One bill introduced by James Leach of
poker. But this does not guarantee that ifIowa, aims to inhibit the ability of citizens
will  not  happen  in  the  future.to gamble online. It however does nothing to
criminalize actual gambling online. But other
In my research I found that Professor I.bills may be introduced in the future with
Nelson Rose, Professor of Law, Whittier Lawthat  goal.
School Costa Mesa, Ca, is one of the world's
leading authorities on gambling law. HeGambling regulation traditionally has been
states that "no United States federal statutethe responsibility of individual states. For
or regulation explicitly prohibits Internetinstance, New York State Attorney General
gambling, either domestically or abroad."Eliot Spitzer reached a settlement with
Still, the US government has taken theCitibank and PayPal regarding their
position that certain things are illegal, andinvolvement with online gaming. Some
more importantly, certain things are worthyindividual states have laws prohibiting any
of prosecution. The Wire Act is the statuteform of gambling online (or any gambling for
most often cited as making on-line gambling athat matter). That is a different issue from
federal offense. He notes that the operativewhether  it  is  legal on a US Federal level.
subsection reads: "Whoever being engaged in
the business of betting or wagering knowinglyA key distinction exists on a Federal level
uses a wire communication facility for thebetween bettors and those operators whose
transmission in interstate or foreignbusiness is to benefit from the actual making
commerce of bets or wagers or informationof wagers: "engaged in the business of
assisting in the placing of bets or wagers onbetting or wagering... which entitles the
any sporting event or contest, or for therecipient to receive money or credit as a
transmission of a wire communication whichresult of bets or wagers, or for information
entitles the recipient to receive money orassisting in the placing of bets or
credit as a result of bets or wagers, or forwagers..." As long as players stay in the
information assisting in the placing of bets"players" category and not in the
or wagers, shall be fined under this title orin-the-business-of-wagering owners/bookies
imprisoned not more than two years, or both."runners/agents categories, a significant
difference  in  status  exists.
Rose goes on to say: "The first element of
the Wire Act, says that the statute appliesThere are many ways to read the Wire Act, but
only to an individual involved in theonly under the broadest interpretation could
'business of betting or wagering' (not to aplaying online poker be deemed illegal in
common  player)."terms of the Wire Act. In my opinion (which
isn't worth a hill of beans... only the US
The question of whether InternetSupreme Court's view will matter unless new
sportsbetting is covered by the Wire Actlegislation passes) playing online poker is
seems to have been answered by the US Supremenot illegal for US citizens, in regards to
Court's refusal to review the conviction ofFederal Law -- unless it is a crime in an
Jay Cohen. Whether online casinos and onlineindividual state, in which case the Federal
poker cardrooms are covered under theOrganized Crime Control Act of 1970 may
aimed-at-sportsbetting Wire Act is aapply. The Act makes it a federal crime for
different question. In February 2001, Judgefive or more persons to engage in a gambling
Stanwood Duval of the US District Court inbusiness illegal under state law. Gambling
New Orleans ruled that it did not: "'in plainonline is definitely illegal in some states,
language' [the Wire Act] does not prohibitbut the Crime Control Act of 1970 does not
Internet  gambling  'on  a  game of chance.'"apply to players. In addition, since the
Crime Control Act does not refer to foreign
On November 21, 2002, the US Fifth Circuitcommerce, it is hard to see how a case could
Federal Appeals Court upheld Duval's ruling,be made that it applies to Internet gaming
stating: "The district court concluded thatacross  multiple  international  borders.
the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting
events or contests... We agree with theFinally, in November 2004, the Caribbean
district court's statutory interpretation,island nation of Antigua and Barbuda won a
its reading of the relevant case law, itsWorld Trade Organization ruling that United
summary of the relevant legislative history,States legislation criminalizing online
and  its  conclusion."betting violates global laws. In April 2005,
the WTO Appellate Body affirmed the principal
The Appeals Court further states: "Because weconclusions  involved.
find neither the Wire Act nor the mail and
wire fraud statutes may serve as predicatesSo, as long as online poker players do not
here, we need not consider the other federalparticipate in owning a share of the house
statutes identified by the Plaintiffs... Asrake; as long as players only wager against
the district court correctly explained, theseeach other; as long as players participate in
sections may not serve as predicates herethe skill game of poker and do not bet
because the Defendants did not violate anysports; as long as players obey state laws...
applicable  federal  or  state  law."draw your own conclusions.



1 A B C D 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 104 105 106 107