What is the big deal about this new law?

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

I just read it from start to finish.

The text is almost identical to the text in the wire act.

The differences I see are:

1. It now includes casinos and poker rooms.
2. It has upgraded the penalty from 2 to 5 years (Really meaningless since they throw the money laundering, Rico shit at books anyways)
3. It has upgraded the wire act to include the internet (But courts have already done this)
4. It will make banks enforce it (Impossible and may well be removed)
5. It will make ISPs block it if asked (Also impossible)

Most importantly, it still uses the words "in the business". This has been defined by the DOJ and prior laws to mean operating a book (Not just being a good bettor)

Maybe I am misreading this new potential law, but it does not seem to make it anymore illegal to place a wager than it is now. The wording about who is covered is still identical to the wire act - "in the business"

I dont think the government can use this law to arrest individual bettors. I do think they can use it when they arrest bookies to limit the time wasted debating if the internet counts, if poker counts, etc.

Thoughts?

-Sean

Wynn · Aug 30, 2006

Sean, the real teeth behind HR4411 is that it provides the DOJ and State Attorney Generals with the authority to investigate and prosecute any institution suspected of engaging in or facilitating online gambling by amending the Wire Act of 1961 (Sec. 1085(b)(1 and 2). Further, while it places the onus of establishing regulations to detect, restrict and enforce online gambling transactions on the Federal Reserve System (Sec 5363), it expressly exempts its financial institutions and financial transaction providers from any liability for providing confidential records in the course of an investigation (Sec. 1085 (c) and Sec. 5363 (c and d)).

Basically, it puts financial institutions and financial transaction providers on the hook if online gambling transactions go through their systems and gives them safe harbor if they turn over confidential customer records.

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

But does it make individuals placing bets illegal?

-Sean

Wynn · Aug 30, 2006

sean1 said:
But does it make individuals placing bets illegal?

-Sean

No, HR4777, currently in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is the gambler prohibition ( http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h4777ih.txt.pdf ). The passage of this one would be the final death nail for online gambling.

However,the two bills are considered linked in that the enactment of HR4411 paves the way for HR4777.

zerocage · Aug 30, 2006

Unless you are"in the business" of placing wager to make money. All of it is up in the air stuff. Like who owns the internet?

Wynn · Aug 30, 2006

zero, I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you explain further?

zerocage · Aug 30, 2006

You are playing wagers to make money, right? You are in the business of placing wagers. It can be seen that way.

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

Prior federal law that I have pulled up and posted here before defines in the business as:

operating a bookmaking enterprise with 5 or more people or that takes in $2000 in a day.

The DOJ has clearly stated that in the business does not mean individual betters and that individual betters are subject to their state laws.

Unless I missed a new definition of in the business, this seems to be the same...

-Sean

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

I skimmed 4777. I can't read anymore of this trash in detail... Hit my quota for today, but I still see in the business.

That has been defined before to be bookmaking with 5 people or over $2000 per day.

Is there something in 4777 that I am missing that explicitly criminalizes making a bet?

-Sean

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

My question is this:

If Leach and Kyl and Goodlatte and whoever want to make it illegal to place a wager, why don't the laws they are endorsing simply say Whoever places or received a wager (Why do they make it a business thing)

Would it have no chance of passing if they wrote it to actually outlaw placing a bet?

-Sean

Wynn · Aug 30, 2006

zerocage said:
You are playing wagers to make money, right? You are in the business of placing wagers. It can be seen that way.

HR477, Sec 1084 expressly makes engaging in online gambling business a criminal act.

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

I am still confused.

This new law says exactly what the wire act says. It says whoever is in the gambling business. Prior law has defined gambling business as a bookie with 5 other people or $2000 in a day...

Maybe I am misreading it, but wouldn't this gambling business be the same definition as previous gambling business?

If not, why dont they just say whoever places a wager?

Finally, when does this bill get voted on? If it does not get voted on in Sept does it die in committee or will it come back up? Does the senate have any matching bill?

-Sean

Wynn · Aug 30, 2006

sean1 said:
My question is this:

If Leach and Kyl and Goodlatte and whoever want to make it illegal to place a wager, why don't the laws they are endorsing simply say Whoever places or received a wager (Why do they make it a business thing)

Would it have no chance of passing if they wrote it to actually outlaw placing a bet?

-Sean

I think they have a 2-pronged strategy. First, impose restrictions on the financial institutions and the transaction providers (HR4411) since that is less contentious with the civil rights of an individual and will be easier to pass. Then, swing for the fences with a prohibition on the actual online gambler (HR4777).

X-Files · Aug 30, 2006

I thought i read here of someone who claimed a private gambler
was successfully prosecuted under this law. And did time for it.

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

But don't you agree that 4777 outlaws whoever is in the gambling business just as 1084 currently does.

In my opinion either the wire act currently makes it illegal for a person to place a bet and 4777 does as well or if the wire act only pertains to bookies, then 4777 does as well.

1084 which is current law says: "Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "

Gambling business has been definted as a bookie with 5 people or $2000 in a day. Pretty much everyone says the wire act does not cover the individual bettor.

4777 says: "Whoever, being engaged in a gambling business, knowingly uses a communication facility.....

Gambling business must be the same as whoever being engaged in the business of betting and wagering.

Either wagering is illegal under the wire act or it won't be under 4777, correct?

IF they want to make it illegal to place a bet, they would remove in the business, I would think and just say whoever places a bet or wager over a communication device will be suject to getting raped in the ass.

-Sean

xpanda · Aug 30, 2006

Isn't enforcing laws that punish bettors the equivalent, in many respects, to enforcing laws against illegal file sharing via Napster, et al? They tried charging people for that, too, and it got them nowhere.

Wynn · Aug 30, 2006

sean1 said:
I am still confused.

This new law says exactly what the wire act says. It says whoever is in the gambling business. Prior law has defined gambling business as a bookie with 5 other people or $2000 in a day...

Maybe I am misreading it, but wouldn't this gambling business be the same definition as previous gambling business?

If not, why dont they just say whoever places a wager?

Finally, when does this bill get voted on? If it does not get voted on in Sept does it die in committee or will it come back up? Does the senate have any matching bill?

-Sean

HR4777, Sec. 2 Definitions (8) - "The term `gambling business' means a business of betting or wagering;"

It does not specify number of clients or $ amount (yet).

The good news is that this bill will have a tougher time getting through the House and will not get to the Senate in September. If HR4411 doen't pass, HR4777 will die in committee. The bad news is that if HR4411 does get passed, HR4777 will gather the necessary momentum for a House vote.

Wynn · Aug 30, 2006

X-Files said:
I thought i read here of someone who claimed a private gambler
was successfully prosecuted under this law. And did time for it.

I think you're right but I don't remember the details.

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

IN order to change the definition of gamblin business, wouldnt they have to repeal Title 18 Section 1955 which says:

(a) Whoever conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) As used in this section— (1) “illegal gambling business” means a gambling business which— (i) is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted;
(ii) involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business; and
(iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day.

(2) “gambling” includes but is not limited to pool-selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy, bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein.
(3) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

sean1 · Aug 30, 2006

Xfiles - the only guy I know of who was prosecuted for gambling online was under a North Dakota law and the guy settled for a $500 fine.

If I recall he was a commended school teacher who happened to make about $50,000/year predicting line movements and he paid his taxes...

Gotta wonder what made ND pick him out.

-Sean

What is the big deal about this new law?

New member

Member

New member

Member

New member

Member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Member

New member

Member

fbi

New member

hangin' about

Member

Member

New member

New member

Forum statistics

Share this page