UIGEA finalized-RD and Aeq please help

[melioris]

So it was finalized.

RD, Aeq, and the other members of the TP.com legal team, can you all give this thing a read and let us know what your thoughts are about how this will go down? There is some language about this act not supplanting state and local statues which just confuses the hell out of me.

[Talking Poker]

*sigh*

[Talking Poker]

The only good news I see from this is this line:

Hopefully when the Dems take over, they can get this shit fixed in time.

Regulate and Tax. PLEASE.

[Talking Poker]

The story:


Card Player:


PPA Response:

[Kurn]

Last I checked, the Dems have had control for the past 2 years.


Regulate and Tax. PLEASE.

No! How about just stay the fuck out of what is essentially a private matter? No offense, but once you agree that the govt has ANY right to get involved AT ALL you tacitly agree to what's going on now.

[Talking Poker]

Lesser of two evils. Baby steps. Etc, etc.

I agree with most of your political views, believe it or not, but unfortunately, you live in an idealistic and unrealistic world. Rather than saying it has to be all or nothing and knowing that that will end in nothing, I'd rather find a compromise that I can live with somewhere in the middle.

I'm still holding out hope here, but this looks pretty bad.

[Wes]

lol same lesser of two evil bullshit that major media feeds you

[melioris]

I am stepping in to say that this thread should not be reduced to a political discussion. Keep it about the finalization of UIGEA and what exactly that will mean to us US based players. I am more than happy to contribute to a what we all should do to try and change the law/practicality vs ideology debate IN A NEW THREAD.

One thing that is confusing me is that is seems most banks are already compliant, so not much will actually change. Although, does it mean that banks will no longer accept deposit/checks from payment processors (ie the company that cuts us checks) known to work with poker sites?

[Talking Poker]

Um, no... just trying to be realistic.

[Talking Poker]

This is obviously my #1 concern... and from what I've read, I don't know. The law seems to only affect going the other way (depositing to the poker sites), but I'm not certain.

[Talking Poker]

Good link, although he doesn't address that banks are being encouraged to err on the side of OVERblocking transactions...

[jdiana86]

My question is wheter or not poker sites will accept US players at all. And also, what will happen on December when we must "comply". Will it be a waiting game with cashing out if they decide not to accept US customers. I haven't read anything on here about what poker sites will do probably because it was not mentioned in the article. So I am assuming it's not an issue.

[Talking Poker]

I don't think assuming anything is a non-issue here is a good idea.

It will be up to each individual site, and as far as I know, none have made an official statement on the matter. I'm guessing they will play the wait and see game for a while, but the online poker scene could look a lot different than it does now one year from now.

[JDMcNugent7]

I know this all really sucks, but from what I am reading there is no reason we should panic and cash out anytime too soon. correct?

[Talking Poker]

I don't see how panicing and cashing out would help matters at all. But we all need to stay informed, and we all need to continue to fight this.

Join the and follow their recommendations for ""

If the Obama transition teams gets 5000 emails from poker players, maybe, just maybe, they will look at this seriously and fix this. I mean, on top of everything else, I don't think our banks really need to be forced to deal with this crap right now.

[Talking Poker]

Actually, here is Stars' statement:

[drewjax]

This was taken from a post on FCP. It was taken form chat box when HL was playing at FTP. Interesting at least.



ClockWyze: howard are you concerned about the new
UIEGA regs - they seem once again unenforceable

Howard Lederer: not at all clock

Howard Lederer: if you read them very closely, they
might help us

Howard Lederer: they make is explicity clear that
transactions going to a player

Howard Lederer: even for a clearly illegal bet, like sports
is not restricted

ClockWyze: thats good news - you are like the larry flint
of poker - take them to the supreme court - stick it to
the man

Howard Lederer: they also create a procedure where a
reasoned legal opinion provided to the Fed can clear the
way to make poker transaction legal
Howard Lederer: we could get a "poker" code out of this

ClockWyze: thats really good news - we all appreciate
all your hard work

ClockWyze: you should make russ hamilton a red
name pro

Howard Lederer: you might want to google Nelson
Rose's opinion on the regs

brilander: yw twizzle - If you have some documentation
it should help your case

Howard Lederer: it's very interesting

Howard Lederer: I'd also lay 10-1 they will get stopped
Howard Lederer: either by Obama, Congress or litigation

Howard Lederer: they simply didn't follow the rules when
drafting these regs

Howard Lederer: number one violation was Paperwork

Howard Lederer: how can the government expect every
financial institution to try to figure out what is and is not
a restricted transaction

Howard Lederer: when that should be the job of the
government
Howard Lederer: ?

ClockWyze: the financial institutions ARE the gov't
haven't you been watching CNBC
ClockWyze:

Howard Lederer: They calculate the the regs would take
1M man hours and 90M to implement in the first year
alone

Howard Lederer: just what the banking industry need

Howard Lederer: lol
ClockWyze: they can take it out of the 700B

Howard Lederer: bottom line, I doubt the regs will ever
get implemented
Howard Lederer: and if they are it could actually help

Howard Lederer: I should stop ranting now

brilander: please rant away - my financial institution has
had a field day making it difficult for me to deposit here

brilander: ok
Howard Lederer: that is another thing the regs make
clear

Howard Lederer: they should not look at individul
transactions

Howard Lederer: they should do the due dilligence to
make sure that unlicensed illegal gambling business
don't have merchant accounts

brilander: that would be sweet - I was actually quizzed
about whether I was depositing to a gambling web site

Howard Lederer: again, we feel like we'd be fine as long
as they follow the regs by the letter

Howard Lederer: bottom line is this

Howard Lederer: the UIGEA is based on teh Wire Act

Howard Lederer: Wire Act says you can't be "in the
business of betting and wagering"

Howard Lederer: last I checked, poker sites don't wager

brilander: Great point

Howard Lederer: the legal definition of a wager is risking
something based on the outcome of an event

Howard Lederer: and poker players aren't in the
business of anything
Howard Lederer: so no one is violating the wire act here

brilander: lol

brilander: badbeatme (Observer): lederer 5 prez 2012

brilander: passing on observer chat
Howard Lederer: I'm not cray enough to want to be
President

Howard Lederer: really, you have to be mentally ill
brilander: I should hope not!
brilander: very very true

ClockWyze: oops - tricky live players

Howard Lederer: but I give Obama credit, he might be
sane
Howard Lederer: which is really crazy

Howard Lederer: ty clock

brilander: true - scary thought

ClockWyze: nice talking to ya howard -
Howard Lederer: pleasure clock
Howard Lederer: gn

brilander: like his wife also

Howard Lederer: I heard someone who has known them
for 15 years say he always though SHE might be the
president in the family

Howard Lederer: he thought Obama might make a good
mayor
Howard Lederer: lol
brilander: ouch

brilander: lol
brilander: I believ it