WildBill or anyone that knows....any net gambling bill update?? is it still in limbo

monicus · Jul 17, 2003

There are no consequences to the individual gambler as of now. All penalties were striped out to avoid the judiciary committee and will be added in the conference committee, which is when the house and senate get together to make a unified bill. As of now it is up to the banks and other financial institutions to block the flow of money to the books. There are no set fines or punishments in the bill, just a set of 5 “factors to be considered” that the FTC must then set the fines.

The house has already had their they say but the Senate probably won’t even take the bill up.

As far as Senator’s speaking out against the bill: that will never happen. Who will speak in opposition to a bill that claims to stop money laundering by terrorists and protect families? No Senator will want to stand with the 10000 or so active on line gamblers, most of who are young men who don’t vote, to look soft on terrorism or anti-family. Speaking out against this bill will give your re-election opponent a future attack ad.

monicus · Jul 17, 2003

If it is not passed by the winter break of 03 then yes the house will have to start all over. The bill will have to be introduced in the spring of 04 by the 109th congress. Which I believe is the most likely scenario.

lander · Jul 17, 2003

Monicus,
Why do you say they will not pass the bill by winter break? Is that there way of turing the Bill away without being the "guys who helped terrorists launder money"? Or do they simply have bigger fish to fry?

monicus · Jul 17, 2003

The second one, the Senate has bigger fish to fry. The Senate committee in charge of the bill hasn't had any meetings regarding it nor have they scheduled any. The committee is currently taking up the issue of pending judicial nominations, in other words some of those bigger fish.

suetoneous · Jul 17, 2003

>>>No Senator will want to stand with the 10000 or so active on line gamblers, most of who are young men who don’t vote, to look soft on terrorism or anti-family. Speaking out against this bill will give your re-election opponent a future attack ad.<<<

Monicus, the senators don’t have to “speak out against it.” and imply they are “for” online gambling. There should be “concerns” though about the enforceability of this new law, and the limitations of federal powers,…to potentially invade the household of every American! Further, the federal government will also take a stand against gambling.

First the internet, then all gambling? If this Bill(HR2143) becomes law, then the message is basically that gambling must be made illegal because it is destructive and immoral. Why should someone who lives in Las Vegas be allowed to walk right down the street and gamble as much as he wants? But the guy in Idaho, for him to gamble it’s illegal, destructive and immoral? Certainly you can see the hypocrisy… For those who want to expand gambling in this country, this is the wrong direction.

Dante · Jul 17, 2003

great info guys..thank you very much for the insite

monicus · Jul 17, 2003

I agree with everything you said. The bill is: unenforceable, hypocritical and the wrong direction. Nor did I say it was any of things.

But what does a Senator have to gain by speaking out against the bill? The answer is nothing, so he/she won’t. It is easier for Senators to say nothing and just let the bill die in committee. That is what happened in the last congress (107) and that is what will happen in the 108th.

TheGeneral+ · Jul 17, 2003

Excellent information and insight here. Very good thread.

suetoneous · Jul 17, 2003

Last year, the gamblers had an edge as the Senate was controlled by the democrats. This year, the republicans control the Senate, and consequently will decide which bill makes it out of committee. Everyone knows that this is more of a republican issue/ cause….

Also. monicus, I believe you are way off in your estimate of 10,000 online gamblers. I‘ve seen high figures that put it into the millions.

monicus · Jul 17, 2003

The 10000 figure is per state, which is what concerns a Senator so our numbers are in the same ballpark.

This may be a Rep. issue and they do barley control the Senate but I would be willing to bet it dies in committee.

-1000 Stays in committee for the rest of the year.

800 Voted on by the full Senate before the term ends

3000 Signed in to law

suetoneous · Jul 17, 2003

Another minor point... If this bill does pass, as for myself, there would be no reason for me to pay AOL $23 a month to be online. In fact, I would have little use for my computer. I'm not kidding. About 98% of what I do with this thing is use it for gambling purposes. I wonder how many others would feel the same?

My point is there would be many ripple effects to this bill. Hopefully, senators are considering ALL THE CONSEQUENCES of this Bill...

[This message was edited by suetoneous on July 17, 2003 at 04:26 PM.]

lester · Jul 17, 2003

Monicus,

Like WildBill, you are wrong.

The bill has serious implications for the banking industry. The fact that there is no punishment for breaking the proposed law is not relevant.

Its called money laundering and since the funds are tainted, whatever you do with it becomes tainted even worse.

If the banks know the source of the funds then they are liable and no bank wants that.

No legitmate, bigtime US business wants a part of online gambling (especially sportsbooks) and for good reason.

This bill will make it worse as it adds one more offense to make money laundering charges easier to use as leverage to either shake down financial institutions for money or whatever the crusade of the day is at the DOJ.

In addition to Federal RICO statutes, there is also civil RICO (for which gambling is one of 2 predicate offenses).

Anyone that gets up here and jumps up and down and tells you any legislation has no effect because its unenforceable or because there is no punishment is ignorant.

I am here to set the record straight and for that you are welcome.

Les

JackDee · Jul 17, 2003

Lester, Wildbill is NEVER wrong.

monicus · Jul 17, 2003

Speaking of ignorant,

Who here uses the banks or wire transfers to send money to sportsbooks? Those who said yes would have a small problem if it passes, everyone else is ok.

“The bill has serious implications for the banking industry. The fact that there is no punishment for breaking the proposed law is not relevant.”

The banking industry is not a willing deputy of the justice department. They have no interest in enforcing banking laws nor are they willing to devote their limited resources to enforce them. Like everyone else they have to obey the law not enforce it at their own expense. They tried the same law in Australia and the banks there said they couldn’t enforce it nor are they willing to pay to do it.

“It’s called money laundering and since the funds are tainted, whatever you do with it becomes tainted even worse.”

Sending money to a sportsbook is not money laundering. It is obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about. Money laundering is taking cash from unclaimed business transactions and filtering it back into the banking industry generally through front companies. As long as you claim any winnings from your gambling then you are doing nothing illegal. It is legal to MAKE wagers in the US.

“No legitimate, bigtime US business wants a part of online gambling (especially sportsbooks) and for good reason.”

I guess you didn’t know that MGM already has an online casino for non-US residents.

“Anyone that gets up here and jumps up and down and tells you any legislation has no effect because its unenforceable or because there is no punishment is ignorant.”

No one here is jumping up and down.
The sodomy law in many southern states could be called unenforceable and by your way of thinking I would be called ignorant for saying it has no effect. How about the fact that no one has been arrested under the statute in 40 years. Still think enforceability doesn’t mean anything. It means one thing, enforceability is important and without it the law is meaningless.

lester · Jul 17, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sending money to a sportsbook is not money laundering. It is obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about. Money laundering is taking cash from unclaimed business transactions and filtering it back into the banking industry generally through front companies. As long as you claim any winnings from your gambling then you are doing nothing illegal. It is legal to MAKE wagers in the US. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Monicus,

Money laundering in general is often misunderstood by lay people.

If this becomes law, THEN USING THE US BANKING SYSTEM FOR MAKING A DEPOSIT OR W/D OFFSHORE COULD BECOME MONEY LAUNDERING (under some legal theories).

Its the tainted ink blot theory. One drop of ink in a bottle taints all that it touches.

And it is illegal to place a bet on the Internet in many states.

It is the misinformed posts of people like you that do much damage.

Your description of what constitutes money laundering is very, very far off.

If the banks know the source of funds is tainted (i.e. from offshore sports betting) and they do nothing they've violated a ton of regulations, including money laundering.

Let be break it down simply for you:

If you sell drugs, you've committed a crime.

If you go buy a house with that money, you've just committed another crime (money laundering)

If you go buy a CD with that money, you've just commited another crime (money laundering).

If you move money through a bank for the purpose of Internet betting AFTER this law is in effect, then you've committed a federal crime and the money COULD be construed by the DOJ as laundering money.

If you don't believe me ask an attorney with this expertise or do a search yourself.

Money Laundering ain't what you think it is. Ask Shrink's beloved BW if you don't believe me.

Its also worth noting that MGM's foray is based overseas. No bigtime US company wants to be involved in this space if it entails dealing with US customers.

Visa, MC, AMEX, PayPal, the list goes on.

WildBill · Jul 17, 2003

Lester calm down, you sound like John Ashcroft's grandson or something. Money laundering in the cases you mention is just like the BW case. The AG of Nevada (and the office of prior AG's) has nothing but vile hate for BW. Notice he is the only person they have EVER considered prosecuting for offshore wagering in this state. EVER! Now don't even try to tell me it doesn't exist here because huge amounts of money go through this state to offshore books. Even better go play poker online and find a table without at least a couple Nevadans at it. They might not play the slots or video poker as much with it so easy to get to here, but who knows I can't judge that. All I can tell you is this fact can't possibly be news to the authorities and this state is actually one of the few that has laws on its books making online betting specifically illegal if not done with entities licensed with the state. It is indeed about the toughest anti-gambling law related to the offshore world out there, with penalties to the player. Yet the state is full of offshore gamblers. Why don't they enforce it? Because they can't the law is very dubious and hard to prove, not to mention they are afraid a court would throw it out. The only reason why they went after BW is because of the "honor" of the office of the AG, he beat them once and forever will have to live under their attempts to find something, anything to get him.

With that in mind you tell people here "watch out, the feds will round you all up and get you on money laundering" What a bunch of BS. You don't even mention the fact that the feds have no subpoena power over offshore transactions. If you contact with an international bank to get your money and they are acting on the instructions of an agent, not the sportsbook itself, the feds just lost their jurisdiction. I say it many times and you can argue all you want, but it still remains outside their jurisdiction. The only way they can ever get convictions, things you seem to threaten upon thousands here, is with damn friendly judges and juries that will stretch the law for them. The Nevada AG got told to "shove it" by a proper judge and further the AG was told to go bother someone else. Likely the same thing happens in any cases brought up as you say it.

oldmantime · Jul 18, 2003

Wild Bill and Lester? Uh--Would you be lawyers? Can you uh-break-all this down for the few of us, yours truly being one--that does not understand what's what here?

Are we safe to use Neteller? Can they be considered an agent and thus "keep" us out of trouble?
I think the Shrink needs a new Board or Room called "Legal". sort of like a classroom for us dummies and I mean that sincerely. Could Dante The General Or Krackman suggest this to him?

Phaedrus · Jul 18, 2003

oldmantime, given some of the stuff that gets posted here that ranges from anachronistic to wildly inaccurate, the Rx would be much, much better off without a "Legal" forum. They'd have some dumbass suing them from a penetentiary for following bad advice they got off the Rx within six months.

Phaedrus

oldmantime · Jul 18, 2003

Phaedrus--Just have them put a "disclaimer" up. Doesn't that cover the RX against suits?

Actually--I have not understood much of anything since --I don't even know what they mean by : "Is" is? I have been totally lost.

Thinking of changing my nickname for the forum. Is That legal? (Sorry about that word again-is)

WildBill · Jul 18, 2003

Well Oldman lets just put it this way, even if what they are contemplating passes, I wouldn't worry too much. There would be a chance you could get in trouble but it would be about as remote as getting in trouble for betting with a local out. How is that?