AUTHOR: Jerry "Jet" Whittaker TITLE: Internet Poker Folds A Winning Hand DATE: 3:13 AM ----- BODY: The fallout from the new Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006
has been nothing short of amazing. Every publicly traded gaming company is
running for cover, and many of the private ones as well. Operators as big
as PartyPoker and the payment processor FirePay stopped taking bets from the
U.S. when President Bush signed the bill into law on Friday, October 13th.
Other companies have said they will cut off U.S. players once regulations
are in place. The main question is: Why? The new Act should add little to an
online operator's worries. Legally, it creates a new crime, accepting money
for unlawful Internet gambling transactions, that only applies if the
gambling is unlawful under some other federal or state law. Practically,
this was not a drive by the federal Department of Justice or any state
prosecutors. It was merely an underhanded ploy by a hypocritical
politician, Bill Frist (R.-TN), to score some points for his presidential
ambitions with the religious far right. Some legal commentators have said
that the new Act is something new, because it makes an operator guilty of
this new crime in every state, since every state makes non-licensed gambling
illegal. But, half the states do not have laws on the books against bettors.
In those states, betting even with an illegal bookie is not a crime. The
other states do make betting under some circumstances a crime. Of course,
in the history of the United States, only one person, a sports bettor in
North Dakota, was ever charged under these archaic statutes. I have heard it
argued that up until now, the only potential criminal liability was on the
bettors in those states, not the foreign operators. Imagine what such a law
would say: It a crime in this state to make a bet, but it is not a crime to
be in a gambling business that accepts the bet. There never has been a law
that penalizes only the players and not the operators. More importantly,
these laws were on the books long before this new Act was passed; so were
the many state statutes outlawing unlicenced gambling businesses. If an
Internet poker operator was violating any of these state laws it was already
in trouble. Years ago, Congress made it a federal felony to be involved in
any way in a "gambling business," defined as five or more people violating
state gambling laws for 30 days or with gross revenues of $2,000 in any
single day. Worse, if those were state felonies, the operators were already
guilty of the federal crime of racketeering, which has far worse penalties
than this new Act. Internet poker operators had looked at the state and
federal anti-gambling statutes and concluded that they probably did not
apply. The federal Wire Act, for example, was held to be limited to sports
bets, while the state statutes are flawed because they do not expressly
apply to out-of-state operators.

This new Act does not extend the reach of the Wire Act or any other federal
or state anti-gambling law.

There may be good reasons for folding a business that is making millions of
dollars a day, including the risk of prosecution. But this new Act did not
change those odds. --------