- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
@rakeback-online 227532 wrote:
does anyone with legal knowledge knows if the current issue will be reflected on affiliates that promoted those websites ? I’m asking if affiliates can be prosecuted for facilitating business by directing players to those gaming companies..?
There hasn’t been any posts about this anywhere I have looked but I suspect not, this is much more focused on the money laundering, payments etc. Prosecuting people is expensive and doesn’t always work and so they are after big names and high profile prosecutions IMO
@alexpratt 227533 wrote:
There hasn’t been any posts about this anywhere I have looked but I suspect not, this is much more focused on the money laundering, payments etc. Prosecuting people is expensive and doesn’t always work and so they are after big names and high profile prosecutions IMO
Agreeing with Alex, focus on money laundering and payments. The US has always had the problem of how to stop internet gambling, especially since the internet is borderless, the only option for the US was to tell its banks to stop the transactions.
If you’re not in the US and haven’t yet seen what the 5 domains have on them
The troubling issue here, is the US government going directly to ICANN and changing the DNS on the domains. Does this mean that any domain, regardless of country or extension – can also be controlled this way?
@Rak 227536 wrote:
Agreeing with Alex, focus on money laundering and payments. The US has always had the problem of how to stop internet gambling, especially since the internet is borderless, the only option for the US was to tell its banks to stop the transactions.
If you’re not in the US and haven’t yet seen what the 5 domains have on them
The troubling issue here, is the US government going directly to ICANN and changing the DNS on the domains. Does this mean that any domain, regardless of country or extension – can also be controlled this way?
Alex hit the nail on the head. Prosecution is very costly and time-intensive — the U.S. govt only likes to prosecute when they know there is a considerable amount of money at stake and their changes of winning are high. Going after the average John Smith affiliate doesn’t meet the previous criteria I mentioned, and IMO it would be the same as the DOJ going after online poker players.
Regarding ICANN, I believe they are a U.S. based organization, so the DOJ can easily seize any TLD that ICANN is responsible for with an indictment in hand.
Off the back of these developments we have organised a webinar this Tuesday at 4pm uk time Where we will have a number of industry experts answering questions as well as analysing the developments to-date and how these will impact the Market……registration is free but it is limited… https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/434024310
I’ve been away on a short break and just stumbled upon this news. I’m truly shocked – shocked that it took them this long to close them down.
Does anyone know how this will affect online casinos targetting US players? I’d imagine they’d all want to pull out at this stage.
It doesn’t make sense for them to pull out – although it looks like Rival white labels will.
These 3 poker places got turned in by a prior processor who stole millions from them.
Out of revenge, they turned him in when he was in Vegas.
In turn, he turned around and told all to save himself from 30 years in jail.
Unless the casinos used this same processor, which I highly doubt, they have no reason to think anything would change for them.
But they are still breaking the law aren’t they? They might not have found a way to gather enough evidence yet, and we obviously think it’s an ill-conceived and possibly highly cynical law but it’s still being flouted.
As far as Rival goes, they knew this before they even came on the scene – we are talking UIGEA which is what – 5 years old now? This is most certainly no news to them.
They had examples like Sportingbet where David spent years under house arrest in the US after being arrested at a US airport when passing through.
It’s not like this is news. I am quite sure everyone’s lawyer has informed them about all this years ago.
@Dominique 227559 wrote:
As far as Rival goes, they knew this before they even came on the scene – we are talking UIGEA which is what – 5 years old now? This is most certainly no news to them.
They had examples like Sportingbet where David spent years under house arrest in the US after being arrested at a US airport when passing through.
It’s not like this is news. I am quite sure everyone’s lawyer has informed them about all this years ago.
Agreed – IMO they won’t go after the casinos etc at the moment because
1) They aren’t as high profile
2) They aren’t trying to regulate those markets at the moment
3) Most importantly these prosecutions are all built around the payment processing that has been exposed by the Oz guy and as Dom says unless they were involved with him its unlikely they have the info or data to pursue that.I am in agreement with Alex and Dom this is clearly about fraudulent bank activity and a pissing match between that dude and the companies in question.
I would be interested to know if there is a list of the politicians, lawyers etc that play poker online, someone tweeted about on your twitter feed Alex.
Well, UIGEA states that it is illegal for banks to process money related to ILLEGAL ONLINE GAMBLING.
However, only sports betting is actually illegal. There are no federal laws concerning poker or casino games.
Each state that prohibits poker or casino games could sue independently based on their own laws, but there is no federal law.
The DOJ would have to prove that firstly, poker is not a skill game, and secondly, that online poker is illegal.
They can’t prove online poker is illegal except in some individual states.
So, either it will be pursued only on the state level, or it would be a very long, drawn out thing in the courts. I doubt the DOJ wants that.
So – what I see is shock and awe. And perhaps a state taking the poker rooms to court – if they can get a hold of them. Really, what will likely happen is that they will settle and another state will walk off with full coffers.
Wishing us all luck, for me, poker is about 75% of my income and of that about 75% is USA based. Hopefully it’s one of those “blessings in disguise” it may work in our favor in the long run…we’ll see.
I don’t promote online poker either. But this sure put things into perspective as a gaming affiliate as a whole in terms of how to tread this murky water.
what are your thoughts about proxies? it would be interesting to see if players would be willing to download a proxy server along with the software if they are in the US.
I’m sure it’s small potatoes but kinda curious if it would convert
A little good news amid the massacre, US returns use of the domain names to allow US players to withdraw:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/April11/pokerdomainnameuseagreementspr.pdf
