In
the October 3, 2006 LA Times, Professor Nelson
Rose is quoted as follows with respect to the
coverage of “poker” under the recently
passed US legislation:
That's a major weakness" of the new measure,
said I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law
at Whittier Law School.
"It left out expanding the reach of the
Wire Act, so poker sites can say, 'We're not covered
by that.' "
This failure to amend the Wire Act to include
poker is the first step of two positive analytic
threads:
First thread: Playing
online poker is itself not "unlawful Internet
Gambling" under Federal Law (leaving aside
State law for now), so deposits for online poker
are not in connection with "unlawful Internet
gambling".
1. The UIGE Act only related to deposits in connection
with "unlawful Internet gambling".
2. Poker is not unlawful Internet gambling (under
the Wire Act, leaving aside State laws for this
discussion.)
3. Therefore, deposits in connection with online
poker are not restricted by the UIGE Act.
The second thread,
which was our initial thought,:
1. Even assuming that online poker were construed
to be "unlawful Internet gambling",
the UIGE Act only applies to acceptance of deposits
by persons "engaged in the business of betting
or wagering".
2. Poker site business models do not involve
any risk of the site dependent upon the outcome
of play; poker sites do not "bet or wager".
3. The “poker-only business’ model
is not a person covered by the restrictions of
the UIGE Act.
Conclusion: Most of online poker rooms are not covered by the UIGE Act, and will continue
to offer games for play by US players. |
