Featured No Deposit Casino Bonuses

No Deposit Casino
No Deposit Bonus
Bonus Code
First Deposit Bonus
USA Players Accepted
$31
NDN31
200% up to $7777
Yes
$10
UPTOWN10
250% up to $8,888
Yes
$127
NDN127
400% up to $4,000
Yes
$1,500
No Code Needed
100% up to $200
No
$175
NDN175
100% up to $11,000
Yes
$100
100NEW
250% up to $7000
Yes

 

Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    BETHLEHEM,P.A.
    Posts
    1,735

    Post Feds Getting Serious about online poker

    I came across this article while I was on Si.com and I thought that this would be a good read for those of you with decent bankrolls invested online. It looks like the feds are ready to start cracking down on online poker.
    An advocacy group for online poker said Tuesday that the federal government has frozen more than $30 million in the accounts of payment processors that handle the winnings of thousands of online poker players.

    The Justice Department long has maintained that Internet gambling is illegal, a view that the poker group challenges.

    The Poker Players Alliance told The Associated Press that the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York instructed three banks -- Citibank, Goldwater Bank and Alliance Bank of Arizona -- to freeze the accounts.

    Documents obtained by the AP show that a magistrate judge in the district issued a seizure warrant last week for an account at a Wells Fargo bank in San Francisco, and that a federal prosecutor told Alliance Bank to freeze accounts.

    In a letter dated Friday and faxed to Alliance Bank, the prosecutor said accounts held by payment processor Allied Systems Inc. are subject to seizure and forfeiture "because they constitute property involved in money laundering transactions and illegal gambling offenses." The letter was signed by Arlo Devlin-Brown, assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

    In another letter faxed the same day, Devlin-Brown asks that the bank treat the funds "as legally seized" by the FBI, saying that the government has probable cause that the gambling payments of U.S. residents had been directed to offshore illegal Internet gambling businesses.

    "The FBI has authority to seize proceeds of specified unlawful activity without a warrant under exigent circumstances," wrote Devlin-Brown -- a process criticized by the Poker Players Alliance.

    In addition, a grand jury subpoena issued last week to Allied Systems seeks communications, financial transactions and processing services between the company and Internet gambling operations. The subpoenas also seek corporate records and bank accounts.

    A spokeswoman at the Southern District declined to comment.

    John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance, called the government's move an "unprecedented action" against online poker players.

    In a letter Monday night to Devlin-Brown, Pappas requested that his group be notified and given the opportunity to be heard regarding attempts to seize the frozen funds.

    He said that "seizure of Allied Systems' bank accounts would constitute a violation of due process because there are no exigent circumstances to justify deprivation of PPA members' property without prior notice and a hearing."

    "The PPA will pursue every legal course available to ensure that poker players' funds are not seized and their right to play poker online is protected," Pappas wrote.

    In the interview, Pappas said 20,000 player accounts were affected, but that his group has received assurances from online poker sites that the players would be fully compensated.

    A 2006 law prohibits financial institutions from accepting payments from credit cards, checks or electronic fund transfers to settle online wagers. The Justice Department viewed Internet gambling as illegal even before that.

    In a statement, the alliance chairman, former New York Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, said the frozen funds belonged to individual poker players, not poker Web sites.

    "This money should be immediately released by the Southern District to ensure that player payouts are not further disrupted," he said.

    The alliance, which is funded by its poker player members and the Interactive Gaming Council, a Vancouver, British Columbia-based trade association for online casinos, plans to spend $3 million lobbying this congressional session. The group supports legislation by Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, that would regulate rather than ban Internet gambling.

    At least half the $16 billion Internet gambling industry, which is largely hosted on overseas sites, is estimated to be fueled by U.S. bettors.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    I'm so glad I don't bank at those banks.

    It sucks that the government doesn't see poker as a game of skill but hopefully they will soon see the light!

    We just need Obama to get on board and then everything will work out.

    Most everyone in Washington, D.C., lawmakers and the like, agree with anything Obama decides so that's got to be a good solution.

    I bet Obama does gamble anyways.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    167

    Default

    And things were supposed to change ie get better under Obama. It sounds more like meet the new boss, same as the old boss. If the feds were so worried about money changing hands, why don't they bring back the Bretton Woods banking system that mandated a paper trail for transactions between two accounts at the same bank (known as intra-bank transactions). Now, there only has to be a paper trail when the accounts involve two different banks. As a result, most major money laundering and drug deals are done intra-bank.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Online Poker U.S.
    By Larrdawg69 in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-29-2011, 04:28 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-27-2009, 12:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •