Ulovligørelse af US-spillere?

Er det virkelig rigtigt? Vil det blive forbudt for Amerikaner at spille online poker, i en stat der ikke har legal gambling?

Det vil jo betyde et drastisk dyk i pokerindustrien, troede ikke det ville blive fuldført... De politikere!!

lad høre, hvad i ved om sagen.

-Mrkjaer

Læs nogle af de tråde der allerede har været om emnet!!!

Der er et par gode posts på 2+2 forummet om emnet bl.a. dette svar på hvorfor bl.a. Eurobet nu udelukker US spillere:
forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=6619163

Ellers er der andre posts under dette link:

forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=law

Er er et copy and paste fra Cardplayer om emnet

CardPlayer.com Explains Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
Amended Bill Doesn''t Mention online poker Players
Confusion in the Press

There seems to be some confusion in the press regarding what bill just passed in Congress. It has been reported that the "Goodlatte" bill passed in the House. Actually what is referred to as the Goodlatte Bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, is H.R. 4777, which was fraught with problems previously reported by CardPlayer. Click here for that article. The common name of that bill was the "Internet Gambling Prohibition Act."

Another milder bill was introduced by Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican. That bill, commonly known as the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act," is H.R. 4411, which basically prohibits credit card companies and financial institutions from sending payment to gaming sites.

The bill that passed was an amended version of H.R. 4411, which is the Leach bill that added some of Goodlatte''s proposals. Before this bill becomes law, it must pass both the House and the Senate. Currently, there is no commensurate bill pending in the Senate.

Poker Players Are Not at Risk

The first thing to note is that the bill does not prohibit a poker enthusiast from playing online poker. One Democrat introduced such an amendment to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the bill, but the amendment failed. There is no mention of the poker player in the bill nor any penalty associated with playing poker.

H.R. 4411

After almost four hours of debate, the bill passed by a vote of 317-93. In a nutshell, here''s the meat of the statute and the predictable problems associated with each section of the bill.

Online gaming sites are prohibited from accepting payment from a United States financial institution. Since all online sites are outside of the United States, our government has no jurisdiction to enforce this part of the law. Simply stated, the United States cannot make laws or enforce laws regarding business outside the United States.

Financial institutions are forbidden from delivering funds to online gaming sites. However, most banks and credit card companies already refuse to send money to offshore sites. Therefore, offshore third-party companies have already been set in motion to handle United States financial transactions.

The amended 1961 Wire Act modernizes its language by including the Internet and prohibiting games "predominantly subject to chance." This will be the start of expensive and time-consuming litigation regarding whether poker is predominantly a game of skill or chance.

A burden is placed upon Internet service providers and other technology providers to block access to online gambling sites when requested to do so by a law enforcement agency. This will prove to be an unenforceable nightmare for all involved.

The bill directs the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to issue regulations outlining policies and procedures that could be used by financial institutions to identify and block gambling-related transactions that are transmitted through their payment systems. If the bill ever becomes law, these entities have 270 days to write such procedures. The implementation is mind boggling.

The bill contains carve-outs for such things as lotteries, horse racing, and the stock market. Every opponent of the bill criticizes the bill because, while it attempts to legislate morality, it prohibits only certain forms of gambling while allowing others.

As a matter of fact, although the proponents of the bill say that online gaming is destroying the moral fiber of society, the bill allows a state to house an online gaming site for its citizens.

Political Motivation

The bill was clearly politically motivated by Republicans who are worried about losing control in the House after the November election. Last month, House Republican leaders announced that this bill would be p

Så er det ligesom slået fast! Hans modstandere siger vel det samme den anden vej...