illegal to have money at a book or send money

[Puppy]

what if you have money at a book. is that illegal by us law?

[SBR Lou]

There is a federal law that prohibits US banking institutions from knowingly facilitating transactions for online betting. Nothing in this law (the UIGEA) makes it illegal for a player to place sports bets.

State laws vary - but the archaic anti-gaming laws are typically tried on people making book within the US, not making bets.

[QuantumLeap]

There is a federal law that prohibits US banking institutions from knowingly facilitating transactions for online betting. Nothing in this law (the UIGEA) makes it illegal for a player to place sports bets.

State laws vary - but the archaic anti-gaming laws are typically tried on people making book within the US, not making bets.

What about the Federal Wire Act?

[Puppy]

so one could fly to costa rica and deposit. then place bets from florida hmmm

[Justin7]

What about the Federal Wire Act?

The Federal Wire Act makes it illegal to accept bets over the telephone, which has been interpreted as including the internet.

It does *not* cover the placing of a wager. The Federal Wire Act has absolutely nothing in it preventing the placing of a bet. Too bad my gambling seminar isn't up on SBR TV anymore... It covered all that

[touchback]

So as long as you dont use the callcenter option you are ok, is that what you are saying. So technically, I know this is silly, what if you had a friend by the phone and told him what you wanted and he said it to the clerk... or you could write your selections down and express service it and no problems... the wire act only applies to wagers placed over the phone from principle customer directly to principle service provider?

[NunyaBidness]

So as long as you dont use the callcenter option you are ok, is that what you are saying. So technically, I know this is silly, what if you had a friend by the phone and told him what you wanted and he said it to the clerk... or you could write your selections down and express service it and no problems... the wire act only applies to wagers placed over the phone from principle customer directly to principle service provider?

He's saying the onus is on the one accepting the bet, not the one placing it.

[QuantumLeap]

The Federal Wire Act makes it illegal to accept bets over the telephone, which has been interpreted as including the internet.

It does *not* cover the placing of a wager. The Federal Wire Act has absolutely nothing in it preventing the placing of a bet. Too bad my gambling seminar isn't up on SBR TV anymore... It covered all that

Thanks Justin7.

[thompsontw]

So if I cross the street in the middle do i get a ticket for jaywalking???

[vividjohn45]

this fed law applies to the offshore sportsbooks. not the player (bettor) http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder...protection.htm


here is another. http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...t-Wire-Act.htm
.

for the most part the operator (book) is the one who takes the risk of the feds catching them.


but BetOnline is minimum 500 withdrawal. intertops 50 charge to withdrawal.

[Hareeba!]

So if I cross the street in the middle do i get a ticket for jaywalking???

only if you don't get run down by a bus

[eleuropeano]

It should be made illegal to vote republican, so you don't have to try to decipher dumb laws like that.

[Coming Back!]

There are State Laws that prohibit "placing a wager". NY is not currently one of them

[TehSharp]

It should be made illegal to vote republican, so you don't have to try to decipher dumb laws like that.

It's the left too. American politicians have always had this belief that they have to save Americans from themselves. It's amazing we are considered "free"

Who would I be hurting walking down the street smoking a fat one, accepting bets on the Super Bowl; while openly prostituting myself out in the process????

NO ONE!!!!!!!!

God Bless America

[relaaxx]

It's the left too. American politicians have always had this belief that they have to save Americans from themselves. It's amazing we are considered "free"

Who would I be hurting walking down the street smoking a fat one, accepting bets on the Super Bowl; while openly prostituting myself out in the process????

NO ONE!!!!!!!!

God Bless America

well put - but the left is less of a problem than the right. although still part of the problem. the only way to at least feel like you can be free here in the US, is to break laws and then not worry about what you did. most people worry to much to enjoy the freedom we are capable of obtaining without the goverments permission. break the laws. don't worry. if you get caught, then and only then do you have a reason to worry. if you can't break the laws without worrying, don't break the laws, just not worth it with the worrying. good luck to all breaking every law you disagree with. where ever you live.

[Microphone]

They're both problems. It's called government.

[BestPicks]

There are State Laws that prohibit "placing a wager". NY is not currently one of them

where I can find a list of States that prohibit "placing a wager"?

[eleuropeano]

UIGEA was created by republican congressmen, was sped up stealthily through Congress concealed in a Port Authority legislation just before the 2006 elections by republican congressmen and was ultimately signed into law by a republican president. A democrat congressman (Barney Frank) actually tried to reverse the bill, but was unsuccessful in the Republican controlled House. So it is not all the same.

Furthermore, I think the belief that all politicians are scum and there is nothing you can do about it and just have to bend over whenever they have something on their mind is a fallacy.

True, most are scums. But all of them depend on the vote of the people for their job. So as long as they feel their job is safe, they do whatever they like (or, whatever lobbyist tell them). But when they feel the heat of people's discontent up their ass they are able to miraculously see the word in a different light. How quickly was SOPA flushed when enough people started protesting against it?

[infamousbacardi]

It should be made illegal to vote republican, so you don't have to try to decipher dumb laws like that.

UIGEA was created by republican congressmen, was sped up stealthily through Congress concealed in a Port Authority legislation just before the 2006 elections by republican congressmen and was ultimately signed into law by a republican president. A democrat congressman (Barney Frank) actually tried to reverse the bill, but was unsuccessful in the Republican controlled House. So it is not all the same. Furthermore, I think the belief that all politicians are scum and there is nothing you can do about it and just have to bend over whenever they have something on their mind is a fallacy. True, most are scums. But all of them depend on the vote of the people for their job. So as long as they feel their job is safe, they do whatever they like (or, whatever lobbyist tell them). But when they feel the heat of people's discontent up their ass they are able to miraculously see the word in a different light. How quickly was SOPA flushed when enough people started protesting against it?

I've always voted Republican and always will...yet I'm very socially liberal. Prostitution? Should be legal. Pot? Legalize it. Abortion? Support it. Sports betting? Legalize it too.
However, and here's the glaring hole in your reductive argument...If you think that someone wanting sports betting legalized is a big enough reason to vote against a party by itself, then you have an addiction and need help.
My issue with the left has absolutely nothing to do with their social beliefs regarding the above mentioned topics...however, if you choose to extend unemployment, buy car manufacturers, and spend my future grandchildren's money wrecklessly, we have a problem. A much bigger problem than me not being able to place a wager on the Pacers to beat the Cavs tonight.

Nonetheless, the point is well taken. Sports betting should be legalized.

[scott235]

...not to be a stick in the mud, but it IS ILLEGAL to wager online (more precisely, to fund) from the U.S., and is stated as such in UIGEA...However, as in using a local to bet, this is far down on the list of priorities for Law enforcement thankfully for the time being. (cops like to bet too!). As I'm sure to be attacked for not shilling for the industry, I rec you read the law in detail yourself.

[durito]

...not to be a stick in the mud, but it IS ILLEGAL to wager online (more precisely, to fund) from the U.S., and is stated as such in UIGEA...However, as in using a local to bet, this is far down on the list of priorities for Law enforcement thankfully for the time being. (cops like to bet too!). As I'm sure to be attacked for not shilling for the industry, I rec you read the law in detail yourself.

You might want to read it again.

[scott235]

You might want to read it again.

...right on cue! Puppy...read it. The language is not ambivalent. GL @ bye

[flyingillini]

This is why Puppy is smart by using Bitcoin only with your book from now on.

[relaaxx]

what is more wasteful than war. and the republicans never met a war they did not like. in FACT , they will lie to get us into one(irag). i could live with the republican party going away. but since they are by far the richest party with the most power because of the money. we are stuck with them. and the left{democrats) have to bow(because they want a piece) to their power and money. they are the 1%. along with the other 9% that have the pie. the rest of us have crumbs. just cracks me up when another pauper admits he votes republican because the left squanders money.

[infamousbacardi]

what is more wasteful than war. and the republicans never met a war they did not like. in FACT , they will lie to get us into one(irag). i could live with the republican party going away. but since they are by far the richest party with the most power because of the money. we are stuck with them. and the left{democrats) have to bow(because they want a piece) to their power and money. they are the 1%. along with the other 9% that have the pie. the rest of us have crumbs. just cracks me up when another pauper admits he votes republican because the left squanders money.

It takes a strong person to vote for what they believe in rather than what benefits them most personally. We should all strive to be the 1%, not settle for "crumbs" and being content with not reaching your full potential.

It seems you could stand to learn a great deal from that 1%.

And GTFO with that overplayed war nonsense. If you had 1 ounce of the information they had that was believed by most you would have made the same decision. They had without a doubt already violated the regulations that had been placed on them by the UN anyway you want to look at it.

You would just rather believe what you've heard than think for yourself.

Have a good day.

[ToPHeR]

Government of peace

[relaaxx]

It takes a strong person to vote for what they believe in rather than what benefits them most personally. We should all strive to be the 1%, not settle for "crumbs" and being content with not reaching your full potential.

It seems you could stand to learn a great deal from that 1%.

And GTFO with that overplayed war nonsense. If you had 1 ounce of the information they had that was believed by most you would have made the same decision. They had without a doubt already violated the regulations that had been placed on them by the UN anyway you want to look at it.

You would just rather believe what you've heard than think for yourself.

Have a good day.

nothing wrong with disagreeing. noone gets in the 1%, you are born in. there should not even be a 1%. talk about thinking for yourself - "If you had 1 ounce of the information they had that was believed by most you would have made the same decision". -- and that's how republicans know what to do and say--- they are told how to think. what most think doesn't make it true. being in the majority is not an assurance of being right. they are just in the majority. we both have better things to do than go back and forth. i will not reply to/if you respond, unless asked. good luck to you beating books.

[danger]

> It does *not* cover the placing of a wager. The Federal Wire Act has absolutely nothing in it preventing
> the placing of a bet.

Justin, can you clarify? I don't see anything in the text that differentiates placing versus accepting. To me, it seems like placing a bet would fall under using a wire communication for the transmission of bets. Do you have any links to legal documents that support what you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Wire_Act

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Trimming this to the relevant text:

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

[Hareeba!]

> It does *not* cover the placing of a wager. The Federal Wire Act has absolutely nothing in it preventing
> the placing of a bet.

Justin, can you clarify? I don't see anything in the text that differentiates placing versus accepting. To me, it seems like placing a bet would fall under using a wire communication for the transmission of bets. Do you have any links to legal documents that support what you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Wire_Act

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Trimming this to the relevant text:

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

perhaps a mere punter isn't "engaged in ... business"?

[RawBillyIce]

Tax evasion technically only illegal thing for player. So if u wire 1k. And turn it into 25k...legally u r suposedto pay taxes on your winnings

[Art Vandeleigh]

How sports betting at sportsbooks which are legal and licensed in their countries is seen as anti-societal behavior, is still not somethng I can understand. How this act (sports betting) is different than other trading, such as currency trading, stock option trading, collectibles trading, etc....is beyond me.

If you're not hurting yourself, if you're not hurting those around you, and if you're not hurting society (pay your taxes!), where is society's justification to demand compensation from you in the form of fines or prison time? Where the h e double hockey sticks is the justification!!!

[Joe Dogs]

Thank God sports betting will soon be a reality in N.J.

I,m getting tired of all this cloak and dagger crap.

[Justin7]

> It does *not* cover the placing of a wager. The Federal Wire Act has absolutely nothing in it preventing
> the placing of a bet.

Justin, can you clarify? I don't see anything in the text that differentiates placing versus accepting. To me, it seems like placing a bet would fall under using a wire communication for the transmission of bets. Do you have any links to legal documents that support what you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Wire_Act

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Trimming this to the relevant text:

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

You need to read the definition of "gambling information" in the Wire Act. Gambling information does not mean what common sense says.

[rkelly110]

I don't know, I see a whole lot of hypocrisy. We can deposit and bet off line and on line
for horses, but can't for sports? Sports betting can only be done in Las Vegas? Casino's
popping up in almost every state, almost every state has a lottery?

Sounds like our dumb ass elected officials have alzheimer's or they need a lobbyist to give
them some money. I'm guessing the later.

[mbrenes]

Thank God sports betting will soon be a reality in N.J.

I,m getting tired of all this cloak and dagger crap.

You are saying betting on sports will be legal in NJ actually ???