Byran’s email included documents indicating a forthcoming change in the current Australian gaming legislation, the Interactive Gambling Act of 2001. The documents included a new draft of this legislation. Recently, a Victorian regulatory review was quoted as saying that the current ban on in-play betting served “no useful purpose” due to the fact that it can already be done by phone.

This is a classic case of legislation needing to catch up with technology. Up until this point, the Australian government has so far taken up a “wait and see” approach to the issue of online gambling. They’ve been able to observe the effects of legalized poker legislation (such as that of France) as well as the anti-gambling legislation of the United States.

With any luck, the outcomes of the various case studies should prove to be very useful to Australian authorities. While the French opted to regulate online poker in their country, their legislation has resulted in high taxes as well as small and monopolized online poker sites. This is due to the legal requirement that French players are only allowed to play against other French players.

Australian brick and mortar poker games have some of the highest rakes in the world. This makes it likely that Australian players will not catch a break when it comes to the amount of rake they will need to pay in order to keep playing online.

It has been reported that Pokerstars is facing a €200 million tax bill, while bwin.party owes €60m and Sportingbet/Miapuesta owes €50m. Other sites with a smaller Spanish player base will owe smaller amounts in back taxes, should they choose to receive an online license to be able to continue allowing Spanish players.

The potential licensees are of course outraged by this demand, especially since Spain had no legislation whatsoever regarding online poker until February 2011. The original legislation permitted current operators to continue in Spain, before official licenses were to be issued, as long as they paid taxes beginning in July 2011.

Although Pokerstars would have to pay the most to stay in the Spanish market, they may well pay it in order to retain the lucrative market. Current online poker legislation in Spain includes a stipulation for a segregated player pool, similar to that of France and Italy. For example on Pokerstars, players located in France may only play on Pokerstars.fr against other French players. This legislation could end up giving Pokerstars a near monopoly on the Spanish online poker market. Pokerstars already has the largest Spanish player pool and the other operators may simply drop out of the Spanish market rather than pay 4 years in back taxes.

There is a chance, although very small, that this Spanish market development could open some doors for other networks to move in. Smaller networks, which currently have only a small 4-year tax bill to pay, could be poised to swoop in and offer Spanish players a solid platform on which to play online poker. This is a longshot however, as the Cara de Poker Spanish only iPoker skin just recently closed, moving all of its players over to PokerStars in December of 2011.

In all likelihood, it will be Pokerstars that will soon earn its place as the largest Spanish poker site. Although at this juncture it appears that it will cost them a very significant amount of money to do so.

Currently, only PokerStars.be, Partouche.be, and Casino777.be are allowed to offer online poker to Belgian citizens. These three received licenses under the Belgian Gambling Act this past February. According to PokerNews, PokerStars managed to get by thanks to a partnership with Circus Groupe, an online casino developer.

For now, controversy abounds on the matter. PartyPoker and iPoker, two major players in the internet gaming industry, have been particularly vocal in their criticism of the Belgian government. Due to unresolved taxation questions within the law itself, they have dubbed the current legislation to be unenforceable.

Several other poker sites have already found their names on the blacklist. Among these are ChiliPoker, TitanPoker, EverestPoker, and 888Poker. As of yet, there has been no word on the possibility of further licensees.

Bill A2578 is worded such that it would supplement current gambling legislation, by adding poker, roulette, baccarat, blackjack and other games to the list of “Authorized Gambling Games” suitable for wagering over the internet, as laid out in the current New Jersey Casino Control Act. It would allow for operators to obtain gaming licenses in Atlantic City and offer online gambling games to the residents of New Jersey.

As expected, not everyone is pleased with the potential effects of this bill. State Sen. Ralph Caputo, a former Atlantic City casino executive, says that it is “hypocritical” for the Legislature to allow a “virtual expansion of gaming” beyond Atlantic City’s boundaries, without also giving brick and mortar establishments the same luxury.

Sen. Ray Lesniak is an advocate of legalized online gambling. He sees it as a good way to regulate the industry, while at the same time benefiting the state with tax revenues. However, he has voiced concern over the fact that the Assembly version of this bill proposes a much higher tax rate than what was expressed in the Senate version. The Assembly version states a tax of 20% of the gross revenue, and another 5% to go towards the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority. This 25% rate is much higher than the current 9.25% tax (8% plus 1.25%) that brick and mortar casinos are subject to.

Lesniak was heard in testimony saying that too high of a tax rate for online entities might have a strong negative impact on the ability of New Jersey operators from being able to create accords with other states’ online gambling operations. There is no currently enacted legislation supporting this, but there is one pending piece of legislation (Senate Bill 1565) which would allow such pacts under certain circumstances.

The proposed Bill A2578 isn’t the only bill regarding online gaming currently being considered for New Jersey. There are at least two other pending bills regarding internet technology and how it should be permitted for use when it comes to gambling.

There is the pending Senate Bill 1565, which is up for vote on May31st. There is also the proposed bill A-2610, which would update New Jersey’s horse racing laws to make a clear exception for players to place bets and receive information about bets on their cellphones and other mobile devices, such as iPads. Currently in the USA, only Nevada and Atlantic City allow the use of cellphones and other mobile devices in designated sports book and other gambling areas.

Known as Senate Bill 1565, the proposed law would allow Atlantic City-based casinos to offer remote wagering games to residents of the Garden State. This is the second such proposal to advance to this level, following the eventual veto of a similar bill last year. After addressing some of Governor Chris Christie’s concerns, online gambling enthusiasts are back for another round.

One group primed to take advantage of a potential legalization happens to be headed by a rather familiar face. Donald Trump’s entry into the gaming business has long shown interest in the revenue generating power of internet gaming.

“Currently,” commented Trump Entertainment Resorts CEO Robert Griffin, “millions of Americans engage in online gaming with illegal offshore operators with no oversight, no regulation and no consumer protection. The state should regulate this activity, enforce strict standards to ensure the games are fair and collect revenues rather than allow profits and jobs to illegally go overseas… The state of New Jersey must be in the forefront of legalizing this emerging marketplace.”

With legislation flagging on the national level, many states are re-examining their intra-state stance. According to New Jersey General Assembly member John Burzichelli, now’s the time for the Garden State to step forward.

“Nothing can happen outside our state borders,” he told the Wall Street Journal, “unless the federal government acts and that’s not likely anytime soon.”

This news comes almost a month after Campos had first announced his plea. Judge Kaplan was initially skeptical of this action, in light of the five felony charges hanging over the former banker’s head. But, according to iGaming Business, advice from several United States Attorneys in his district (including Preet Bharara, Arlo Devlin-Brown and Andrew Goldstein) swayed the matter in favor of the defendant. A letter penned by this legal trio provided the key arguments, showing that Campos’ role, in comparison to that over the other Black Friday indictees, was fairly minor.

The deeds in question came during his time as the chairman of SunFirst Bank. Prior to the bank’s shutdown in early 2011, the institution hemorrhaged some $2,700,000 of their customers’ money. Also involved in the process was Chad Elie, another Black Friday indictee, who collaborated with Campos in processing illegal online gambling transactions. Elie allegedly agreed to invest some $10,000,000 into the deal, which would have acquired him a 30% interest in SunFirst Bank.

Now, it appears as though Campos will face a maximum of six months in prison. This represents a significant reduction from the potential sentence which five felonies would have generated. However, he will also be barred from the banking industry, putting him out of work for the foreseeable future. The exact terms of his sentence will be decided when he faces Judge Kaplan late this coming June.

As for what this means for the future of Full Tilt Poker remains up in the air. If Full Tilt regains it’s lost license then we could potentially see the reopening of FTP rather soon. What this means for repayment of former funds remains also in question. It seems logical if FTP reopens that it would be a top priority for FTP to repay in full the players outside of the United States, as these players will be the player base until the U.S market reopens. It is largely unknown when, how or to what extent. US players will be refunded their lost funds.

There are, according to iGaming Business, four individuals leading this particular charge – Steve Segal of New York, Todd Terry of New Jersey, and Nick Hammer and Robin Hougdahl of Minnesota. This group is returning to the litigation process after a failed attempt in 2011, when their initial case accused Full Tilt of racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering. Because of the widespread distribution of the individuals involved, however, this first case was thrown out by a federal judge on the grounds that the collective matter was outside of his jurisdiction. As with their current suit, Lederer, Ferguson, and several other Full Tilt related persons and companies were named.

Why single out these two? In the end, it comes down to money. The class action statement alleges that Lederer received some $42 million in profit sharing and loans from Full Tilt, while Ferguson is accused of drawing $85 million from the company. These sums, the defendants argue, were illegally obtained and should be reimbursed to the site’s former players. The loans themselves are not the issue – it’s where the money came from that has raised eyebrows across the poker world.

“Defendants,” the lawsuit reads, “approved distributions and loans to the other owners of Full Tilt Poker from funds directly traceable to the player accounts… The distributions and loans to Lederer, Ferguson and the other Full Tilt Poker owners were from intermingled funds containing monies from the player accounts.”

The court documents, which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, come nearly one year after the events of Black Friday. The four accusers are seeking a refund of their online poker bankrolls, as well as the payment of punitive damages.

In March of 2011, Republican Governor Chris Christie vetoed the first incarnation of the New Jersey internet gambling bill. However, since that time there have been a number of developments and changes in the online gambling law landscape. The most important of which was the Justice Department’s change in opinion on the Wire Act.

The original interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act was that all forms of gambling across state lines are illegal. Although very outdated due to massive changes in technology since 1961, the Wire Act was the teeth behind the newly enacted Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006. In December of 2011 the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed their stance on how the Wire Act applies to internet poker. Here is an excerpt from that DOJ statement:

“We conclude that interstate transmissions of wire communications that do not relate to a “sporting event or contest,” 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a), fall outside of the reach of the Wire Act. Because the proposed New York and Illinois lottery proposals do not involve wagering on sporting events or contests, the Wire Act does not, in our view, prohibit them. Given this conclusion, we have not found it necessary to address the Wire Act’s interaction with UIGEA, or to analyze UIGEA in any other respect.”

Thanks to this and other changes in the online gaming landscape, Lesniak feels that there is a very strong chance that on May 31st that the New Jersey Senate will vote in favor of Bill 1565. He now estimates that online poker within the state of New Jersey will a reality sometime this fall.

Another important aspect of this bill is that it would also allow New Jersey to enter into an accord with other states, or even countries, as long as that area’s laws are also compatible. This is critical for smaller markets (such as individual states) where they may have a very difficult time gathering a critical mass of players. Without a sufficient number of players, it is difficult to keep tables running and give players a good choice of different types of games. This bill also states that online gambling revenues would be taxed at 10%, as opposed to the current tax of 8% on Atlantic City casinos.

The bill, penned by Senators Raymond Lesniak and James Whelan, recently passed through the state’s Government, Wagering, Tourism, and Historic Preservation Committee. Support for the bill was unanimous, carrying the day with an 11-0 vote.

As currently drafted, Lesniak and Whelan’s proposal would allow the land-based casinos of Atlantic city to accept online wagers from residents of New Jersey. Following its victory in the small arena, the bill is scheduled to appear before the entire state senate. Lesniak, a longtime advocate of internet gaming, hopes to have the piece signed into law by September of this year.

“This is another step forward toward my goal of New Jersey becoming the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming,” he said, “generating hundreds of millions in revenues for our casino industry, thousands of jobs for Atlantic City and tens of millions of revenues for our Casino Revenue Fund to help seniors and the disabled.”

As many will recall, this isn’t the first time that an online gaming bill has drawn attention in New Jersey. Last year, a similar measure made it all the way to the desk of Governor Chris Christie before falling under the veto ax. In the face of criticism, the Governor maintained an open attitude toward the possibility of internet wagering in his state. He felt, however, that the initial bill lacked in several key areas. Security and the prevention of underage gaming were two areas which needed further attention, Christie said. Expect both of these topics to be covered much more thoroughly in Lesniak’s latest effort.