Language

§5363 - Ban on Receipt of Any Financial Instrument for Unauthorized Online Gambling

No person engaged in the business of gambling or wagering may intentionally accept, regarding the involvement of another person, in unauthorized online gambling - [credit, EFTs, checks, drafts, or the income of any distinct form of monetary transaction as expressed in federal control].

Before the UIGEA, entities or persons that supported or facilitated online gambling deal could only be accused with aiding and abetting (considerably supporting a person in the commission of a illegal crime makes you equally liable as the person doing the crime) or conspiracy (intentionally and willingly involving in an agreement to breach the law).

o With the enactment of the UIGEA law enforcement officers no longer required to be dependent on distorting the present laws to punish those involving in the online gambling transactions (aiding and abetting needs no knowledge and conspiracy entails no crime)

Bet or Wager

The gambling or wagering by any person of something of worth upon the result of a challenge of others, a sporting occasion, or a game conditional on chance, upon an agreement or knowledge that the person or another person will get something of worth in the affair of a specified result.

Also integrated in this description is a lottery reward prized by chance, called a "scheme" under United States Code

28 USC §3702 Scheme

Any instruction or fact on the subject of the establishment or transfer of funds by the gambler or client in, to, or from, an account with the dealing of gambling or wagering.

This is where the dilemma in the original language of the act arises. The "business of gambling or wagering is not distinct anywhere in the UIGEA. This is how it reads.

§532(2) Business of Gambling or Wagering

The term "business of gambling or wagering" does not embrace the actions of a monetary transaction provider, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service.

Whereas the Act notifies what the "business of gambling or wagering" is not, it prevents describing what it is. It is perhaps that the term was distinct in the provision that expanded the Wire Act, which has been later expelled.

o The consequence is that by describing what the "business of gambling or wagering is not" the Act as fashioned a substantial amount of ambiguity surrounding whether it affects the industry it was supposed to be aimed at - "financial service providers."