online gambling

Online gambling is a general term for gambling using the Internet. This article provides a brief introduction to some of the forms of online gambling, as well as discussing general issues.
Online pokerMain article: Online pokerOnline poker tables commonly offer Texas hold 'em, Omaha, Seven-card stud, razz and other game types in both tournament and ring game structures. Players play against each other rather than the "house", with the card room making its money through "rake" and through tournament fees.
Online casinosMain article: Online casinoThere are a large number of online casinos, in which people can play casino games such as roulette, blackjack, pachinko, baccarat and many others. These games are played against the "house", which makes money due to the fact that the odds are in its favor.
Online sports bettingMain article: Sports bettingBookmakers and betting exchanges offer fixed-odds gambling over the Internet on the results of sporting events.
Online bingoMain article: Online bingoThere are a number of online bingo rooms offering games on the Internet.
Mobile gamblingMain article: Mobile gamblingDevelopments in the use of wireless, mobile devices to gamble follow in the wake of mainstream online gambling.
Funds transfersTypically, gamblers upload funds to the online gambling company, make bets or play the games that it offers, and then cash out any winnings. European gamblers can often fund gambling accounts by credit card or debit card, and cash out winnings directly back to the card. However, most US banks prohibit the use of their cards for the purpose of internet gambling, and attempts by Americans to use credit cards at internet gambling sites are usually rejected.[1] A number of electronic money services offer accounts with which online gambling can be funded. However, many top fund-transfer sites such as FirePay, Neteller & Moneybookers have discontinued service for U.S. residents.
Payment by check and wire transfer is also common.
Legality
United StatesThe United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled[2] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across telecommunications lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[3] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance."
Some states have specific laws against online gambling of any kind. Also, owning an online gaming operation without proper licensing would be illegal, and no states are currently granting online gaming licenses.
In March 2003, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John G. Malcolm testified before the Senate Banking Committee regarding the special problems presented by online gambling.[4] A major concern of the United States Department of Justice is online money laundering. The anonymous nature of the Internet and the use of encryption make it especially difficult to trace online money laundering transactions.
In April 2004 Google and Yahoo!, the two largest internet search engines, announced that they were removing online gambling advertising from their sites. The move followed a United States Department of Justice announcement that, in what some say is a contradiction of the Appeals Court ruling, the Wire Act relating to telephone betting applies to all forms of Internet gambling, and that any advertising of such gambling "may" be deemed as aiding and abetting. Critics of the Justice Department's move say that it has no legal basis for pressuring companies to remove advertisements and that the advertisements are protected by the First Amendment.[5] As of April 2005, Yahoo! has instigated a restrictive policy about gambling ads.[6]
In August 2004, Casino City, an online portal for internet gambling sites, sued the US Department of Justice. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the websites business—promoting internet gambling—was legal, and requested a declaration from the court that its business was protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed the case in February of 2005.
In its opinion, the District Court wrote,