In 2009, in an action known as the Southern District of New York Action Against Online Poker Players, federal authorities took action to freeze over $34 million of the funds of U.S. online poker players which were in the process of being sent to them to accommodate their withdrawal requests from several leading online poker rooms.
Casinos open to US players
Updated · 9 operators compared
- 7.7/10
El Royale
230% up to $20,00040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $10 · code ROYALSHOW
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Anjouan (Union of Comoros) licence
- 7.8/10
Vegas Aces
250% up to $2,50040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20 · code VAWELCOME1
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Comoros Union Authority licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
Slots.Lv
100% up to $2,000 + 20 free spins35x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- 8.7/10
Cafe
250% up to $1,50040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Curacao licence
- 8.6/10
MyBookie
150% up to $75040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $45 · code MYB150
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 7.9/10
Las Atlantis
280% up to $2,50040x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $30 · code UNDERTOW
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Anjouan (Union of Comoros) licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.4/10
BC.Game
120% up to $1,000 + 100 free spins40x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $5
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Curacao licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.2/10
Red Dog
Up to $8,00030x wagering · min deposit $10
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Anjouan licence
Visit site21+. T&Cs apply.
- 8.7/10
Bovada
100% up to $1,00025x (b+d) wagering · min deposit $20 · code CAWELCOME100
- Open to US players
- Offshore — no US state licence
- Curacao licence
How this list is built: every figure — welcome offer, wagering, minimum deposit, licence — comes from the operator’s own published terms and was checked on 24 September 2026. Ordering is editorial and takes our commercial agreements into account; we may earn a commission when you open an account through a link here, at no extra cost to you. None of these operators holds a licence from a US state regulator. Online casino play is licensed only in Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. 21+. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and several other online poker rooms had continued to offer online poker to U.S. residents after the passing of the UIGEA, and among the reasons for this was the fact that there really wasn’t any federal law making online poker illegal.
These two poker sites, and others, actually did seek to comply with U.S. law, ironically enough, even though there was no real need to do so because they are not located within the United States. When the state of Washington made online poker explicitly illegal, both sites and others voluntarily withdrew from that market, due to concerns about being in violation of the UIGEA.
There are some practical considerations here, apart from the possibility of being indicted here, as the government could in theory go after the payments being made to these Washington State poker players and seize them. The poker sites would then be on the hook for these payments, if they wanted to preserve goodwill with their players, who rely on maintaining a high level of confidence in a gambling site to commit and keep funds on deposit with them.
So the thinking at the time was that, while the Department of Justice was well known to waive a big stick and shake it at the online poker industry, under the assumption that online poker was somehow under the scope of the Wire Act, surely they wouldn’t be able to go as far as to seize funds under this Act, although they thought wrongly.
What they failed to fully appreciate is the power of intimidation, and when it comes to being issued seizure orders, U.S. banks aren’t going to put up much of a fight. It really isn’t worth it to do so, and $34 million worth of money that isn’t even theirs, which they are only making a very small percentage on, is far from worth it.
So U.S. authorities ordered Citibank, Wells Fargo, and several other U.S. banks to freeze these funds, and they simply complied. The funds were being distributed by third party intermediaries called Allied Systems and Account Services, that was being used by Full Tilt and PokerStars, among other sites to process U.S. withdrawals.
Allied Systems and Account Services used these various U.S. banks to hold the funds and issue checks from, and the funds in question subsequently became frozen.
>This Wasn’t Even About the UIGEA, Actually
Remarkably, the UIGEA had not a connection to this action, and in fact, the UIGEA explicitly exempts financial middlemen, both the banks and the third-party firms, Allied Systems and Account Services. So that option wouldn’t work, so they pursued them on money laundering charges. The strategy proved effective.
Money laundering naturally necessitates the money to arise from criminal acts, or to be used for criminal intents, so the argument was that this was the situation due to the funds being a consequence of illegal poker betting under the Wire Act. The Department of Justice had been wrongly assuming the Wire Act applied to poker since online poker was created, and at this moment, they had not yet altered this viewpoint. Sometimes, errors take time to correct.
Charges related to money laundering don't require any specific statute, such as the UIGEA, and it suffices that the funds be proceeds of crime and are being processed in a way to obscure the initial source of them that an action can be initiated here. Ironically, this was indeed a money laundering scheme of sorts, otherwise, the poker rooms would be handing out the funds to players directly, and the third-party organizations were in fact an attempt to obscure the origin of the funds. Unexpected challenges often arise.
The supposed money laundering was just needed to navigate not illegal activity per se, but a misguided belief by authorities that the funds stemmed from illegal action. Nevertheless, if the government is the one with the incorrect belief and the one with the authority to confiscate the funds under these claims, it is wise to seek ways to subvert them in this manner. Sometimes, the system can be perplexing.
The Aftermath
About 27,000 poker players were involved, and poker players can’t be charged under the Wire Act of course since it only applies to businesses offering gambling, but having their withdrawals frozen certainly can hit home, and it did cause a bit of concern initially.
This was the first attempt by the US government to go after funds not connected to sports betting, and did so in spite of no real legal ground to stand on really, as far as the Wire Act and the game of poker was concerned. As far back as in 2002, the courts have ruled that the Act does not apply to any other form of gambling other than sports betting.
The bet here was that no one would come forward to fight this legally, as the payment processors would not want to become involved, and neither would players, so the action would stand unopposed. That’s exactly what happened actually, so this does show that being right or wrong as far as the law goes doesn’t always matter, and the practical side of things can matter a great deal.
So the U.S. government bluffed, and no one made them show their real cards, even though they held an empty hand basically. So the funds were seized, but the online poker sites involved took quick action and reimbursed the players, with players at PokerStars being given an extra 10% to compensate them for the stress this caused them.
There was more to come later though, in the event known as Black Friday, with much more bluffing and fireworks, leading to some very substantial repercussions.