1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Better off illegal?

Discussion in 'Casino Industry Discussion' started by De Beuker, Jan 28, 2011.

    Jan 28, 2011
  1. De Beuker

    De Beuker Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Production
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I'm starting to get a little bit worried.
    Why?
    Because here in Holland online gaming will soon lose its illegal status.
    Aint that a good thing then?
    No, not really.
    The same happened in France last year and as a result, French players got banned at almost every reputable online casino out there.

    I'm afraid I'm a bit lost at this point.
    In the USA, its illegal and as a result US players are getting banned.
    In France, its made legal, and as a result, French players are getting banned.
    :confused: :confused:

    This week I wanted to play some Playtech for a change and tried to sign up at one of the accredited Playtechs here.
    Totesport no longer accepts Dutch players, same goes for Bet365.:(
    Rival casinos no longer accept Dutch players.
    Existing accounts are still open, but for how long?

    Does anyone know what will happen exactly when online gaming becomes legal and regulated here?
    I know online gaming sites will need to have a licence soon if they want to offer service to Dutch players, and Betway for example is trying to get one.

    Will I soon be left with only a bunch of Costa Rican RTG sh*tholes?
    And a crappy online version of Holland Casino? (which is owned by the Dutch government)
    That would be the end of online gaming for me...:(
     
  2. Jan 28, 2011
  3. Seventh777

    Seventh777 RIP Roy

    Occupation:
    Builder, mainly renovations.
    Location:
    Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
    Look on the bright side, at least you still have your cafe`s ;).
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Jan 28, 2011
  5. De Beuker

    De Beuker Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Production
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Yeah, guess I have to sign up at CafeMeister forum to check which ones are accredited and which ones are the rogue cafes..
     
  6. Jan 28, 2011
  7. KasinoKing

    KasinoKing WebMeister & Slotaholic.. CAG MM PABnonaccred webmeister

    Occupation:
    House-Husband and Casino Advisor
    Location:
    Bexhill on sea, England
    I think that hit the nail on the head.
    It will only be legal for LICENCED casinos - how much that licence costs and how easy it is to get will no doubt have a big impact on which casinos apply for it.
    I presume any other casinos with EU regulators will NOT be attempting to gain or keep Dutch players - exactly the same as France.
    This could spread world-wide - I believe it is even being talked about for the UK. It might be a good thing if it spread to the USA, but the bottom line is, how much are the casinos going to have to pay to be licenced, because we all know where that licence money is going to have to come from... :(

    KK
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Jan 28, 2011
  9. dominique

    dominique Dormant account

    Occupation:
    webmistress
    Location:
    The Boonies
    If it spreads to the USA, the number of players will increase so dramatically that I doubt casinos will have any issues paying for licencing...
     
  10. Jan 28, 2011
  11. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    This could end up being highly embarrassing for the industry, because it will look like they actually WANT to remain illegal because of what they can get away with because players have little means of redress.

    This could even encourage the US to try the same thing, because they see it as a way of getting rid of the casinos, rather than making it easier.

    The few that DO decide to apply for these licenses would have to meet standards, and this would mean giving players better rights of redress (which may also be what they are worried about).

    No more "talk to the hand" or "complaining to the mailman (Malta)" when winnings get confiscated, or accounts locked without refund of balances. A casino having a French or Dutch license would have to make themselves available to the French or Dutch authorities, and ensure their contracts meet local laws (no "F U Clauses" for example). They may also find that "can't tell you that for security reasons" is no longer an option in a dispute, as the player would simply serve them with a data disclosure demand under local data protection laws).

    The UK seems to be talking about a license to advertise, rather than to accept players. This naivety will soon get knocked out of them when they realise that advertising just gets switched to the internet, or direct mail from abroad, and a full licensing scheme to allow casino to accept UK players may follow.

    Casinos have to bear in mind that the UK regulates Neteller & Moneybookers, as well as the banks, so if the UK decided to ban certain casinos, they could also require Neteller and Moneybookers, as well as the banks, to block the transactions.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Jan 29, 2011
  13. Seventh777

    Seventh777 RIP Roy

    Occupation:
    Builder, mainly renovations.
    Location:
    Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
    VWM, you do know that Neteller is based on the Isle of Man, which means the UK do not have any jurisdiction over them at all:eek2:.

    I brought this aspect up once before regarding the Channel isles etc...

    Isle of Man

    Since 1999 consumer interest in the offshore jurisdiction of the Isle of Man has been intensifying and as a result it is growing on average at a rate of 12% per annum. The Isle of Man is a dependency of the British Crown but has its own parliament which controls among other things taxation on the island. Britain is responsible for the defence and foreign affairs of the island which results in a politically stable and militarily safe and protected jurisdiction offering attractive tax advantages.

    The Isle of Man has an incredibly experienced Financial Supervision Commission responsible for the regulation of financial services on the Isle and as a result the jurisdiction has strong banking, investment fund and captive insurance sectors.

    The Isle of Man has one foot in the EU and one foot firmly planted offshore which results in a unique situation for its inhabitants and financial investors. While the Isle accepts the need to crack down on money laundering it refuses to bow to increased reporting pressure and will do nothing to harm its offshore sector.

    The Isle of Man will be affected by the EU Savings Tax Directive when it comes into effect in July 2005; however the jurisdiction has decided to apply the withholding tax option to protect its investors from loss of privacy and also to encourage the development and promotion of investment products that are outside the scope of the Directive.

    The Channel Island of Jersey is also a Crown Dependency of Britain but in reality it is self governing with the UK responsible for foreign affairs. Jersey only has double taxation arrangements with the UK and Guernsey and it remains firmly outside of the EU fiscal area. The jurisdiction has developed incredibly strong banking, investment fund and trusts sectors and has recovered from a turn down in investment in 2001 and 2002 and is once again the main offshore jurisdiction of the British Isles.

    Jersey was seemingly even more adamant than the Isle of Man to ignore pressure particularly from the EU for information sharing and greater transparency in an effort to crack down on cross border tax evasion and money laundering and it wasn’t until the UK began turning the thumb screws that Jersey reluctantly agreed to come in line with the EU Savings Tax Directive - but like its sister jurisdiction, the Isle of Man, Jersey will also apply the withholding tax option in an effort to protect its investors from privacy loss.

    In terms of its political, legal and fiscal standing, Guernsey is very similar to Jersey. Another of the British Channel Islands Guernsey also benefits from a consistently low tax status and as a result it has established a very strong reputation internationally as an excellent offshore jurisdiction and financial centre which has resulted in strong inward investment, incredibly low unemployment and Guernsey is now home to Europe’s largest captive insurance sector. Add to this its strengths in banking, funds and trusts and the fact that the stock exchange for the Channel Islands has its home in Guernsey and you can see it is a very interesting and dynamic offshore jurisdiction.

    Falling in line with the other offshore jurisdictions of the British Isles, Guernsey has agreed to the ESD withholding tax option as well.

    The attractions of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man for international investors is manifold and includes the fact that the islands are politically stable, economically strong, directly related to the United Kingdom but independent from it, they ensure the highest levels of investor protection, the financial companies that establish themselves on the islands offer some of the best customer service levels across the entire sector and offer strong brands and competitively priced, impressively low tax investment options.

    The attraction of these jurisdictions will possibly be negatively impacted following the introduction of the EU Savings Tax Directive in July 2005 and the resultant perceived loss of investor confidentiality and asset protection from taxation. Anyone who has assets or bank accounts in Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man or who is considering establishing accounts or investments in any of the three jurisdictions should make sure they will not fall foul of the Directive.
     
  14. Jan 29, 2011
  15. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I know Neteller are based in the Isle of Man, but they are also regulated by the UK as an issuer of electronic money. This is quoted on the Neteller website, however this is NOT strong regulation as with the banks, and it comes with almost NO investor protection.

    The UK and EU can exert pressure on these three dependencies, and in turn, these dependencies would not risk a complete falling out with the UK and EU. Hence the compromise solution for this unwanted EU directive.

    If Neteller "did a runner" with our money, it would NOT show the Isle of Man in a good light, and confidence among other investors would be dented.
     
  16. Feb 12, 2011
  17. felicie

    felicie Ueber Meister PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    somewhere else
    But why ban countries after they go legal? that doesn't make any sense does it? Here in the states the Reid online gambling bill had stipulations about operators that allowed players from illegal states currently would be unable to get licenses under the new law in the future which seemed a possible reason for MGS's transfer of American players out of their system so I wonder if something like that is happening in France and Holland because the casinos see it coming and are putting themselves in a better position?

    It makes me so mad to see us get so tangled up in the b.s. like this and then I think who the hell do these governments think they are to tell us where we can or cannot go on the internet to spend our own money. :confused:
     
  18. Feb 12, 2011
  19. lots0

    lots0 Banned User - troll posts - flaming PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    I do nothing productive
    Location:
    Hell on Earth
    Unfortunately what is happening is that Regulation = Protectionism.

    If you take a look at the proposed online gambling laws/regulations all over the US (Take a close look at the new New Jersey laws on online gambling) some things become crystal clear, the regulatory system for online gambling is being set up to vigorously protect existing land based casino profits and funnel all new online gambling monies to the existing land based business and to strangle off all outside competition.

    It went that same way in France and Italy... IMO the rest of Europe will follow...
     
    1 person likes this.
  20. Feb 17, 2011
  21. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Short term gain for the land based outfits, but when they want to expand outside the US, they could find themselves frozen out because other countries decided to favour their OWN land based businesses.

    The only way out would be to create subsidiary companies in each regulated country, which would split the player base into small pools, meaning much lower benefits available to be advertised, since they would not be able to fund them from a large GLOBAL player base.

    Take MGS tournaments for example. By including the GLOBAL player base in a SINGLE tournament, they can offer prize pools of $20,000. What if they had to have one tournement for the UK, another for France, a third for Italy, and so on. They could not have a $20,000 pool for each, but would have to split the pool between the separate tournements, and they would be nowhere near as attractive. They probably could NOT combine them BECAUSE of the differing regulations.

    The big US land based casinos could find that the US is the ONLY country where they are able to offer an online product, because the rest have retaliated in kind because their home grown businesses have been frozen out of the US. In the US, they are competing against themselves, B & M vs online, whereas in many other places there IS no B & M equivalent to what lies in Vegas, Atlantic City, etc.
     
  22. Feb 17, 2011
  23. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    I'm not so sure about that...
    The New Jersey law that will probably come into effect might be mirroring others that may be pending. One thing that struck me was that there is a $5 limit on bets (at least that was true in May 2010). I'm sure a $5 dollar limit will turn a lot of people off, especially members of this forum :p.

    Additionally, guess who will be monitoring your betting transactions? Your bank, the IRS, and who knows how far it's going to go?

    US players will have a choice: patronize big name casinos with the IRS hanging around in the background, or participate with some of the well trusted casinos that fly under the radar.

    Bottom line, be careful what you wish for. You wish that the industry is 100% regulated? Well then, that's when your local government will really be making decisions for you.

    Regulation = Protectionism? You're damn right.
     
    1 person likes this.
  24. Feb 17, 2011
  25. felicie

    felicie Ueber Meister PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    somewhere else
    From the PPA - fixing the Reid bill

    The "Lame Duck" Poker Bill

    The Lame Duck Poker BillAs you know, at the end of last year during the "lame duck" session of Congress, there was a flurry of activity to pass Internet poker legislation. Because of external political factors outside our control, the opportunity passed, and while there was a tremendous effort, it ultimately fell short.

    Much was revealed during the lame duck effort; most of it good, but some of it raised concerns among the playing community. It is a good thing that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stepped up and took the position that Internet poker is something that should be recognized by this country and properly licensed and regulated. He and his staff worked with a variety of stakeholders to craft a bill that would create a U.S. regulated Internet poker marketplace, establish sensible consumer protections, guarantee states' rights, and generate revenue and economic growth. We are pleased that the leader of the United States Senate is someone we can call an ally for realistic Internet poker policy.

    The Controversial "Freeze"

    The Controversial FreezeThe bill, to the surprise of some, included a 15 month "freeze" period in which U.S. online poker play would essentially cease until regulations were finalized and licenses were issued. The PPA opposed this lengthy freeze. However, we did support versions of the bill where this language was included. Our support was not easily won -- we fought this freeze very hard -- but in politics there is always compromise. We believed that the short-term pain of a playing "freeze" was worth the long-term stability of a regulated marketplace. While this concept is not easy for online players to accept, it is more difficult to accept the notion that the status quo is tenable. Players, and operators, need clarity. You need reliable deposits and payouts. You need the assurance that your games are fair and that the operators are accountable. The bill would have achieved this.

    What's Next for a Poker Bill

    Beyond the Reid Poker BillThere is a view among some that the death of this legislation may have been a good thing given some of the onerous provisions. It is now the PPA's and the player community's responsibility to demonstrate to lawmakers why these provisions should be eliminated or at a minimum revised. During this Congress, the PPA will seek to improve key aspects of the draft bill, including:

    1. eliminate/reduce the playing freeze
    2. eliminate/reduce the restriction on global player pools
    3. increase the number of automatically opted in states
    4. establish favorable tax treatment for online players
    5. ensure that legislation does not unfairly discriminate against companies who currently serve the U.S. market.
     
  26. Feb 17, 2011
  27. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    PAID CASINO SHILL
    Location:
    Turn right, then right. then right again
    I agree that the idea of government regulation in the USA isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    Many supporters seem to forget that guarantees and protection come at a cost.

    Would you be happy to pay tax on your winnings?

    Would you settle for lower RTP to cover licencing expenses?

    Would you be happy for every single bet you make to be recorded and logged against your name? (I.e do you want uncle Sam knowing exactly how much you spend and how? Remember, a slot spin or roulette wager is anonymous in a land casino or offshore operation)

    Would you be happy to settle for a limited choice of B&M backed online casinos with limited software choice? (Given the protectionist ways of the US gov this would be highly likely - forget your favorite current online haunts they will be cut out of the loop )

    These are just a few pertinent questions revolving around the legalization debate.

    Yes there is a risk of not being paid if you win online at present but at the end of the day,even if you don't get paid on the odd occasion, you may still be better off financially than you would be under a regulatory regime.
     
    1 person likes this.
  28. Feb 18, 2011
  29. felicie

    felicie Ueber Meister PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    somewhere else
     
  30. Feb 19, 2011
  31. Nifty29

    Nifty29 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    PAID CASINO SHILL
    Location:
    Turn right, then right. then right again
     
    1 person likes this.
  32. Feb 20, 2011
  33. felicie

    felicie Ueber Meister PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    somewhere else
    I knew you'd be back sooner or later. :) I saw an article today that the New Jersey gambling bill isn't a done deal and their governor is getting a big push from the big guys in LV to veto the bill because it will get in the way of any federal legislation on online gambling. Well sure because if it's federal legislation it will be like Reid's bill which would disallow casinos we play at currently (foreign companies) allowing us to play only at American companies. The one's in LV. It's an absolute crock since as usual none of them are asking the players what we think about any of it.
    It reminds me of my youth lol, mom would say put your coat on before you catch pneumonia young lady and then dad would say she's not gonna catch pneumonia from being cold; and the argument went on and on as I ran out the door without my coat to play.
    Thanks Nifty :thumbsup:
     
    2 people like this.
  34. Feb 20, 2011
  35. unhappy

    unhappy Banned User - abusive emails - too unhappy

    Occupation:
    oil company
    Location:
    canada
    Exactly , governments of the world are forbidding players inside there own countries to gamble money outside because of lost revenue to landline casinos.They want the money spent inside their own country,they only problem with this is, take Canada for instance their landline Casinos area joke, pay nothing just a money grab. But now in British Columbia the Provinial Government has started its own online Casino ,this is scary. And with the governments pressuring the credit card companies to ban credit cards used for online casinos outside Canada it makes it harder and harder to play. We the people aren't free anymore ,were controlled like animals .SAD
     
  36. Feb 20, 2011
  37. nisosbar

    nisosbar Ueber Meister PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    Other
    Location:
    Right here
    It perhaps shouldn't make sense, but we are told that fear of offshoring is 'protectionism'. Either we should feel bad about offshoring (and as a result, should put tariffs back in place) or else we shouldn't. Which is it?
     
  38. Feb 22, 2011
  39. jstrike

    jstrike Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Programmer & Designer
    Location:
    Europe
    Regulation is good; unfortunately, governments only want to "regulate" online gaming with an eye toward profiting from both the players and the houses. People are looking at this as an attack on the (arguable) vice of freely betting your own money online. Which it is. But the truth is, the balkanization of the internet has much broader implications. Governments are mafias. They don't care what you gamble on, as long as they get a cut. The trouble for them right now is that with the internet, they can't control the flow of money in and out. That means they can't take a rake off of it. That's why UIGEA was part of the Safe Port Act and mostly deals with banking. That's why Obama has made it so hard on offshore-banking Americans that it's almost impossible for an American citizen to open an account in a foreign country now. Europeans haven't really grasped the implications of this, but the message is: You're next. Switzerland's banking secrecy laws have already been reduced to meaninglessness. Tax havens right now are dead men walking.
    It extends to every corner of commerce. Have you ever tried to send a half kilo of foie gras and a bottle of wine from France to the United States? Try a fur jacket. The tax each way is more than the cost of the package.

    One way of looking at this is that each state, read mafia, is protecting its own interests. Another, more interesting way of looking at it, is that states are mainly in cahoots. By restricting the global commerce that the internet enables, they can skim off the surface coming and going. A major transfer of wealth from the middle-class to the top 0.1% of the world's population. Sinking us further into serfdom. Think about it; if not for the absurd licensing fees (which do nothing, and mean nothing), a casino could easily run a poker game at an average 2% rake and make a handy profit. FedEx could cut their costs by 2/3rds or more. Global commerce right now is in a very difficult stage, because what is [promised/I] and what is frankly and obviously possible in terms of cost efficiency, is being choked by the mafias that run the world. And the nature of this grossly corrupt inefficiency becomes clearer every time you try to make a withdrawal, send a package, pay someone overseas, order a Kindle book, etc. etc.

    Sin taxes are always the tip of the iceberg. Gambling, tobacco, alcohol; look under the surface and it's clear that the present system is already completely locked down.
     

Share This Page