UIGEA regulations proposed

You may be getting the wait for the iMEGA challenge on the UIGEA which we're talking about here confused with the WTO issue,
Yup, I just posted the news about the delay in the WTO Report/Decision to the first thread that I thought was about the WTO issue.
My bad. :oops:
 
BANKERS APPLAUD UIGEA DRAFTERS

American independent bankers appear to like the UIGEA regulations, if noone else does!

US Treasury drafters who recently released proposed regulations to support the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act seem to have hit the right note with bankers, mainly because their efforts do not impose unduly burdensome obligations on payment system administrators.

The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) commended the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Board this week for writing "narrow and reasonable" proposed regulations to implement requirements that financial institutions identify and block payments in connection with "unlawful" Internet gambling as required by the UIGEA.

"ICBA applauds the agencies for proposing regulations that fulfill the law's requirements without imposing undue new burden on all payment system participants," said Viveca Y. Ware, ICBA director of payments and technology policy. "We particularly appreciate the agencies' use of the law's authority to exempt certain transactions where transaction tracking and blocking is not practical."

Rather than exempt categories of transactions or entire payment systems, the agencies based exemptions on a participant's role. This approach correctly places the burden on payment system participants who are best positioned to ascertain whether an entity is engaged in unlawful Internet gambling and to identify and block these restricted transactions, such as the bank that has the customer relationship with the Internet gambling company.

"Community bankers believe that it is critical that their resources be focused where risks to our national safety and financial soundness are greatest," said Ware. "ICBA is deeply concerned when our nation's payment systems are used to track, analyze and block individual payment transactions given the potential for such requirements to undermine payment systems efficiency. Payment systems were not designed for this function."
 
At least here's the Credit Unions who aren't too keen on the UIGEA regs.

Link Removed (Old/Invalid)
December 14, 2007E-Mail this article | Print this article
By David Morrison


WASHINGTON CUNA has written the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve asking that the agencies hold off on new regulations meant to enforce a law against banking over the internet.

CUNA letter joined one from NAFCU which also asked for a moratorium on the new regulations on the grounds that CUs are ill suited to take up what are essentially police functions at the same time they are trying to serve their members.

It is not clear how institutions will be able to meet their compliance requirements to identify and block transactions that fund illegal gambling activities when there is no mechanism under consideration that would allow them to verify when a payment transaction is intended for that purpose, CUNA wrote in its Dec. 13 letter.

CUNA pointed out that one way of approaching the problem, government providing a list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses, was precluded in the regulatory. The supplementary information discussing the proposal goes to great lengths to explain why such a list should not be provided by the government, CUNA noted.
 
Good find, Mousey - and here's the full letter CUNA sent to the Treasury on UIGEA:

December 12, 2007

Jennifer J. Johnson
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20551

Department of the Treasury
Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy
Room 1327, Main Treasury Building
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Ms. Rupp:

RE: Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling; Federal Reserve Docket Number R-1298; Department of Treasury Docket ID Treas-DO-2007-0015

Dear Madam or Sir:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the Credit Union National Association in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) issued jointly by the Department of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on the prohibition on funding unlawful Internet gambling. By way of background, CUNA represents approximately 90 percent of our nations 8,400 state and federal credit unions, which serve nearly 87 million members. The views reflected in this letter are based on the input from members of the CUNA Payments Policy Subcommittee and Payments Operations Task Force, as well as on comments we received from other credit unions and leagues.

A Moratorium Is In Order

CUNA commends the Treasury and Federal Reserve Board for your efforts to comply in a timely manner with statutory requirements to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (Act), a complex statute, while mindful of the additional regulatory burdens the new law will impose on financial institutions. However, the proposal raises a number of serious and practical concerns that we believe will make compliance for institutions extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible. In light of those concerns, we have written to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Minority Member Spencer Bachus seeking their support for a moratorium on the implementation of the law until a number of issues can be resolved.

CUNA supports the objective of the Act, which is to eliminate payments to unlawful internet gambling businesses. To achieve that result, the law prohibits the receipt of checks, credit payments, electronic funds transfers and similar transactions for businesses engaged in such unlawful activities. The law also directs Treasury and the Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the Justice Department, to promulgate regulations within nine months to require covered payment systems and financial transaction providers that participate in those systems to identity and prevent transactions that fund unlawful Internet gambling.

Despite our recognition of the importance of curtailing unlawful Internet gambling, we cannot support the proposal as it presents a number of problematic issues, We feel much more time is needed to sort out issues unanswered by the statute and develop workable approaches that will meet the laws objectives. A discussion of our specific concerns is below.

The Proposal Raises Fundamental Issues

One of our most basic concerns with the proposal is that it seeks to impose complicated policing activities on financial institutions that are in business for another purpose to provide financial services to their communities and markets. In recognition of that fact, we believe the Internet gambling enforcement responsibilities imposed on financial institutions should be limited and straight forward.

Of equal concern, it is not clear how institutions will be able to meet their compliance requirements to identify and block transactions that fund illegal gambling activities when there is no mechanism under consideration that would allow them to verify when a payment transaction is intended for that purpose.

One means to facilitate compliance for institutions would be for the government to provide a list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses. The supplementary information discussing the proposal goes to great lengths to explain why such a list should not be provided by the government.

We appreciate the concerns raised in the supplementary information that such a list would require periodic updating and thus could be costly to maintain. While such a list may not be feasible for the government, reasonable compliance for financial institutions will be impossible without some system under which illegal Internet gaming businesses can be identified. Also, it is completely unreasonable to expect financial institutions to develop and maintain their own internal lists.

One solution that would promote regulatory simplicity while assisting institutions to comply is contained in HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank. This bill would require Internet gaming businesses to be licensed and pay user fees to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

We can envision that under this measure a list of licensed gambling enterprises could be developed for use in identifying and blocking transactions for Internet gambling entities that are not on the list. (The list could possibly be augmented by information from the Justice Department regarding such businesses or individuals involved in illegal gaming activities.) Such an approach would promote compliance for institutions by providing them a much greater level of certainty as to whether a transaction for a particular entity should be prevented. In conjunction with the development of such a list, the exemptions and safe harbor provisions in the proposal (modified as discussed below) would help provide a regulatory framework that assists in policing illegal Internet gambling activities without inflicting unreasonable and unworkable compliance burdens on financial institutions.

We recognize that this is not a total solution and that entities offering illegal Internet gambling activities could operate under business names that are very similar to those on such a list or could avoid the licensing process and operate using a name that would not permit ready identification as an internet gambling organization. These concerns, however, should be beyond the scope of matters that financial institutions are required to address.

We also realize that Congress has not enacted HR 2046. However, until the government is able to provide a workable list or until Congress passes legislation such as HR 2046 to license legal activities, we feel it will be extremely difficult for institutions to identify and block transactions that they cannot conclusively determine are illegal. That is why we believe a moratorium on the promulgation of this regulation is necessary until a better approach for identifying the payee as an Internet gambling business can be established.

Definition of Unlawful Internet Gambling Is Unclear

The proposal to a large extent utilizes the definition of Unlawful Internet Gambling as provided in the Act. While we appreciate that the proposal should be consistent with the Act, our members did not find this definition useful in helping them to identify the types of activities that are illegal, even in light of the proposed definition of restricted transactions. We believe the proposal needs to provide clearer information to institutions on what illegal activities are covered so that they have a better understanding of the transactions they are expected to identify and block.

CUNA Supports the Exemptions

The proposal would exempt certain participants in ACH systems, check collection systems and wire transfer systems from having to develop written policies and procedures. We support such the exemptions, which would cover most participants in these systems.

Policies and Procedures Explanations Should Be Expanded

The proposal would require institutions to establish and implement policies and procures to identify and block restricted transactions. Alternatively, institutions could rely on policies and procedures established by the payments system, as provided under the proposal. Section ____.6 of the proposal provides some examples of policies and procedures that institutions should develop to assist them in identifying and blocking covered transactions.

Our members were concerned about the scope of the requirements, particularly under the Card system examples. To illustrate, the proposal calls for participants including card issuers to monitor websites to detect unauthorized use of the relevant card system, including monitoring and analyzing payment patterns. This is not realistic. The examples also direct covered entities to address due diligence without defining or explaining what is meant by that term.

Examples of policies and procedures could be extremely beneficial and we encourage the agencies to develop guidance that provides model language that financial institutions could incorporate in complying with the proposal.

Safe Harbor Should Be Enlarged

Under Section ____.5 of the proposal, institutions that reasonably believe a transaction is restricted will not incur liability for incorrectly blocking the transaction. We support such a safe harbor for institutions that inadvertently block transactions that are not covered by the rule.

However, the regulation should clearly discuss what is necessary for an institution to show that its belief was reasonable. We also support a change in the proposal to provide a safe harbor when an institution with reasonable policies and procedures inadvertently mis-identifies and thus fails to block a restricted transaction, particularly if the institution makes a good faith effort to otherwise comply with the regulation.

Further, the proposal contemplates that when restricted transactions are involved, an account could be closed under an institutions compliance procedures. We believe the safe harbor should also encompass situations in which an account is closed based, in good faith, on an erroneous analysis or treatment of a transaction or transactions that the institution reasonably believed were restricted. Situations involving a decision to decline to open an account should also be covered by the safe harbor.

Enforcement Provisions Should be Clearer

Section _____.7 of the proposal states that the Federal functional regulators will be responsible for enforcing the rule. However, it is not clear how enforcement would occur. The financial regulators should develop a uniform approach for enforcing the rule which is provided to institutions when the rule is adopted in final form.

The Effective Date Should Be Extended

The agencies sought comments on whether the proposal could take effect six months after the final rule is adopted. While we do not believe this proposal should be promulgated, if the agencies decide to proceed we believe at least a year or perhaps up to 18 months would be necessary for institutions to digest the proposal, develop and adopt proper policies and procedures, and review and modify operations to conform to the new requirements.

Conclusion

The law passed by Congress has commendable objectives, but is difficult to implement. We feel that rather than continue with implementation of the current proposal, which raises a range of problematic issues, the regulators should work together with Congress to develop an approach that will meet public policy goals in a clearly understood manner and without inflicting undue hardships on the financial institution sector in the process.

Thank you for the opportunity to express our views.

Sincerely,

Mary Mitchell Dunn
SVP and Deputy General Counsel
 
Woohoo! You GO Mary Dunn!! :thumbsup:

One solution that would promote regulatory simplicity while assisting institutions to comply is contained in HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank. This bill would require Internet gaming businesses to be licensed and pay user fees to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

We can envision that under this measure a list of licensed gambling enterprises could be developed for use in identifying and blocking transactions for Internet gambling entities that are not on the list.....
 
More banking opposition

UIGEA REGS ATTRACT MORE BANKING FLAK

Now lobbyists warn US Treasury that regulations present major compliance problems

US Treasury drafters of the proposed regulations supporting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act faced further opposition this week as their work was criticised by banking lobbyists. The Financial Services Round Table, an expert body representing many top banks and financial services companies, warned that the regulations present major compliance obstacles unless the Bush administration clarifies its conflicting views on online betting.

The experts were responding to Treasury requests for opinions on its proposed and much delayed regulations, which are intended to give teeth to an unpopular law rammed through Congress late last year on the coat tails of an unrelated security law. The law's purpose is to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling companies in sectors not exempted by discriminatory and confusing American state and federal legislation.

Roundtablers said they were "very concerned" that adoption of the rules could impose "significant" and costly compliance burdens on banks, The Financial Times reported.

Once again, financial professionals expressed reservations about being tasked with an essentially policing responsibility. "The statute and the proposed rule expand the role of financial institutions to police laws that are more appropriate for law enforcement agencies," the Roundtable said in public filings to the Treasury and Federal Reserve.

The criticism raises new questions about whether regulators will be able to enforce a law that, in effect, requires banks and other institutions to know the purpose and legality of payments in an industry - online gambling - in which federal and state rules often conflict.

The proposed rules would require US financial companies with designated payments systems to have policies and procedures that are "reasonably designed" to prevent payments being made to illegal gambling businesses. According to the US Treasury, illegal gambling consists of any bet or wager involving the internet that is illegal in the state in which the bet is made.

At the centre of concerns raised by the Roundtable is the fact that it is far from clear whether banks would also have to block payments from US-based gambling sites, including websites that take bets on horses over the Internet.

The US Justice Department has long held the view that online interstate betting (within the US) on horses is illegal. However, the established horse-betting websites have never been prosecuted, and Internet operations are growing. The horse-betting industry maintains that state laws allowing wagers on horses trump federal laws. Legislators left the issue alone last year by including language in the anti-online gambling legislation that said it did not apply to wagers on horses, state lotteries and fantasy sports.

In comments about the proposed rules, Bank of America said the US should provide a list of specific entities with whom banks are forbidden to take payments in the absence of an "unambiguous" definition of what is legal.

"Without [a definition], financial institutions will be forced to block legitimate transactions in order to avoid the possibility of permitting an illegal transaction," it said. The government has thus far declined to do this.

Meanwhile, confusion is already apparent in exactly what the European Union, Canada and Japan deal with the United States in the World Trade Organisation compensation issue comprises.

Only days after announcements by the EU and the US Trade Representative, the latter accused media of "misrepresenting" the agreement.

A spokeswoman said the agreement, in which the US offered concessions on the postal, courier and a number of other sectors, would not involve "any change" in US law or practice and was simply intended to provide "greater legal certainty" to some sectors. The EU statement, on the other hand referred to "new concessions" (see previous InfoPowa reports.)
 
:thumbsup: Great thread jetset!

I wanted to add some info that may or may not be relevant, I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Before the UIGEA came into affect, I'd receive an aff payment via wire. As it was US funds. If they didn't hit my bank in Australia with 24 hours, they'd be here in under 48h.

After the UIGEA if payment arrived in under 5 days I was fortunate.

However (and this is the point), I've had other wires from the US that are not gambling related and they arrive like clockwork in under 24 hours.

It's obvious to me that processing companies known to process gambling funds have already been red flagged in the USA.



Cheers

Trezz
 
Last edited:
Update

200 RESPONSES ON UIGEA REGS

The impracticalities of trying to discriminate against an industry through the financial sector

A thoroughly researched article on responses to the US government's request for comment on its proposed regulations for the UIGEA caught our eye in the Washington Post this week.

Written by Cindy Skrzycki, a regulatory columnist for Bloomberg News, the piece explored this controversial law introduced under such questionable circumstances in late 2006, which seeks to prohibit financial transactions with online gambling companies, placing the burden of implementation principally on the US banking industry.

The complexity of enforcing such a law through many millions of transactions involving hundreds of thousands of citizens and commercial organisations using a variety of financial instruments, especially when the laws concerning online gambling in the United States are discriminatory and confusing, is the subject of many an industry discussion. Ms. Skrzycki tackles the subject from the perspective of the 200 or more critiques of the regulations received by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve after the proposals were published for comment.

The article observes that it's not easy making rules for a U.S. law intended to deter 'illegal' Internet gambling by choking off the flow of funds to offshore sites. That's because no one seems to agree on what the law covers.

Officials at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve found that out after sifting through more than 200 comments from banks, gamblers, church groups and members of Congress on recommendations for regulations giving force to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

The consensus was that the administration's proposals framed last year, which depend on financial institution enforcement, won't work.

Ms. Skrzycki observes that the outcome will affect 23 million online gamblers, some 2 500 Internet sites and the growth of an industry with an estimated immediate potential for $15 billion in annual global revenue.

The law bars financial institutions from processing payments involving Internet gambling - with the notable exceptions of Indian gaming, state gaming and horse racing carve-outs which have themselves embroiled the US in an expensive fracas in the World Trade Organisation.

"If the federal agencies themselves cannot agree on the law, what hope is there that banks can resolve these confounding legal issues?" the American Bankers Association said in commenting on a conflict between the Treasury and Justice departments on the legality of betting on horses.

The Washington trade group said the suggested rules are more likely to catch its members in a compliance trap than stop profits from illegal gambling from escaping offshore.

The proposal says generally that it covers the making of bets on the Internet that already are illegal under state or federal law. It just doesn't spell out the detail.

Banks and other financial institutions would have to make a reasonable effort to stop payments to Internet gambling sites through credit cards, checks or electronic funds transfer.

The final rule is overdue, as regulators review the flood of comments. When originally passed in late 2006, the administration was given 270 days - now long passed - to give teeth to the new law.

"This is an issue that there is so much interest in that we don't want to rush," said Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department. "We are just trying to hear from everyone."

There are a variety of complaints. Gamblers point to what they see as hypocrisy in the proposal. Why hamper Internet gambling, they argue, when states enthusiastically license casinos, and taking long odds on a state lottery ticket is perfectly legal?

Former senator Alfonse D'Amato, a New York Republican representing the Poker Players Alliance in Washington, told the agencies that its constituency should not even be included because poker is a game of skill, not chance.

"What is legal now?" Joseph Kelly, a professor of business law at the State University of New York College at Buffalo and an expert in online gambling, said in an interview. "God only knows."

"If you operate in Antigua and take sports bets from the U.S., you are committing a felony," he said. On the other hand, sports betting is allowed in Nevada and some other states.

The legal issue is crucial because of conflicting court decisions, differing state laws and applications of older federal laws. Prosecutors and the horse-racing industry have disagreed since 1978 on whether it's legal to bet on horses across state lines. The law said it "is not intended to resolve any existing disagreements over the horseracing law."

Then-Senate Majority Leader and one time presidential hopeful Bill Frist pushed the UIGEA through Congress in a late night session just before it adjourned in 2006, attached to an unrelated and must-pass security bill.

Almost immediately, big players in the industry such as PartyGaming in Gibraltar, which runs the PartyPoker.com and PartyBingo.com Web sites, pulled out of the U.S. market. They had been successful in blocking similar legislation for almost a decade.

"There was a pretty concerted lobbying effort to keep this from happening," Susan Schneider, former head of the Interactive Gaming Council, a trade association in Vancouver, B.C., said in an interview.

Antigua, home to some big online gaming sites, objected through the World Trade Organisation to the U.S. crackdown on Internet gambling, finding support for its view that the US laws were discriminatory and protectionist. The WTO ruled in December that the United States must pay the island nation $21 million for violating trade rules.

The online gambling industry and its suppliers fear that the proposal to place the burden on legitimate payment operators will encourage gambling operators to set up fictitious accounts as a way around any rule.

Republican Sens. John E. Sununu and Pete V. Domenici recently asked regulators to come up with a list of restricted transactions (see previous InfoPowa report). Otherwise, they predicted: "Risk-averse financial institutions will simply choose to block every transaction" that could resemble gambling, "whether legal or not."

Advocates of regulating, taxing and licensing Internet gambling - as some European countries have done - think the United States should appoint a federal commission to study those issues.

In the meantime, Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., president and chief executive of the American Gaming Association, said many privately owned offshore sites continue to let Americans wager, win and lose.

"Money is fungible, and it gets to where it wants to go," Fahrenkopf said. "I don't know of prohibition of anything that ever worked."
 
UIGEA - French style....

FRENCH UIGEA WON'T FLY WITH E.C.

Will the French go ahead anyway on March 31?

A statement by the trade association the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) this week focused attention on a move by the French government to introduce a law against payments to gaming companies unless they are part of the French state monopolies Francaise des Jeux and PMU.

In the statement EGBA secretary general Sigrid Ligne welcomed a decision by the European Commission to issue a detailed opinion arguing against the draft decree proposed by the French.

Todays action consolidates the Commissions position that unjustified payment blocking in our sector clearly contravenes EU law. We welcome the Commissions action and hope that this will send a clear signal to other EU and EFTA Member States that such proposals will not be tolerated," said Ligne.

The opinion could put a spanner in the works for French plans to adopt the draft decree after March 31st. If it does go ahead in defiance of the EC opinion it could find itself the subject of infringement proceedings.

The decree is the second of two put together under the 2007 French Delinquency Act, the objective being to create technical obstacles which could prevent French gamblers from using gambling and betting sites other than France's protected state monopolies. Apparently the first draft places obligations on Internet Service Providers to discourage users from entering online gambling websites other than those of the state's Francaise des Jeux and PMU monopolies.

Ligne claimed that Germany and Norway are also considering payments restrictions to EU-licensed gaming operators, saying: Such restrictions are difficult to implement, easy to circumvent, inefficient and foster the growth of an underground market.
 
MORE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON ONLINE GAMBLING PLANNED

Barney Franks gearing up for another debate

The Washington news medium Politico reports that House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), will use a hearing this spring to highlight the headaches he says UIGEA anti-online gambling regulations have created for banks and other financial institutions.

At the end of 2007, and way over their original 270 day deadline, the US Treasury and Federal Reserve published draft proposals of regulations giving teeth to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which passed in late 2006. The regulations have met with widespread criticism, mainly that the law, which seeks to strangle financial transactions with online gambling companies, would place onerous requirements on the financial institutions that oversee the flow of money - a point Frank hopes his hearing will drive home.

The banks have a lot of other things to worry about right now, Frank said, citing the ever-expanding mortgage crisis and a host of other financial woes that have beset the industry this year. I dont think poker should be one of them.

Frank introduced legislation last year to roll back parts of the anti-online gambling law. At the time, the Financial Services Committee chairman said he had no plans to advance that repeal until a sufficient number of colleagues would support it.

So far, 46 Congressmen have signed up to support the Frank Bill, including Representative George Miller (D-Calif.), a powerful ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). And this week Representative Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, introduced a companion version to Frank's IGREA that seeks to legalise, regulate and tax some forms of Internet gambling.

He has argued the move would create a financial windfall for the federal government.

The Frank hearing comes as federal regulators struggle to decipher the law for banks and other financial institutions required to block this flow of money to foreign gambling sites. The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve issued guidelines last fall that were intended to clarify what types of transactions banks, credit card companies and other institutions should block.

But many of those financial services companies, in conjunction with gamblers, lawmakers and a broad cross section of trade associations affected by the law, have since flooded the Treasury and the Federal Reserve with protest letters, arguing the clarification itself was too vague.

In letters to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a group of congressional Republicans argued that banks will choose to block every transaction that might be interpreted as gambling, whether it is legal or not, if these regulators do not do a better job of clarifying which transactions banks must block.

A coalition of gambling interests, financial institutions and outside trade groups has been working with backers of the original law to tweak the current rules, but most legislation on Capitol Hill remains stalled due to a lack of broad interest in the issue.
 
New Internet Gambling Legislation Would Collect Billions in New Revenue

New Internet Gambling Legislation Would Collect Billions in New Revenue


WASHINGTON, March 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced yesterday the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2008 that would ensure that taxes are collected on regulated Internet gambling activities. These revenues are estimated between $8.7 billion and $42.8 billion over ten years, according to a recent tax revenue analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers.


"To be clear, these are not mostly new taxes -- the bulk of the revenues generated would come from taxes required under existing law," said Representative McDermott in a letter circulated last year to all members of Congress. "This is simply a framework to collect taxes on existing activity that is currently unregulated, unsupervised, and underground."


The legislation strengthens provisions in an earlier version of the bill introduced last year, and includes an enhanced reporting mechanism under which licensed gambling operators are required to provide each customer an annual statement of winnings and losses. It also establishes a two percent licensing fee that is paid by the operator, not the individual gambler. The licensing fee is designed to equalize the costs of operation in providing gambling services online, as opposed to brick-and-mortar casinos providing gambling services in-person, and would only be applied to online operators.


"Before us is a tremendous opportunity to protect consumers and recoup billions of dollars that should be collected by the Internal Revenue Service," said McDermott. "These are revenues that are desperately needed, given that we are at war and face difficulty financing the nation's priorities."


McDermott's legislation functions as a companion bill to the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), legislation introduced by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) that would regulate Internet gambling in the U.S. Under the Frank legislation, each Internet gambling operator would be licensed by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and be required to ensure that the individual placing the bet or wager is physically located in a jurisdiction that permits a particular form of Internet gambling. The legislation would also reinforce the rights of States to control what, if any, level of Internet gambling is permissible within their borders, including the ability to apply additional taxes, and to ensure that appropriate consumer protections and limitations were in place.


"By not regulating and taxing Internet gambling, theUnited States is forfeiting billions of dollars in revenue needed for critical government programs," said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "It is time for Congress to address this issue and put in place security controls to protect the millions of Americans that continue to gamble online despite the prohibition."


About Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative promotes the freedom of individuals to gamble online with the proper safeguards to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of financial transactions. For more information on the Initiative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org. The Web site provides a means by which individuals can register support for regulated Internet gambling with their elected representatives.



You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



SOURCE Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
 
UIGEA UNDER INVESTIGATION BY E.U.

European trade bloc acts on complaints regarding US online gambling laws

Online gambling companies in the 27 nation European Union trade alliance had the satisfaction this week of seeing their calls for an investigation into US online gambling legislation answered. The EU launched an investigation into possible infringment of world trade rules.

The compliance arm of the Union, the European Commission, said it would look into the complaints over the next five to seven months.

The investigation could result in the EU filing a complaint at the World Trade Organisation in the latest international tussle over a growing business worth more than US$15.5 billion a year, reports Reuters.

"The U.S. has the right to address legitimate public policy concerns relating to Internet gambling, but discrimination against EU companies cannot be part of the policy mix," said EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. He said he hoped the issue could be resolved amicably. Mandelson held talks with US officials late last year, producing some WTO concessions which were badly received by online gambling companies badly hit by unilateral American financial bans.

The companies complain that, before the ban, they had the right to operate under international trade laws, and that therefore ongoing U.S. Justice Department investigations into their previous activities in the U.S. violate WTO rules.

European companies claim the ban forced them out of the lucrative American market and discriminates against them in violation of WTO rules, while permitting domestic gambling companies, particularly those offering betting on horse races, lotteries and fantasy games, to flourish.

In 2006, the WTO had ruled against a U.S. ban that stops American banks and credit card companies from processing payments to online gambling businesses outside the country. The 2006 WTO ruling found the U.S. had the right to prevent offshore betting as a means of protecting public order and public morals. But it said Washington was breaking trade law by targeting online gambling without equal application of the rules to American operators offering remote betting on horse and dog racing (see previous InfoPowa reports).

Washington responded by doing a deal with the EU, Japan, Canada and others in December to allow it to effectively opt out of WTO rules on gambling in return for offering compensation in other areas.

The Remote Gambling Association, which represents a number of major European gambling companies, says the U.S. action is hurting their revenues and stock value as well as making them run the risk of substantial fines. It welcomed the EU's decision to act on its complaint.

"We cannot simply sit on the sidelines and watch while our members, who are already badly bruised by unlawful U.S. acts, suffer the double whammy of being prosecuted for activities whilst U.S. industry is not," said Clive Hawkswood, chief executive of the London-based RGA.

"By any analysis, the U.S. policy is fundamentally unfair, and we are delighted that the commission shares our concern. The U.S. simply needs to end its discriminatory prosecution of EU companies, and their shareholders, who have after all been out of the US market for almost two years now."

In December, the WTO awarded Antigua and Barbuda the right to impose $21 million a year in sanctions on the United States in retaliation for the restrictions on online betting, but the sum was a fraction of the $3.4 billion sought by the Caribbean nation.

A U.S. Justice Department spokesman said they had no immediate comment, but U.S. trade officials said they had been assured by EU officials the investigation would not upset the compensation package the two sides struck in December 2007.
 
PLENTY OF U.S. POLITICAL ACTION AHEAD

Las Vegas Review-Journal summarises attempts to bring online gambling into the light

The Las Vegas Review-Journal has published a useful article on US legislative moves aimed at easing the ban on internet gambling, starting with plans next month for a House of Representatives panel to review regulations proposed by the Department of Treasury to enforce UIGEA (see previous InfoPowa reports).

The hearing by the House Financial Services Committee could occur as early as April 2, the Journal reveals, commenting that the draft regulations published October 4 have been the subject of over 200 submissions from interested parties. Many of the comments question whether the regulations would be effective.

The Journal quotes Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the committee, who said: "The hearing is going to show - I want to show - that it's not that the regulations weren't done well. It's that they can't be done well given the inherent nature of the issue."

About 23 million people gambled on the Internet in 2005 on 2 500 Web sites. About 8 million of those gamblers were from the United States. So far, a bill proposed by Frank to legalise online gambling has 46 co-sponsors - 42 Democrats and four Republicans.

The man who pushed the UIGEA through Congress in 2006, now-retired politician Bill Frist repeatedly declined to comment when approached by the LVRJ. Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, attached the notorious Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to an unrelated port security bill as Congress rushed to finish business.

The chairman of the Poker Players Alliance, former Senator Alfonse D'Amato, said this week that he does not expect Congress to overturn the Internet gambling ban this year. "It's going to take a couple of years," said D'Amato, noting the increased difficulty of passing legislation in a presidential election year.

Although he declined to disclose names, D'Amato said he is talking to Republican senators in hopes of finding one who will lead efforts in the Senate to exempt poker from the online wagering ban. The legislation in the Senate would be similar to a bill proposed last year in the House by Representative Bob Wexler, a Florida Democrat. Wexler's bill has 21 co-sponsors - 17 Democrats and four Republicans.

A bill by Nevada Representative Shelley Berkley calling for a one-year study of Internet gambling by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has 68 co-sponsors - 64 Democrats and four Republicans, including Representatives Jon Porter and Dean Heller, both Nevada Republicans.

And Representative James McDermott, a Democrat from Washington, has proposed legislation to tax Internet gambling for up to $43 billion over 10 years. McDermott's bill, which is intended to complement Frank's bill, has 21 co-sponsors - 17 Democrats and four Republicans.
 
Christian Science Monitor call for tougher online gambling laws.

from the March 25, 2008 edition
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


A 2006 US law has cut Web-based betting. If anything, the law needs to be toughened.

Last year, the percentage of American college students who gamble online fell to 1.5 percent from 5.8 percent the year before. The reason? A 2006 federal law restricting Internet gambling. Now some in Congress who want to tax this type of addictive betting plan to roll back that progress.

Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts is expected to hold congressional hearings next month to explore overturning the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and replace it with legalized online betting, which in turn could generate taxes and fees to the tune of billions of dollars. His bill to legalize online gambling has so far found more than 40 cosponsors.

Not included in the cost of this revenue stream, of course, would be the social price paid from ....
 
Christian Science Monitor call for tougher online gambling laws.

from the March 25, 2008 edition
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


A 2006 US law has cut Web-based betting. If anything, the law needs to be toughened.

Last year, the percentage of American college students who gamble online fell to 1.5 percent from 5.8 percent the year before. The reason? A 2006 federal law restricting Internet gambling. Now some in Congress who want to tax this type of addictive betting plan to roll back that progress.

Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts is expected to hold congressional hearings next month to explore overturning the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and replace it with legalized online betting, which in turn could generate taxes and fees to the tune of billions of dollars. His bill to legalize online gambling has so far found more than 40 cosponsors.

Not included in the cost of this revenue stream, of course, would be the social price paid from ....
Mousey, I realize you are just the messenger with your post but I believe as I previously posted UIGEA will be put on the back burner which in its current state of legal disarray may be a good thing. That said I believe Mr.Frank will be very occupied in the months to come.

An recent article from US NEWS & WORLD REPORT
Uncle Sam Nears a Massive Banking, Housing BailoutMarch 14, 2008 02:04 PM ET | James Pethokoukis-Money Writer/Capital Commerce


Of course, the irony of today's Federal Reserve bailout of investment bank Bear Stearns is that the firm has a reputation as being among the most free-market loving on Wall Streetand that's saying something about a company located smack in the middle in America's financial capital. But just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians during financial crises, at least not if it's their dough at stake. And while there are plenty of economists out there who are advocating a hands-off approach to the credit crisis and housing implosionechoing Andrew Mellon's infamous advocacy of "liquidate...liquidate...liquidate"they will be disappointed. Uncle Sam will probably continue to intervene during this financial turmoil.

And not just the Fed. More and more, it looks as though Congress, followed by a reluctant White House, will move ever more boldly to stop the hemorrhaging in housing and unfreeze the credit markets. Richard Bove, banking analyst at Punk Ziegel, says in a note this morning that it's "more certain than ever" that there will be a housing bailout to stop the increasing rate of foreclosures and the continuing drop in home prices. And political analyst Alec Phillips of Goldman Sachs says that he sees "a high likelihood that some type of housing measure is enacted this year." Most of the legislative energy seems to be swirling around a plan put forward by Democratic Rep. Barney Frank. The plan, as outlined by Bove:
FHA provides up to $300 billion in new guarantees to help refinance at-risk borrowers into viable mortgages.

The terms of the first mortgage are set at a level that the borrower can afford.

A second mortgage is put in place, which pays off on sale of the house and allows the government to recover the losses absorbed by creating the first mortgage at below market rates.

The existing lender agrees to accept a reduced payment, which could be substantial since the new loan is based on the house's current appraised value.

Gets the existing lender free of all obligations and exposure to the borrower.

Refinance between 1 and 2 million homes.

Provide funds to refurbish empty homes and put them back on the market.

Phillips thinks that while President Bush might prefer a more free-market approach, the White House is "not likely to come out strongly against the proposal initially. Given our expectation for Democratic gains in the upcoming election, such proposals are likely to become law by mid-2009 in the event that they fail to gain support this year. For this reason, Republicans may seek a compromise in 2008."

Indeed, President Bush has almost gone out of his way not to rule out a bailout. Nor did he do so in a speech to the Economic Club of New York this morning. And in an interview on CNBC today with Lawrence Kudlow, the president basically said that in extraordinary situations, extraordinary action is required.

Now, don't expect a financial miracle or a relaunch of the housing boom here. Instead, a bailout would give clarity to investors by shifting the price and foreclosure risk of the tumbling housing market to the government and taxpayers. Bove, who has been advocating a plan like Frank's, thinks passage would be great news for homeowners and the credit markets:

This program will work. It makes sense. It penalizes the bad lenders. It allows the householder to stay in the home and forces him/her to pay the government at the time of sale for its initial losses. It allows the holders of structured financial securities to be paid off and reestablishes the credibility of these securities. It cleans away the financial garbage that is now depressing the markets. It provides a solution to the empty housing dilemma. Plus, and this is important, it creates a format that can be used by the private sector to rid itself of the troubled loans without government getting involved. Big banks can do this without the government's aid. This idea is as brilliant as the Fed's securities swap idea. Clearly I am biased in reviewing this proposal because it is one that I have been advocating for months in almost the exact same format. If this gets through Congress the financial crisis is definitely over.

And there are other ideas floating around as well. Nobel laureate and financier Myron Scholes wants the government to inject capital into the banking system by investing in debt and stock. International Monetary Fund official John Lipsky, a Wall Street veteran, also thinks the government may need to put taxpayer money directly into banks. And Vincent Reinhart, the Fed's former chief monetary economist, told Bloomberg that the Fed is inching closer to buying up those beaten-down mortgage-backed securities.

Are any of these suggestions likely to happen? Today's move by the Fed, using a little-used Depression-era provision of the Federal Reserve Act, makes previously unlikely actions seem far more possible.
 
Well hell...color me pink I guess, but the more I read about Rep. Barney Frank, the more I'm starting to like him...:D
 
Last edited:
And Vincent Reinhart, the Fed's former chief monetary economist, told Bloomberg that the Fed is inching closer to buying up those beaten-down mortgage-backed securities.

Are any of these suggestions likely to happen? Today's move by the Fed, using a little-used Depression-era provision of the Federal Reserve Act, makes previously unlikely actions seem far more possible.[/B]

Any idea when they are going to be making a decision on this one ??
 
Any idea when they are going to be making a decision on this one ??
Your question opens a million other issues,lol......of course how we even got to this is beyond me but nevertheless that is another issue and in the past.....general consensus is without Fed intervention of buying this paper, a complete financial collapse is possible, I guess there is rational to Fed intervention in this situation and if artificial props (no opinion either way here) are a good thing then I hope The Fed does it in the next five minutes!!!:)
 
Your question opens a million other issues,lol......of course how we even got to this is beyond me but nevertheless that is another issue and in the past.....general consensus is without Fed intervention of buying this paper, a complete financial collapse is possible, I guess there is rational to Fed intervention in this situation and if artificial props (no opinion either way here) are a good thing then I hope The Fed does it in the next five minutes!!!:)

Hell yea...you and me both !!!
 
UIGEA - A BURDEN WITHOUT BENEFIT

Competitive Enterprise Institute critical of attempt to use financial institutions to cripple online gambling

The Competitive Enterprise Institute in the United States has come out strongly against the use of financial institutions to cripple online gambling in the country following a study of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The act remains mired in a lack of clear regulations following widespread criticism of its impractcality.

Following a study of the implications of requiring the US financial industry to police unclear government enforcement policy on Internet gambling, the Institute claimed this week that the current laws have had damaging if unintended consequences far beyond their original target.

The report explains that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), passed in October of 2006, has little to do with gambling itself, but is actually a wide-ranging regulatory mandate on banks, credit unions, credit card companies, wire transfer services, and even brokerages. The law forces financial institutions to cut off business with any entity that could possibly be engaged in online gambling transactions.

The Act is unlikely to stop Internet gambling and could even threaten the stable, smooth operation of Americas banking system, said Senior Fellow Eli Lehrer and author of the study Time to Fold the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act .

UIGEA and its currently proposed enabling regulations will undermine the financial privacy of all Americans and reduce the security of their bank accounts. In short, it makes almost no financial, social, or economic sense.

Some members of Congress are at least aware of the problems with the gambling ban. On April 2nd, the House Committee on Financial Services is scheduled to hold a hearing titled Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden without Benefit? to detail what has gone wrong with its implementation and how to fix it. Ideally, however, they would go much further.

Even before it considers proposals for the regulation of online gambling, Congress should consider an outright repeal of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, said Lehrer. The law has very little to do with gambling and serves as a poorly thought-out banking regulation fraught with potentially perverse incentives. Quite simply, it is a bad law. Repealing it makes sense.


MORE HEARINGS ON THE UIGEA NEXT WEEK

Internet gambling hearing set for Wednesday

Congressman Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts who chairs the influential House Financial Services Committee, wants to legalise online gambling in the U.S., effectively overturning the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) by introducing a regulatory and licensing regime under his Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act.

A further hearing on his proposal is scheduled for April 2 in Washington, and supporters are being urged to contact their political representatives expressing their support before the hearing.
 
Any idea when they are going to be making a decision on this one ??
Rob, maybe reading in between the lines of this article may assist in addressing your concerns. Of course The FED and CONGRESS (Barney) might give the UIGEA issue priority.,not!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Bush Seeks Financial Regulation Overhaul
SOURCE:AP via AOL.COM NEWS
Posted: 2008-03-29 03:29:36
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the way the government regulates the nation's financial services industry from banks and securities firms to mortgage brokers and insurance companies.

The plan would give major new powers to the Federal Reserve, according to a 22-page executive summary obtained by The Associated Press.

The Fed would be given broad authority to oversee financial market stability. That would include new powers to examine the books of any institution deemed to represent a potential threat to the proper functioning of the overall financial system.

The proposal, which will be outlined Monday in a speech by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is certain to set off heated debates within different sectors of the financial services industry and in Congress, where some Democrats are likely to complain that the proposal does not go far enough to crack down on abuses.
The administration divided its recommendations into short-term goals that could be adopted quickly, intermediate recommendations and an "optimal" regulatory framework, which contains a radical restructuring of how the government supervises banks and other financial institutions.

The recommendations are the product of a yearlong review that was begun in an effort to modernize the government's regulatory structure so that the country's financial services industries could better compete in a fast-changing global economy.

The plan also seeks to address problems that have been brought to light in recent months since a severe credit crisis began roiling financial markets last August.

That crisis has already claimed as its biggest victim Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, which came to the brink of collapse before a government-arranged purchase by JP Morgan Chase & Co.

"I am not suggesting that more regulation is the answer, or even that more effective regulation can prevent the periods of financial market stress that seem to occur every five to 10 years," Paulson will say in the remarks he will deliver on Monday.

But the plan does seek to address problems highlighted by the current crisis in which the Fed in an unprecedented move has begun making direct loans to securities firms in an effort to shore up a system badly shaken by billions of dollars of losses stemming from sour mortgage loans.

The proposal would allow the Fed, in its new role as "market stability regulator," to dispatch examiners to check the books not just of commercial banks but of all segments of the financial services industry.

The administration proposal would also consolidate the current scheme of bank regulation by shutting down the Office of Thrift Supervision and transferring its functions to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates nationally chartered banks.

The plan recommends that the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates stock trading, be merged with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates futures trades for oil, grains and various other commodities.

The plan would create a national regulator for the insurance industry, which is now largely governed by the states, and would create a Mortgage Origination Commission to try to address the abuses exposed in the current tidal wave of mortgage defaults.
The role Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues have been playing to shore up the financial system would be formalized in the administration plan by giving Fed officials greater power to detect where threats might be lurking in the system.

The proposal is certain to generate intense scrutiny in Congress and within the financial services industry, where past efforts to change how regulation is handled have met with fierce resistance.

Many Democrats in Congress are already pushing tougher proposals that would impose much stricter regulation in an effort to crack down on abuses exposed by the current credit crisis.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he believed Paulson's plan offered some valid suggestions.

"In broad outlines, we agree with large parts of Secretary Paulson's plan," Schumer, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement. "He is on the money when he calls for a more unified regulatory structure, although we would prefer a single regulator to the three he proposes."

Under Paulson's approach, the long-term goal would be to designate the Fed as market stability regulator and to have a financial regulator who would focus on financial institutions that operate with government guarantees such as providing deposit insurance.

The administration plan, which was first reported by The New York Times on its Web site Friday night, also proposes a business conduct regulator who would be in charge of overseeing consumer protection issues.

The initial reaction from the securities industry was also positive.

"Treasury has delivered a thoughtful and sweeping plan which should provoke intense discussion, debate and potential legislative changes," said Tim Ryan, president of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

"Our present regulatory framework was born of Depression-era events and is not well suited for today's environment where billions of dollars race across the globe with the click of a mouse," Ryan said in a statement
 
Correction

UIGEA HEARINGS (Update)

Congressman Gutierrez will chair April 2 review

April 2nd's Congressional hearing on the practical implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act (UIGEA) will be conducted by the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology under the chairmanship of Democrat Congressman Luis Gutierrez.

The hearing, titled "Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden Without Benefit?" will be held in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington DC commencing at 10 am.

The hearing is regarded as being of critical importance by many industry observers, because it facilitates a thorough debate on a highly controversial piece of legislation that was pushed through Congress in late 2006 under questionable circumstances. This denied many of the voting politicians at the time the opportunity to read and understand its full implications, particularly for the financial institutes required to enforce the provisions against online gambling transactions.

Nevertheless, the act had immediate and serious consequences for many online gambling and processing companies which felt compelled to exit the well established and connected American market, resulting in serious financial losses and less choice for the US player.

Since then, the much-delayed regulations drafted to support the act have also run into trouble, with a slew of critical submissions to the drafting authorities underlining the practical difficulties of implementation, the burden on an already stretched banking industry and the lack of detail in the enforcement proposals.
 
Update

FRANK LAUNCHES NEW ATTACK ON ANTI-ONLINE GAMBLING REGS

New bill seeks to stop implementation of unworkable UIGEA regs in its tracks

Following the recent Congressional hearings in Washington on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, few can doubt that government agencies and the financial services industry required to police it have a monumental task in thinking up practical ways to implement a flawed law passed by Congress in 2006.

This week that task may have been made tougher by new legislation - H.R.5767 - introduced by influential Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank and presidential aspirant Ron Paul.

According to a statement from Frank and Paul, HR 5767 introduced this week seeks to prohibit the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Treasury secretary from "proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block Internet gambling transactions."

If approved, the Bill will effectively curtail the further operation of the UIGEA.

It comes after intense criticism of proposed regulations drafted by government agencies to give teeth to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was designed to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling companies but places the burden of enforcement on the U.S. financial services industry.

Both Congressmen claim the UIGEA unduly infringes upon personal freedoms. "The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet," Representative Paul said.

Critics protest that the UIGEA is impossible to implement due to ambiguities in its language and a serious lack of definition, together with the impracticality of tasking an already stretched financial services industry with its complicated enforcement across a variety of financial and in many cases international instruments.

Congressman Frank has highlighted these flaws, saying: "I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations' impact," and pointing out that the recent Congressional hearing had showed that "the regulations are unworkable for the financial services industry."

Federal government executive Louise L. Roseman to an extent confirmed that, warning that banks had expressed uncertainty about implementing the law at the hearing on April 2 (see previous InfoPowa report) and commenting on the difficulty in drafting effective supporting regulations.

"The payment system, frankly, isn't well designed to be able to identify this activity," Roseman said.

Congressman Frank has another card ready to play in his fight against the UIGEA. His HR 2046 Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act currently has 48 co-sponsors and seeks to regulate and licence online gambling in the United States, raising tax revenues at the same time as controlling the popular pastime of Internet gambling.

If eventually passed, this bill could effectively overturn the UIGEA, although it is still in need of more political support.

A spokesman for the anti-UIGEA pressure group Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, Jeffrey Sandman applauded the new bill, saying: "The Frank-Paul bill would stop the U.S. government from taking any further steps on regulations that would require all of the country's financial institutions to block Internet Gambling payments."

"It's a bold move, but a necessary one, in light of the warnings from the Treasury and Federal Reserve that they did not know how to write regulations to solve the problems created by UIGEA.

"Further, witnesses representing a broad spectrum of the financial services community unanimously stated that the current ban on Internet gambling is dangerous to the payments system and ineffective in stopping people from using the Internet to play poker, make bets on horses, or engage in other types of wagering."
 
Will it be time to come back soon?

FRANK LAUNCHES NEW ATTACK ON ANTI-ONLINE GAMBLING REGS

New bill seeks to stop implementation of unworkable UIGEA regs in its tracks

Following the recent Congressional hearings in Washington on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, few can doubt that government agencies and the financial services industry required to police it have a monumental task in thinking up practical ways to implement a flawed law passed by Congress in 2006.

This week that task may have been made tougher by new legislation - H.R.5767 - introduced by influential Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank and presidential aspirant Ron Paul.


That is certainly good news.

But even if the proposed Regs survive, does this pretty well mean that routes to play can be opened. I could see a foreign bank and then a Neteller type account through the foreign bank. All transactions to the US would be bank to bank. All transactions to the Web Wallet would be via the foreign bank account. Under the proposed Regs, I don't see a problem with that arrangement. The only problem I see is we need a replacement for Neteller like we had a replacement for Paypal.

Will it be time to come back soon? Any thoughts from anyone?

Stanford.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top