UIGEA Regulations released today

farookh

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Location
main street USA
If anyone wants to take a look at the new regulations proposed by the Treasury regarding online gaming transactions in the US, here is the URL.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
. Very confusing to say the least. This probably won't go into full effect until next year.
 

SlotsWizard

Dormant account
Joined
May 11, 2006
Location
North of Antarctica
I'm still early on in the 52 pages but I found a very positive sentence describing the way the federal government has interpreted the UIGEA:

The Act does not spell out which activities are legal and which are illegal, but rather relies on the underlying substantive Federal and State laws.

That's good! So all internet sportsbetting is illegal (which we already knew), and other internet gambling from within one of the 11 states is illegal. That's wonderful news for those of us who don't bet on sports and don't live in one of those 11 states. It's confirmation from the federal level that we aren't breaking any laws.

Here's another good-sounding sentence:
The Agencies are proposing to exempt all participants in the ACH systems, check collection systems, and wire transfer systems, except for the participant that possesses the customer relationship with the Internet gambling business.
It sounds to me like that would be both effective and easily worked around.

The proposal would provide an exemption for the ACH system operator because it is not reasonably practical for the operator to identify and block a particular ACH transfer as a restricted transaction. The ACH system operator’s function is to act as the central clearing facility for ACH entries. The ACH operator sorts the entries by RDFI routing information and transmits the payment information to the appropriate RDFI for posting. The ACH system operator would not have any direct interaction with either the gambler or the Internet gambling business and would not be in a position to obtain the necessary information to analyze individual transactions to determine whether they are restricted transactions. In addition, ACH operators use highly-automated systems to sort large volumes of ACH entries without manual intervention. A requirement to analyze each ACH entry manually to determine whether it is a restricted transaction would substantially increase processing times for all ACH entries, including entries that are not restricted transactions, and reduce the efficiency of the ACH system. Moreover, even if the payee information on an ACH entry is analyzed manually, it is very difficult for an ACH operator to determine whether the ACH entry is related to a restricted transaction.

Big brother is... not watching?

The proposed rule does not include ongoing monitoring and testing within the examples of the policies and procedures for ACH systems, check collection systems, and wire transfer systems because these systems currently do not have the same level of functionality for analyzing patterns of specific payments being processed through the system.

I am not a lawyer so you shouldn't believe anything I just said.
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
I'm still early on in the 52 pages but I found a very positive sentence describing the way the federal government has interpreted the UIGEA:



That's good! So all internet sportsbetting is illegal (which we already knew), and other internet gambling from within one of the 11 states is illegal. That's wonderful news for those of us who don't bet on sports and don't live in one of those 11 states. It's confirmation from the federal level that we aren't breaking any laws.
I am not a lawyer so you shouldn't believe anything I just said.
But the casinos,etc who accept any type of bet are, I think, if so later MG,RTG,ETC.:eek:..........correct me if I am wrong as I am also still early:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
I'm not touching that with a 40-foot pole. :lolup:

EDIT: More good reading starting on page 24 with "6. List of unlawful Internet gambling businesses". It's surprisingly easy-reading, for something that our government came up with.
Thanks for the info, my head is just not clear (sinuses) so I might try again later but hopefully ROSE or some other atty. can summarize for us ugly monsters..........seriously,I appreciate your posts and thoughts pursuant to the entire just published regs,:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

SlotsWizard

Dormant account
Joined
May 11, 2006
Location
North of Antarctica
I'm under the weather myself, have been since Thursday evening.

And just a reminder to all that these are merely the proposed regulations, and they are seeking comment before sometime in December. The final regulations could look very, very different.

I too hope that an actual attorney publishes an analysis soon.
 

farookh

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Location
main street USA
re:

It doesn't look too bad overall. I'm just glad that the previous attempts didn't get pushed through. Some of those earlier ones;98/2000) that Leach proposed would have had fines for merely placing a bet. I'm sure the banks are thrilled about playing cop :). SHould be interesting.
 

Mousey

Ueber Meister Mouse
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Location
Up$hitCreek
....... It's surprisingly easy-reading, ...........

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking... or drinking... :D Right now, after hours and hours of paperwork and computer work my eyes and brain are not communicating with each other, and together, they just aren't up to comprehending a government document. :oops:

Thanks so much farookh, for finding and posting this. I can never find a damn thing at the .gov sites -- unless someone else posts a direct link. :rolleyes:

Ya'll keep reading and posting... maybe it will help me schlog through it... :thumbsup:
 

SlotsWizard

Dormant account
Joined
May 11, 2006
Location
North of Antarctica
I'll have some of whatever you're smoking... or drinking...
One Martini for Mousey, coming right up!

Ahem.

This is the section I was talking about which was (relatively) "easy reading". Just force yourself to start at the top and you'll have finished reading it before you know it. Alternatively, you can jump to the bottom to see my synopsis.

The Act does not mention the creation of a list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses. However, the Agencies are aware that there is some interest in exploring this idea. The Agencies considered including in the proposed rule’s examples of reasonably designed policies and procedures, examination of a list that would be established by the U.S. Government of businesses known to be engaged in the business of unlawful Internet gambling. Some have suggested that the obligation of financial institutions with respect to such a list might be similar in effect to their obligations under certain other U.S. laws, such as those administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), albeit in a different context. Some have also suggested that the list could be either available publicly in its entirety, so that financial transaction providers could check transactions against the list themselves, or maintained confidentially at a central location, so that financial transaction providers could submit transactions to the entity operating the central database, which would inform the financial transaction providers whether the transaction involved an unlawful Internet gambling business on its list. Proponents of the list suggest that under either of these approaches, certain restricted transactions directed to unlawful Internet gambling accounts could be blocked.

Any government agency compiling and providing public access to such a list would need to ensure that the particular business was, in fact, engaged in activities deemed to be unlawful Internet gambling under the Act. This would require significant investigation and legal analysis. Such analysis could be complicated by the fact that the legality of a particular Internet gambling transaction might change depending on the location of the gambler at the time the transaction was initiated, and the location where the bet or wager was received. In addition, a business that engages in unlawful Internet gambling might also engage in lawful activities that are not prohibited by the Act. The government would need to provide an appropriate and reasonable process to avoid inflicting unjustified harm to lawful businesses by incorrectly including them on the list without adequate review. The high standards needed to establish and maintain such a list likely would make compiling such a list time-consuming and perhaps under-inclusive.

To the extent that Internet gambling businesses can change the names they use to receive payments with relative ease and speed, such a list may be outdated quickly. The Agencies do not enforce the gambling laws, and interpretations by the Agencies in these areas may not be determinative in defining the Act’s legal coverage. As noted above, the Act does not comprehensively or clearly define which activities are lawful and which are unlawful, but rather relies on underlying substantive law. In order to compile a list of businesses engaged in unlawful Internet gambling under the Act, the Agencies would have to formally interpret the various Federal and State gambling laws in order to determine whether the activities of each business that appears to conduct some type of gambling-related function are unlawful under those statutes. The Agencies request comment on whether establishment and maintenance of such a prohibited list by the Agencies is appropriate, and whether examining or accessing such a list should be included in the regulation’s examples of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions. The Agencies also request comment on whether, if it were practical to establish a fairly comprehensive list and a participant routinely checked the list to make sure the indicated payee of each transaction the participant processed on a particular designated payment system is not on the list, the participant should be deemed to have, without taking any other action, policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent or prohibit restricted transactions with respect to that designated payment system. Similarly, the Agencies also request comment on whether, if such a list were established and a participant routinely checked the list to make sure a prospective commercial customer was not included on the list (as well as perhaps periodically screening existing commercial customers), the participant should be deemed to have, without taking any other action, policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent or prohibit restricted transactions. Finally, assuming such a list were established and became available to all participants in the designated payment systems, the Agencies request comment on the extent to which the exemptions provided in section 4 of the proposed rule should be narrowed.

Any commenter that believes that such a list should be included in the regulation’s examples of policies and procedures is requested to address the issues discussed above regarding establishing, maintaining, updating, and using such a list. The Agencies also request comment on any other practical or operational aspects of establishing, maintaining, updating, or using such a list. Finally, the Agencies request comment on whether relying on such a list would be an effective means of carrying out the purposes of the Act, if unlawful Internet gambling businesses can change their corporate names with relative ease.

My Summary

It will be too difficult to maintain a list of gambling payment processing companies. :D
 

Mousey

Ueber Meister Mouse
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Location
Up$hitCreek
Yo! Simmo! can we get this thread moved to Casino Industry section maybe?

From CNet:

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

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


Story last modified Mon Oct 01 16:20:49 PDT 2007


Internet gambling regulations proposed by U.S. officials on Monday stopped short of requiring U.S. banks to block checks their customers make to online casinos while forcing banks to halt debit and credit payments.
The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve issued a plan requiring bank policies and procedures that are "reasonably designed to prevent payments being made to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful Internet gambling," they said in a statement.

The new U.S. regulations would make the banks responsible for blocking credit and debit card payments for online gambling. It also bars bank customers such as online casinos from receiving Internet gambling proceeds.

"I think that that's doable," an industry source said of the proposal.

But industry officials said it seemed that regulators had addressed their biggest concern about the new law. The agencies concluded it was "not reasonably practical" for the banks to identify and block customers from sending checks and making some other types of transfers.

The new regulations are designed to put into effect a law passed by Congress last year ....
 
Top