What is going to change on July 10th?

[Crimsonduck]

I have read a lot about the enforcement changes that may take place, but does anyone know at this point if there will still be online poker in the U.S. on July 11th. I know banks are not able to trace every check and am wondering if there any real worry that U.S. poker will be shut down in July or just maybe a little more difficult but easy to circumvent with new rules in place?

[ilikeaces86_]

Simply put nothing.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read a lot about the enforcement changes...

[/ QUOTE ]

You have?... where?

I have not seen any draft regulations yet.

[Izzy Vega]

July 10th the U.S. government must make public its enforcement plan for the UIGEA. I stated you have read a lot of material on this topic, so you should be more qualified to anwser this than I. Can you please reference the material you have read, so the rest of us can look over the material.............You can refer to my thred "payment methods the UIGEA can not regualte". Ther is mulitiple payment methods the UIGEA will not be able to regulate. Ill give a few examples and you can refer to my thread and look over what I had to say in more detail.....The UIGEA will not be able to monitor "paper checks"...too many...UIGEA will not be able to regualte western union and sending money to a third party....UIGEA can not stop deposits made by an overseas bank account. UIGEA does not have the capacity to 'BAN' online poker....only posses the capacity to stop payments for a american financial institution to online gaming sites..........what people need to understand the UIGEA went into affect the day it was signed...we did not have a 270 day grace period or some non-sense.....the 270 day time period is how long the government has to make public the regulation plan for the UIGEA.

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
July 10th the U.S. government must make public its enforcement plan for the UIGEA. I stated you have read a lot of material on this topic, so you should be more qualified to anwser this than I. Can you please reference the material you have read, so the rest of us can look over the material.............You can refer to my thred "payment methods the UIGEA can not regualte". Ther is mulitiple payment methods the UIGEA will not be able to regulate. Ill give a few examples and you can refer to my thread and look over what I had to say in more detail.....The UIGEA will not be able to monitor "paper checks"...too many...UIGEA will not be able to regualte western union and sending money to a third party....UIGEA can not stop deposits made by an overseas bank account. UIGEA does not have the capacity to 'BAN' online poker....only posses the capacity to stop payments for a american financial institution to online gaming sites..........what people need to understand the UIGEA went into affect the day it was signed...we did not have a 270 day grace period or some non-sense.....the 270 day time period is how long the government has to make public the regulation plan for the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]


Use paragraphs and punctuation please.

[questions]

I can't understand HOW it can be effectively enforced, without either birthing a new federal watchdog agency or else expanding existing ones, or else cutting off the US from international commerce.

[Skallagrim]

First, for sniper, no one in the public has seen any draft regulations so all talk now is speculation.

That having been said, my opinion is that a) they will take longer than 7/10/07 to actually come up with regulations and b) when they do come up with regulations they will either make online poker funding a little harder or a lot easier.

A little harder if they really require all US banks to look at all electronic transactions (izzyvega is right, I think, to say that there is just no practical way to look at every paper check) because then we will lose things like prepaid visas and the other handful of credit cards that still work. The regs cant go too far this way however or the banks will revolt with real political clout.

Things may get a lot easier, however, if the regs appease the banks by exempting not just paper checks but also ACH and other "paperless check" transactions from having to be monitored (too costly you know). There is even talk that the regs would exempt credit cards, but I doubt this. And also the regs should clear up some stupid bank practices like the (alleged) refusing to DEPOSIT checks from poker sites (because depositing is not even covered by the law) and not allowing transfers to e-wallets before they are (if they are) blacklisted by the DOJ.

But only time will tell, and all of this could be mooted by whatever "corrective" legislation Barney Frank proposes.

[plasphemy]

I'm still optimistic the federal reserve will say... "hey, this isn't possible, sorry."

any chance?

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still optimistic the federal reserve will say... "hey, this isn't possible, sorry."

any chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is some chance (they explicitly have the right to do this), but there's nothing we can do there. What we can do is call our Reps.

[counthomer]

I think speculation at this point is probably going to turn out to be inaccurate, simply because the regs could contain anything, and the effects might not directly translate from the specific wording if you understand my meaning.

Izzy, you are correct from a practical perspective in terms of checks and what not, but I think many 2 + 2ers (including myself) are getting too caught up in the specifics of what the exact wording and practical challenges are) without possibly pondering the less tangibles. For example, it is impossible to monitor every check, but I do not believe it is beyond comprehension that one of our banks could be forced to interact with their foreign counterparts to try to ensure that checks were not coming from a gaming source. The gaming market is lucrative to the banking industry, but pails into insignificance when compared to other traffic, so a bit of pressure in certain directions could have a big effect.

It will therefore not require watertight regulations to effective put a huge dent in the online poker world in the short term.

For the record, I'm not a gaboon-ish doomsayer, I'm actually an optimist, but I feel we would be wise to consider all eventualities, and if one thing is true at the moment, it is that online gambling in the US is not the master of its own destiny.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think speculation at this point is probably going to turn out to be inaccurate...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think speculation at this point is probably going to turn out to be inaccurate...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[otter]

My dog will be another year older!

[KotOD]

There are still budget considerations that we haven't thought about. Last I saw, UIGEA only had two million allocated to it for the next 3 years.

[TheJokerIsWild]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think speculation at this point is probably going to turn out to be inaccurate...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[jlkrusty]

I'm going to speculate and say that speculation at this point is porbably going to turn out to be inaccurate...

[ArtMonkRules]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still optimistic the federal reserve will say... "hey, this isn't possible, sorry."

any chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is some chance (they explicitly have the right to do this), but there's nothing we can do there. What we can do is call our Reps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain to me how this is their explicit right (not enforcing)? Are they not obligated to enforce a consitutional law? Also, what would congress actually have to do to force real regulations on a law such as this?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still optimistic the federal reserve will say... "hey, this isn't possible, sorry."

any chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is some chance (they explicitly have the right to do this), but there's nothing we can do there. What we can do is call our Reps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain to me how this is their explicit right (not enforcing)? Are they not obligated to enforce a consitutional law? Also, what would congress actually have to do to force real regulations on a law such as this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the benefits of having congressional clout....

The UIGEA made it a crime for anyone in the business of betting and wagering to accept US money for illegal gambling....

It exempted banks from criminal prosecution but required them to monitor and block transactions according to the forthcoming regulations. The regualtions will speicfy what the banks have to monitor, and what they have to block as a result. Banks, of course, want to have to do as little of this as possible because of the cost.

Thats where the glimmer of hope comes from; if banks are not required to monitor certain types of transactions, they wont. And those exempted can then be used to easily fund online poker.

[JPFisher55]

I think that a target date for these regulations (whatever they are) being adopted is more like July 10, 2008 than July 10, 2007.