IS????Treasury Department Poised to Regulate Online Gambling

[oldbookguy]

Not so certain, this is from Gambling911.com. The BOLD part is mine.
Is this a tacit way of moving to allow US based casinos into the online market?

Comments please!!!!

Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Poised to Regulate Financial Activity for Online Gambling


A new regulation issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury exempts casinos from having to report currency transactions reports, required for transactions involving $10,000 or more, on jackpots from slot machines, video lottery terminals and other electronic gaming devices. The June 26 regulation is significant because it reaffirms the central role played by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in regulating financial transactions involving casino activity in the United States.

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, recently introduced by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), assigns FinCEN the responsibility to protect consumers and the financial system from the risk of Internet gambling abuses through the introduction of a robust licensing regime.

"It is clear that FinCEN is already regulating financial transactions involving land-based casinos in the United States," said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "It makes sense for FinCEN to extend this role to also monitor and regulate the integrity of the Internet version of the gambling industry."

In providing the exemptions, FinCEN reiterated its authority over land-based casinos, noting that they are cash-intensive businesses that include providing customer deposit or credit accounts, transmitting and receiving funds transfers directly from other financial institutions, check cashing and currency exchanging. “As such, casinos are vulnerable to abuse by money launderers, terrorist financiers, and tax evaders.”

Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

Endorsers of the Initiative include the UC Group and Baker Tilly. Additional endorsers are highlighted on the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative Web site.

For more information on the Initiative and to read the testimony RGA submitted to Congress, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org (http://www.safeandsecureig.org)

----

Gambling911.com News Wire

Originally published June 28, 2007 1:13 pm ET

[WhiteWolf]

The title of that article is seriously misleading. Since Frank's bill hasn't even made it to a committee vote, it's not conceivable that the Treasury Department has issued any regulations for internet gambling.

Your bolded "other electronic gaming devices" refers to machines like video poker etc. in brick-and-mortar casinos.

[oldbookguy]

The article title is not mine.

my title has the IS???? that is why.

A question.

Agreed, the title on Gambling911.com is misleading that is why I added the IS??? to it.

obg

[Legislurker]

I think he got something from a dubious source, and ran with it. But the title is WAY out of line. If he has more info, please do not [censored] with us like this, share it.

[drj003]

On this website it is very easy to contact your representatives. I did in about 3 minutes. Everyone on this site should go to this website and contact their reps. I think it would make a difference.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
On this website it is very easy to contact your representatives. I did in about 3 minutes. Everyone on this site should go to this website and contact their reps. I think it would make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Actually, everyone should contact their senators and representative, regardless. IMO, any American citizen here who hasn't really has no right to complain about laws they don't like.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
The article title is not mine.

my title has the IS???? that is why.

A question.

Agreed, the title on Gambling911.com is misleading that is why I added the IS??? to it.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]
I was referring to (+criticizing) the article title, not your post title. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[oldbookguy]

LOl, no problem.
now though, lets look at this from a government perspective, they are odd as we know.

We also know 'other electronic gaming devices' are electronic poker tables.

Now, what are we playing on online - electronic poker tables.

Same technology, same format.

Nah.... too simple even for the government to understand.

obg

[Richas]

If you were a US company wanting to set up a legal online operation, say in the UK this Sept when it becomes legal, just in time for the WSOP bracelet event in London, it might just make sense to get a clarification on this ruling about reporting all over $10,000.

Without this change my understanding is that a US incorporated company might be concerned about whether they had to report regarding Internet operations.

I am probably adding 2+2 and getting 5 but it looks like the sort of clarification that might well come out of such discussions.

[MiltonFriedman]

That Treas. would exempt US land-based casinos from reporting large cash transactions is odd, except that, as Rep. Frank's spokesman points out, it relies on the safeguards already in place before funds GET to the casino ... This is the VERY argument Barney Frank is using against "moneylaundering" red herrings regarding online gaming by US bank account holders.

Good work, but not as in the direction you may imply.

BEST CASE SCENARIO: We might get a similar "hands-off" UIGE Act regulatory structure, which minimizes the role of US Banks .... most favorable read, NO blocking of paper checks or EFTs from a US Bank account covered by KYC rules.

Milton

[PoorLawyer]

Good point. Actually, everyone should contact their senators and representative, regardless. IMO, any American citizen here who hasn't really has no right to complain about laws they don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only I had senators and voting representatives...

[Legislurker]

OK, I hate to give this IRRESPONSIBLE story more legs, but eog just posted the same exact story. Not saying they are the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, but they aren't g911.
http://www.eog.com/news/full-article.aspx?id=26700

If this is just spin for the 'industry' why is it on boards read by people who have enough literacy to read the story and go, "what the [censored]?" Maybe I want to hope too hard for real good news? Anyone hearing anything that this may actually lead somewhere good? I feel the tin foil hat slipping over my forehead I think. Am I that way off base to be suspicious something may actually be up?

Edit.
Winneronline just put it up too. http://www1.winneronline.com/articles/june2007/depttreasuryreg.htm

[oldbookguy]

yes, seems to be getting 'legs'.

What I believe the articles author is implying is that these new rules / regulations can now be easily applied to online casinos as well as the B&M.

I just actually read the entire new rules adopted and what they are doing is relaxing the rules (actually exempting) reporting cash outs / ins to electroic devices since the reporting is duplicate in nature. These regulations (as I have stated many times) are in place and able to regulate taxation for Internet poker via IRS rules and regulations (I.E. taxes).

You may read the entire report at:
http://www.fincen.gov/news_release_20070621_casino.html

To read the rule, click the link(s) at the end of the press release.

obg

[oldbookguy]

More on this from a release on the website:

Making Regulations More Intuitive. FinCEN has issued AML/CFT regulations for many
industries including banking, MSBs, insurance companies, brokerages, casinos, jewelers and
others. Presently, a compliance official seeking to learn all the regulatory obligations for a
particular industry would need to sift through many citations and cross-references located in
many different areas. FinCEN will begin work on its own new chapter of the Code of Federal
Regulations that will include one general part and separate and specific parts for each covered
industry. With this change, an institution will only need to look in two places to identify its
regulatory responsibilities.

obg

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I hate to give this IRRESPONSIBLE story more legs, but eog just posted the same exact story. Not saying they are the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, but they aren't g911.
http://www.eog.com/news/full-article.aspx?id=26700

If this is just spin for the 'industry' why is it on boards read by people who have enough literacy to read the story and go, "what the [censored]?" Maybe I want to hope too hard for real good news? Anyone hearing anything that this may actually lead somewhere good? I feel the tin foil hat slipping over my forehead I think. Am I that way off base to be suspicious something may actually be up?

Edit.
Winneronline just put it up too. http://www1.winneronline.com/articles/june2007/depttreasuryreg.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is an actual news story, but rather a press release from Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative folks. From the Winner Online article: "SOURCE: PRNewswire"....

[oldbookguy]

Story is based on a press release from Financial Crimes Enforcement Network / United States Department of the Treasury


http://www.fincen.gov/news_release_20070621_casino.html

obg

[Uglyowl]

Couldn't find a better place for this and it didn't merit it's own thread; as you can see even w/o the anti-gambling BS, banks are in a world of hurt due to government regulation already:

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Costs Increase More Than Banks Expected, Survey Says


NEW YORK (AP) -- Complying with anti-money laundering laws has been much more expensive than banks anticipated, and some still aren't meeting all requirements, a new survey says.
Banks around the world saw compliance costs jump an average of 58 percent over the past three years -- more than in the previous three years, and higher than the 43 percent increase banks predicted in 2004, said a survey commissioned by Swiss cooperative KPMG International.



http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070708/anti_money_laundering_costs.html?.v=2

[PokeReader]

The FinCEN rule is the final reg agreement from the BSA's. You can read through the discussion from the public comment went the regs. went out for discussion. The casinos wanted to exempt slots, video lotteries, etc..., for a number of reasons. There would have been a huge amount of paperwork for the casino, and the casinos pointed out that they didn't not have the level of automation that FinCEN expected, that some casinos don't have their slots tracking customers at all, and that even those that do, and use player cards, most play is still from players without cards. Therefore, it would have been very difficult, expensive, and would have required fundamental change in operations for casinos, in a section that is not a prime choice for washing money, (that was their arguement anyway, shows they don't understand numbers much - i.e. because you win with a random generation you couldn't wash money that way, slots would be great for washing, would take time, but have alot of privacy). Anyway, that is what this is, BSA is an old law, it is just it took awhile to get to this final regulation agreement.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't find a better place for this and it didn't merit it's own thread; as you can see even w/o the anti-gambling BS, banks are in a world of hurt due to government regulation already:

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Costs Increase More Than Banks Expected, Survey Says


NEW YORK (AP) -- Complying with anti-money laundering laws has been much more expensive than banks anticipated, and some still aren't meeting all requirements, a new survey says.
Banks around the world saw compliance costs jump an average of 58 percent over the past three years -- more than in the previous three years, and higher than the 43 percent increase banks predicted in 2004, said a survey commissioned by Swiss cooperative KPMG International.



http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070708/anti_money_laundering_costs.html?.v=2

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this deserves its own thread.