iMEGA reports that the UIGEA Regulations will be out Thursday

[MiltonFriedman]

According to an email update sent out for iMEGA, the UIGEA Regulations will be out tomorrow.

We will see, but the report should be taken with a grain of salt. It quoted spokesman Joe Brennan as saying the Regulations would be published Thursday in the Congressional Record.

That would be a real twist on how Regulations are promulgated. While there may be some truth to this rumor, that Proposed Regulations will be out tomorrow, the clear misinformation makes it less credible.

Check the Federal Register to find out.

[Legislurker]

for comment or to be enforced?

[FatalError]

100 day comment period i assume

[whangarei]

I hate sweating these things. As Engineer emphasizes, it's a lot better being on the offensive.

[Berge20]

My previous intel on the regs has been wrong, so I don't have any helpful information to share.

[MiltonFriedman]

After thinking about it overnight, I decded that the iMEGA email requires action on my part.

Just in case the iMEGA email is correct, I am putting on my tinfoil hat. In the lexicon of US jurisprudence and G911, the wearer of a tinfoil hat is entitled to an immediate temorary restraining order, to be issued from the nearest Federal Court (or a 7-11), to restrain and otherwise aggressively challenge DOJ's counsel to an armwrestling contest and to block enforcement of all regulations which are published in the Congressional Record.

It is better to be SafeandSecure, you never know when the Internets is going to back up.

UPDATE: G911 has reported that Party has cornered the market on tinfoil hats and is refusing to allow US players to wear them.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

does anyone have a clue at what these regulations may be?

[MiltonFriedman]

I was going to use the Search function, but decided, "why bother, I'll just wing it".

So, the Regulations may have something to do with the UIGEA which was passed while the PPA was very busy building its memebership base. As permafrost can better explain only "really illegal" illegal sites will be affected.

Your Bank will be required to confiscate all your money if (a) you are suspected of engaging in "really illegal" illegal internet gambling, or
(b) they feel like doing so.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to use the Search function, but decided, "why bother, I'll just wing it".

So, the Regulations may have something to do with the UIGEA which was passed while the PPA was very busy building its memebership base. As permafrost can better explain only "really illegal" illegal sites will be affected.

Your Bank will be required to confiscate all your money if (a) you are suspected of engaging in "really illegal" illegal internet gambling, or
(b) they feel like doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]
please translate this into English. thankums

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was going to use the Search function, but decided, "why bother, I'll just wing it".

So, the Regulations may have something to do with the UIGEA which was passed while the PPA was very busy building its memebership base. As permafrost can better explain only "really illegal" illegal sites will be affected.

Your Bank will be required to confiscate all your money if (a) you are suspected of engaging in "really illegal" illegal internet gambling, or
(b) they feel like doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]
please translate this into English. thankums

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anything in todays issue.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html

D$D

[PLO8FaceKilla]

Let's see the link about this buddy

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see the link about this buddy

[/ QUOTE ]

You replied to me and I provided a link.???

D$D

[PLO8FaceKilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's see the link about this buddy

[/ QUOTE ]

You replied to me and I provided a link.???

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]
oh my bad... not you..

the guy who appears to be trolling is the one that i wanted the link from.

[chrisptp]

they may be referring to what bloomberg mentioned in an article on the iMEGA suit yesterday:

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are drafting regulations to implement the law. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget on Sept. 25 approved draft regulations to implement the measure, according to its Web site.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajccXRa1BsOg

[MLSchaff]

[ QUOTE ]
they may be referring to what bloomberg mentioned in an article on the iMEGA suit yesterday:

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are drafting regulations to implement the law. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget on Sept. 25 approved draft regulations to implement the measure, according to its Web site.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajccXRa1BsOg

[/ QUOTE ]

The OMB isn't the department that would actually be putting out the regs, correct? So maybe this means that OMB has drafted their end of the regs and presented tham to Treasury, but that is only one component of the reg process which could still have a long way to go?

[Berge20]

I am under the impression that all drafts go through OMB after the agency (treasury in this case) puts them together.

[MiltonFriedman]

Correct.

(As for PLOFaceoff or whatever, I was not 'trolling" with the original post. There is no link because I was emailed by iMEGA with their own updates. What I posted came from their own email update, with an appropriate disclaimer as to clear misinformation. I was trying to decipher what iMEGA was trying to say, since what they actually said was nonsense.)

I think Berge is right and that OMB clearance also is the final step before publication, in the Federal Register for proposed Regs.

The Sky will fall soon, just not today, apparently.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I am under the impression that all drafts go through OMB after the agency (treasury in this case) puts them together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes having had to put my name on a regulation published in the Fed Reg. OMB coordinates the show. With any regulation there is usually some sort of data collection or form involved all of which don't go anywhere unless OMB says grace over them.


D$D

[Wynton]

I thought that the reason the OMB had to look over all regulations was to perform an analysis of any costs that are involved. I don't think this means that the OMB has to approve, though.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that the reason the OMB had to look over all regulations was to perform an analysis of any costs that are involved. I don't think this means that the OMB has to approve, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a number of laws like the paperwork reduction act just to name one that allow OMB to play in these matters. Budget issues are a concern but even OMB's budget numbers are subject to scrunity. So it has more to do with existing laws affecting the running of the Federal Gov't that fall to OMB to "enforce", than striaght budget issues. You can have a reg with no budget issues and still have OMB at the table.


D$D

[oldbookguy]

As part of this, will OMB look at the ramifications, I.E. the UIGEA claims as a cost factor if they consider cost?

I read in a House report that Leach estimated the cost at less that 1.00 per taxpayer and with the pending claims that is no even in the same country now, let alone the ball park.

obg

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


The Sky will fall soon, just not today, apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

We might want to think pro-activly about how we organize an effective response to the proposed regs before they are published.

While burrying the poor sap who's name gets stuck on the reg is always fun, it is not always the most effective measure. Meetings will be held to decide how to respond to the proposed regs during the comment period. Much of the work that will affect the comment and shape of the final rule will be affected by "reaching out and touching" the people going to those meetings, who will be directing the responses issued by the "named sap."

This committee wil have already prepared legal justification for the reg some of which will be in the published proposed rule. There are quite a number of ways to defeat a proposed rule not all of which are straight defeats of the logic or underlying foundation for the rule. The Paperwork Reduction Act is one I mention again because it has some fun hoops to make Agencies jump through and you can some times defeat a proposed rule on a simple "the reward to the gov't is less than the burden on the people" basis.

I know there are some old D.C. hands in this forum. As well as quite a few sharp leagal minds.

IMPO a well thought out campaign might be in order.


D$D

[HelloandGoodby90]

This sucks. I wonder how much they will hurt the industry. Hopefully, they are ineffective.


So, let me get this straight. The regulations will be proposed, and then there is a 100 day comment period, for the government to get input. During this time, the regs can be changed, if needed, and then be implemented?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
This sucks. I wonder how much they will hurt the industry. Hopefully, they are ineffective.


So, let me get this straight. The regulations will be proposed, and then there is a 100 day comment period, for the government to get input. During this time, the regs can be changed, if needed, and then be implemented?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the exact number of days the proposed rule or regulation has to stay up for comment but somewhere between 60 and 120 days.

The government HAS to respond to all realistic suggestions and there are a number of claims that it will HAVE to respond to completely to get past OMB again. The first time through with OMB is usually dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s type effort. Well unless the Administration has decided to try and publish what is in there minds the final rule, where they have spent the extra time on making pretty sure they can defeat most avenues of attack. In that case defeating the proposed rule is a bit harder.

There should be people "in the know" or who can be "in the know" pretty quickly to get a read on where the Administration is on this issue.

Given all the current issues involving UIGEA, states rights, trade, WTO, the EU, involving potentially many more industries than are currently up to sped on this issue we have really furtile ground to fight an asymertical battle rather than a brute force one, or even both.........

D$D

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The Sky will fall soon, just not today, apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

We might want to think pro-activly about how we organize an effective response to the proposed regs before they are published.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. We have a lot of room to run. Let's neuter the regs, and render them useless. I am all for this, and will help out as much as I can.

[oldbookguy]

A good indicator could be parsed in reading the Federal Reserve Board FYI 2006 report to Congress.

My link starts on page 68 or so, see page 146-147 as follows:

[ QUOTE ]
The act also requires the Secretary and the Board to grant exemptions from any requirement imposed under the regulations to particular types of transactions or designated payment systems if the agencies jointly find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise prevent or prohibit, such restricted transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the report, actually the UIGEA section is very short:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/fro.pdf

obg

[DeadMoneyDad]

Went over to the Treasury's website to get some info and this really jumped off their front page at me....

"Every time we break down barriers to trade and investment, we open up new markets for American ranchers, farmers, workers, and entrepreneurs. ..."

http://www.ustreas.gov/



I wonder if they feel the inverse hurts these same groups???

D$D

[JPFisher55]

We don't want to neuter the regs. We want very specific regs that expressly ban transactions to online poker sites. Then the lawyers like Skall can go to court and challenge the regulation and obtain a final ruling that the Wire Act does not apply to online poker; only sports betting.
With general, ambiguous regs, the DOJ can continue its stance that any transaction to any online gambling site is illegal and it will be harder to challenge this stance in court.
I still think the rumors of these regs are rumors, but I hope I am wrong.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't want to neuter the regs. We want very specific regs that expressly ban transactions to online poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

You sure have a lot of faith in the courts!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Then the lawyers like Skall can go to court and challenge the regulation and obtain a final ruling that the Wire Act does not apply to online poker; only sports betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we'd be better with ambiguous regs and an overzealous DOJ that sues a poker site, affiliate, venture capitalist, or advertiser.

[ QUOTE ]
With general, ambiguous regs, the DOJ can continue its stance that any transaction to any online gambling site is illegal and it will be harder to challenge this stance in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as there's money to be made in the U.S., and no attempts are made to stop PokerStars, FT, etc., new sites will come to offer services. The DoJ will have to put up or shut up. Hopefully the regs won't bolster their argument.

[ QUOTE ]
I still think the rumors of these regs are rumors, but I hope I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The regs have been inevitable since the day UIGEA passed, as Congress ordered the executive branch to enforce the law, and as Bush wants to enforce it. The only question has been timing.

[Halstad]

Anyone else get this email?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't want to neuter the regs. We want very specific regs that expressly ban transactions to online poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

You sure have a lot of faith in the courts!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I meant about giving a little thought to how we might as a group look at our strategy towards the proposed regs when they are indeed published.

As I mentioned there are various avenues of attack.

We even have the option of attempting to nueter parts of the regs that in effect make the whole regulatory scheme unworkible. Perhaps figuring to take one or two parts out with a court challenge as well. Why plan to go to court and fight the whole thing if we can shape the regulation's language to our liking for the future court battle on part of it?

But lets look at the regs first, and do a little thinking before we go off in a thousand different directions. A well coordinated strategy may or my not be the best option in the end. But it is worth considering, IMPO.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

This is what I meant about giving a little thought to how we might as a group look at our strategy towards the proposed regs when they are indeed published.

As I mentioned there are various avenues of attack.

We even have the option of attempting to nueter parts of the regs that in effect make the whole regulatory scheme unworkible. Perhaps figuring to take one or two parts out with a court challenge as well. Why plan to go to court and fight the whole thing if we can shape the regulation's language to our liking for the future court battle on part of it?

But lets look at the regs first, and do a little thinking before we go off in a thousand different directions. A well coordinated strategy may or my not be the best option in the end. But it is worth considering, IMPO.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone,

No doubt. That's what we're starting to do here. I added a poll at the end of this post asking about our hopes for the regs.

We've given this a lot of thought over the past several months. Also, working on the regs during the regs' authoring stage has been part of our Action thread for the past several months as well. The comment phase is our chance to be heard. It's very important for everyone interested to write in support of our rights.

[JPFisher55]

Engineer, I have more faith in the courts than in Congress. I guess we disagree about the DOJ stratedgy. I think that they will continue to sit on vague regs and the vague UIGEA and insist that all online gambling is illegal. I do not think that they will iniate prosecution to test their claim. So the vest way to challenge it in court is a specific reg under the UIGEA that conflicts with the In Re Mastercard case.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, I have more faith in the courts than in Congress. I guess we disagree about the DOJ stratedgy. I think that they will continue to sit on vague regs and the vague UIGEA and insist that all online gambling is illegal. I do not think that they will iniate prosecution to test their claim. So the vest way to challenge it in court is a specific reg under the UIGEA that conflicts with the In Re Mastercard case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing with the courts is that it could take several years to have the regs ruled noncompliant to the law, beyond all appeal -- with no guarantee of victory. Sites would be closed to Americans in the mean time. And, if Congress decided they liked it that way, a victory could be overturned with a simple, far clearer act of Congress.

It doesn't really matter....as the law doesn't define illegal gaming, the regs probably won't either. Unfortunately, the regs are likely to be vague simply because the law is vague. I guess we'll see the regs soon enough. Regardless, I think our path is clear regardless...we want to be on record of supporting our right to play.

If the DoJ won't prosecute FullTilt or PokerStars, we're okay....we'll keep the status quo while pushing for new legislation. If they do prosecute, we have sites likely to fight back in court.

Regardless of all of this, our ultimate victory is in Congress, either via an act for us, or via us being strong enough to keep Congress from overturning a court verdict in our favor. I hope we'll all write and call over the next few weeks, as they're going to wrap up for the year relatively soon.

[HelloandGoodby90]

Hopefully they don't even mention poker. The DOJ has only gone after sports betting in the past. Maybe the regs won't target poker, much less try and prosecute the sites. As TE pointed out, the law IS vague. Perhaps that means the regs will be vague in our favor.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully they don't even mention poker. The DOJ has only gone after sports betting in the past. Maybe the regs won't target poker, much less try and prosecute the sites. As TE pointed out, the law IS vague.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be shocked if the word "poker" were there at all. Poker isn't mentioned in UIGEA. I suspect it will stipulate that the proposed rule does not define what types of gambling are legal or illegal because UIGEA doesn't.

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully they don't even mention poker. The DOJ has only gone after sports betting in the past. Maybe the regs won't target poker, much less try and prosecute the sites. As TE pointed out, the law IS vague.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be shocked if the word "poker" were there at all. Poker isn't mentioned in UIGEA. I suspect it will stipulate that the proposed rule does not define what types of gambling are legal or illegal because UIGEA doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That means they will just target everything. Poker included. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
That means they will just target everything. Poker included. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect it will simply leave it vague....no change from now. Our concern will be more about banks refusing all gaming-related transactions than about the DOJ, under that scenario. Worst case there (for winning players) is to withdraw via checks.

UIGEA was no victory for us; the regs won't be, either. Hopefully we'll all do our part to minimize the impact of the loss by making ample reg comments while writing to Congress and participating in other advocacy efforts.

[Skallagrim]

Its all speculation at this point, but a few preliminary points are in order.

1) While I appreciate the confidence in my legal skills /images/graemlins/wink.gif, courts are dangerous beasts - I generally choose litigation as a last, not a first, resort.

2) The regulations are likely to be vague because the UIGEA has so many unanswered questions - the biggest is going to be how to incorporate the 50 variations of state law into a Federal Regulatory scheme.

3) We must participate in the comment period (along with our continued congressional work) - I think working for additions that explicitly exempt poker sites is the way to go initially, the second avenue of attack can be to use the complexity I referred to above to push for sportsbetting-specific regulations, as banks and other FSPs do not have the ability to stay on top of the ever-changing and different state laws concerning gambling and sportsbetting is the only thing clearly illegal at the federal level.

4) The cost to banks and FSPs of complying with the regs is our single best non-legal argument - the banks will do this lobbying too (and I am sure they have already started, maybe even succeeded, we will see when the regs are published).

I doubt the regs will make too much of a practical difference, those companies currently supplying the market are either violating the law now, or they are not, the regulations wont change that. The only real worry is regs that further complicate transferring money THROUGH the money system by scaring banks and other institutions such that they will ON THEIR OWN decline any gambling related transaction because thats the easiest thing to do.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Engineeer, I agree with your point about campaigning and lobblying Congress, especially so that the situation does not get worse. Also, your efforts might help the WTO pressure lead to some change. However, I think this process will take until at least 2009; probably 2010.
Skall, I agree with you about litigation being the last resort, but until at least 2010 it seems to be the only resort. But if the regs are vague it may be difficult. It the regs are specific, then litigation is much easier.
So I think that we should comment for specific regs; ones that state online poker is lawful. But at least some reg mentioning poker.
Otherwise, the DOJ will continue to use the vagueness of the UIGEA to intimidate banks and all other entities in the entire online gambling industry while they continue not to bring any case involving online poker or online casinos.

[KEW]

Given how vague the UIGEA is and it's failure to define "illegal" gambling can the Regs even be specific??? If the Regs are specific would that not be either creating Laws(Congress) or interpreting Laws(courts)????

[TheEngineer]

JP,

You're entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate your enthusiasm in fighting back. And, I'm not trying to change your mind. Rather, I'm merely sharing my opinion with the board, so we can all choose a strategy.

IMHO, if the DoJ will use vague regs to intimidate banks, they'd use regs banning Internet poker to seriously intimidate everyone. And, I personally have no confidence in the courts helping us. I don't know why you think this is a slam-dunk, but it doesn't appear that way to me or to many here (see the poll on the other thread).

I personally would much rather have FT and PokerStars available while pursuing other options. I very much doubt that anyone here would like to shut these down for years of appeals while hoping we prevail in court.

[JPFisher55]

Engineer, there is federal appellate case law that holds that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting. This is why I am confident that a regulation defining online poker to be unlawful internet gambling would fairly quickly be injoined in court. Note that the DOJ has never threatened any person, entity or affiliate in the online poker industry with actual prosecution under the Wire Act. I think that if the lawyers at the DOJ thought they had a ghost of a chance with such prosecution they would have threatened or initiated it by now. Arresting Doyle Brunson or Howard Lederer and successfully prosecuting such a name pro for violating the Wire Act woudl be a career maker for a US attorney. But I have yet to read even a report of even a threat of prosecution agaisnt a name pro.
However, the DOJ has been very aggressive against the online sports betting industry. They have indicted Neteller, its founders and other individuals who were involved in credit card processing for the online sports betting industry.
Yet, Epassporte operates in the open. In fact, my last 2 withdrawals from Epassporte took only 2 days. Epassporte only serves online poker sites. They do not serve any sports betting or casino site or even a site with a mix unless such site separates poker from other accounts and does not permit money transfers between the different betting sites.
In an aside, maybe the best reg, if we can't get one permitting online poker, would be that a bank cannot process a ACH transaction that it has actual knowledge is related to unlawful internet gambling, but a bank can process any ACH transaction that the bank does not actually know involves unlawful internet gambling. Since a bank does not have any knowledge about where any ACH, this reg would keep the status quo.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, there is federal appellate case law that holds that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I welcome a court challenge to the DoJ's contention that Internet poker is covered under the Wire Act (for example, if the DoJ were to go after ePassporte). I think we would prevail for the reasons you stated.

What I don't want is regs against us, putting us on the defensive while shutting down our games. I certainly would try to get these to allow us to have a better court case. You stated the reasons yourself. You can play at FT and PokerStars, and you can move your money though ePassporte just fine. Why shut it down to try to get something better?

I suppose it doesn't matter...UIGEA is specific in that it doesn't define what is legal and what isnt', so it's unlikely regs to enforce it would.

[TheEngineer]

Also, scroll up a few posts to the poll on this. 25 folks do not want regs banning financial transactions to poker sites....only one wants the regs to ban it.

We'll get our challenge. The DoJ will start with sports betting, as you noted, as there is no question that the Wire Act applies to these sites. After this, they will either come for us, or they won't. If they do, we'll be in a better position than we will be if we have regs against us. If they don't, we'll have games while working on the laws.

[JPFisher55]

I agree with you Engineer. But I think that we have to examine the logical alternative regs and decide which is best and which is worst for online poker. Remember that a court challenge to the DOJ's contention that Internet poker violates the Wire Act cannot occur unless the DOJ threatens or prosecutes some entity in the online poker industry; or unless some reg under the UIGEA specifically defines internet poker to be unlawfull internet gambling.

However, I think that we need to examine 4 possible regs in order of favorability to online poker.

1. Online poker is defined not to be unlawful internet gambling. Great but not likely.

2. A bank can process any ACH or other transaction unless it has actual knowledge that such transaction is related to any unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very good for online poker because status quo is maintained and Epassporte and other future competitors can operate. This reg would make prosecution of any bank very difficult because no bank has actual knowledge about any ACH or most transactions. But unlikely reg.

3. Online internet poker is defined to be unlawful internet gambling. Bad for online poker but easily challenged in court.

4. A bank cannot process any ACH or other transaction that involves or is related to unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very bad for online poker. Banks might stop processing ACH's from Epassporte, any foreign ewallet, even suspicious checks because it could be liable for violating such reg even if it does not know is a ACH or other transaction involves internet gambling. This is the worst reg for online poker and would be more difficult to challenge and take much longer than 3. And I fear that it is the most likely reg to be issued.

So my question is how can we get the best reg for online poker? And my opinion is that 3. is better than 4.

[oldbookguy]

To begin with I think we will not see ant regs for a while.

First, I think IMEGA’S info on the publishing of the regs was either:

1. Dependant of the IMEGA case being dismissed that day, there are no regs, thus no ripeness, to publish them now the government would only be asking for the wrath of the court to publish them while the case in ongoing.
2. IMEGA put out the story on the regs being published to force the government’s hand, if you have them, produce them.

Second, the UIGEA though not defining illegal wagering states that the regs include several examples of unlawful transactions. So, the regs will be somewhat specific.

Much also depends on the USTR negotiations I believe. The DoJ may be backing off until they are concluded, then even the countries where the Poker sites are located will be cooperating with the DoJ to stop poker, a new WTO agreement on wagering will be in place.
I base the previous thought on the DoJ argument at the IMEGA hearing; the plaintiffs need have no fear of prosecution then stating later, the UIGEA could conceivably be used to prosecute them.

obg

[TheEngineer]

The regs will be out next week.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you Engineer. But I think that we have to examine the logical alternative regs and decide which is best and which is worst for online poker. Remember that a court challenge to the DOJ's contention that Internet poker violates the Wire Act cannot occur unless the DOJ threatens or prosecutes some entity in the online poker industry; or unless some reg under the UIGEA specifically defines internet poker to be unlawfull internet gambling.

However, I think that we need to examine 4 possible regs in order of favorability to online poker.

1. Online poker is defined not to be unlawful internet gambling. Great but not likely.

2. A bank can process any ACH or other transaction unless it has actual knowledge that such transaction is related to any unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very good for online poker because status quo is maintained and Epassporte and other future competitors can operate. This reg would make prosecution of any bank very difficult because no bank has actual knowledge about any ACH or most transactions. But unlikely reg.

3. Online internet poker is defined to be unlawful internet gambling. Bad for online poker but easily challenged in court.

4. A bank cannot process any ACH or other transaction that involves or is related to unlawful internet gambling and unlawful internet gambling remains undefined. Very bad for online poker. Banks might stop processing ACH's from Epassporte, any foreign ewallet, even suspicious checks because it could be liable for violating such reg even if it does not know is a ACH or other transaction involves internet gambling. This is the worst reg for online poker and would be more difficult to challenge and take much longer than 3. And I fear that it is the most likely reg to be issued.

So my question is how can we get the best reg for online poker? And my opinion is that 3. is better than 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think (and this is just speculation) #2 and #4 are equally likely, and #1 and #3 are equally unlikely (very unlikely). I think #4 is bad, but #3 is FAR worse. I join Coy Roy and others in asking that no one here push for a ban in hopes of getting a quick court judgement.

[oldbookguy]

As I posted someplace else, the UIGEA states there MUST be examples of unlawful transactions (though not all), thus there will be insight into specifics.

From the FRB 2006 report to Congress:

[ QUOTE ]
In prescribing the regulations, the Secretary and the Board must identify the types of policies and procedures, including nonexclusive examples, deemed by the agencies to be reasonably designed to identify and block restricted transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/fro.pdf

See left column, next to last page.

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
As I posted someplace else, the UIGEA states there MUST be examples of unlawful transactions (though not all), thus there will be insight into specifics.

From the FRB 2006 report to Congress:

[ QUOTE ]
In prescribing the regulations, the Secretary and the Board must identify the types of policies and procedures, including nonexclusive examples, deemed by the agencies to be reasonably designed to identify and block restricted transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/fro.pdf

See left column, next to last page.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that the rule in principle, but that doesn't in practice banks won't simply ban all transactions with any potential to be problematic to cover themselves. After all, there's a big downside to breaking the law, with little to no upside for taking the risk.

We'll need to see the regs and comment appropriately.

[JPFisher55]

Engineer, we disagree about which bad outcome is worse. Either outcome will necessitate litigation. This is a minor disagreement.
We agree that 1. or 3. are unlikely. So how can we get something like 2. and not 4?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, we disagree about which bad outcome is worse. Either outcome will necessitate litigation. This is a minor disagreement.
We agree that 1. or 3. are unlikely. So how can we get something like 2. and not 4?

[/ QUOTE ]

The banks will lobby for #2. We should help them via our comments. We should make it clear that banks should not be deputized to enforce this, nor should they bear any liability for misinterprettion of the act. We should also ask for the ACH system to be exempted, as it's highly automated, and slowing it down over this would be bad policy.

[JPFisher55]

Ok Engineer, it might be a good idea for you to post an action plan when the proposed regs are published.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Given how vague the UIGEA is and it's failure to define "illegal" gambling can the Regs even be specific??? If the Regs are specific would that not be either creating Laws(Congress) or interpreting Laws(courts)????

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be surprised if the regs are vague. The states are the ones that have been clamoring for this law because their gambling laws are being abused by online businessses coming into town. A simple table showing allowed online gambling businesses in each of the 50 plus states would be short(mainly horseracing). Notice no laws were created or interpretations given.

Your business not allowed? Talk to the state.

[tangled]

Isn't the anniversary of the UIGEA signing next week too? I am just wondering if the release of the regs has been coordinated with the anniversary date. If so, then there might be an effort to make this an "event". I don't think that would be good for us if that's so, as someone will likely be trying to send a message.

Or maybe the regs have been rushed to completion so the anniversary date wouldn't arrive absent published regs. causing embarrassment for UIGEA supporters.

I am just skeptical that the timing is purely coincidental.

[HelloandGoodby90]

Oldbookguy posted a good link earlier, for those of you who did not see it. The PDF linked to the Federal Reserve Operations Report for 2006. On the very last two pages, is a section about the UIGEA. I will copy it below. It may come in handy for analyzing what sort of regulations, we are likely to see when they are published for comment soon. Hopefully, someone will be able to properly analyze it.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-347, (codified at 31 USC 5361 et seq.) prohibits a person engaged in the business of betting or wagering from knowingly accepting credit, electronic fund transfers, checks, drafts, or similar instruments drawn on or payable through any financial institution in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling (“restricted transactions”). The act generally defines “unlawful Internet gambling” as transmitting a bet by any means that involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet and where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable federal or state law in the state or tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.The act charges the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board, in consultation with the Attorney General, with developing regulations to require each payment system that the agencies determine could be used to process restricted pay-ments (as well as financial transaction providers participating in such payment systems) to establish “policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of restricted transactions.” In prescribing the regulations,the Secretary and the Board must identify the types of policies and procedures, including nonexclusive examples, deemed by the agencies to be reasonably designed to identify and block restricted transactions. To the extent practical, any participant in a designated payment system must be permitted to choose among alternative means of complying, including by relying on and complying with the policies and procedures of the designated payment system, so long as these policies and procedures comply with the regulation. The act also requires the Secretary and the Board to grant exemptions from any requirement imposed under the regulations to particular types of transactions or designated payment systems if the agencies jointly find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise prevent or prohibit, such restricted transactions. The regulations must be pub-lished by July 10, 2007 (oops).
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/fro.pdf

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The regulations must be pub-lished by July 10, 2007[/i] (oops).
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/fro.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being a lawyer, but if the law says the regulations have to be published by a certain date and the Agencies "break" that law does that mean anything "legally?"


Just curious,


D$D

[mntbikr15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The regulations must be pub-lished by July 10, 2007[/i] (oops).
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/fro.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being a lawyer, but if the law says the regulations have to be published by a certain date and the Agencies "break" that law does that mean anything "legally?"


Just curious,


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets hope.


Such regulation would make it impossible to deposit poker site checks in our bank correct?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets hope.


Such regulation would make it impossible to deposit poker site checks in our bank correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA applies only to illegal Internet gaming. Poker isn't illegal in most states. So, it's anything but foregone. We'll have to see what the regs say.

As for checks themselves, the bank would have to know where the check came from. My checks don't say anything about poker.

[spike420211]

With the huge clout credit card companies have in Washington [assumed from Frontline expose's on PBS] it seems rather strange that they're so cowardly concerning the UIGEA, as has
been noted on numerous poker sites.
Any possibility of finding out what THEIR position is in all this?
BTW, while you're reading this, thousands of people are buying lottery scratchers, with the blessings of the U.S. gov't, and an average payback of 45-49%...
and the religious right thinks WE are compulsive gamblers!

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets hope.


Such regulation would make it impossible to deposit poker site checks in our bank correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA applies only to illegal Internet gaming. Poker isn't illegal in most states. So, it's anything but foregone. We'll have to see what the regs say.

As for checks themselves, the bank would have to know where the check came from. My checks don't say anything about poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this is one of the ideas that should stay out of the Sunshine, but since I was out voted on that issue...

There is no reason the FED or TD (Treasury Department not to ge confused with the DOT which is Transportation) can not as part of it's proposed reg say it will maintain a list or prohibited account the banking system must check every so many days and block all transaction to and from them.

Actually since I think this is likely in the ultimate reg I don't have any trouble posting it openly.

I really depends on how serious the administration is of looking to defend UIGEA in court. If this was early in a Administration or even early in a second term and I was crafting the reg I'd have something like that in it. Perhaps a little vaguer so as to not specify any form of gambling. Then I would choose the most blantant violator of the widest form of gambler on the biggets total gambing site or sports book and use that case to test the Law.

Thankfully we are not in that situation,

D$D

[DMoogle]

Wait... the OP says that the regulations were supposed to be out Thursday, so where are they?

Sorry if I'm being ignorant. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait... the OP says that the regulations were supposed to be out Thursday, so where are they?

Sorry if I'm being ignorant. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The government didn't follow the "law!"

Big shock!


D$D

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets hope.


Such regulation would make it impossible to deposit poker site checks in our bank correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA applies only to illegal Internet gaming. Poker isn't illegal in most states. So, it's anything but foregone. We'll have to see what the regs say.

As for checks themselves, the bank would have to know where the check came from. My checks don't say anything about poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this is one of the ideas that should stay out of the Sunshine, but since I was out voted on that issue...

There is no reason the FED or TD (Treasury Department not to ge confused with the DOT which is Transportation) can not as part of it's proposed reg say it will maintain a list or prohibited account the banking system must check every so many days and block all transaction to and from them.

Actually since I think this is likely in the ultimate reg I don't have any trouble posting it openly.

I really depends on how serious the administration is of looking to defend UIGEA in court. If this was early in a Administration or even early in a second term and I was crafting the reg I'd have something like that in it. Perhaps a little vaguer so as to not specify any form of gambling. Then I would choose the most blantant violator of the widest form of gambler on the biggets total gambing site or sports book and use that case to test the Law.

Thankfully we are not in that situation,

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA does not prohibit money flowing from sites, only to sites. The regs won't change that.

[Fedorfan]

D$D [ QUOTE ]


UIGEA does not prohibit money flowing from sites, only to sites. The regs won't change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

While i really do hope this is the case, i personally was caught up in the whole sportsbook.com cashout fiasco months ago. And basically all their cashout or check processors dropped them for about 3 months so we had no way of cashing out, ironically, however, they could still take deposits via credit card and such during this time, just that nobody could cash out in anyway or form during this time.

I used them for poker only but since they were a sports betting site mainly they could not use epassporte. So im worried that just because it's not explicity illegal for a processing company to issue checks, their may be enough confusion that most will not want to deal with gambling transactions period, and this is what happened with sportsbook for a while.

It was extremely frustrating, for weeks and weeks they kept telling us to just give them another week and we will be able to cashout by check, and week after week they kept telling us this. Eventually, most thought they were just going to go under do to many customers starting to do "charge backs" on their credit cards, so after 2 months i essentially figured they would go under and i would never receive a dime.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait... the OP says that the regulations were supposed to be out Thursday, so where are they?

Sorry if I'm being ignorant. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Next Thursday. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I wonder if anybody here has been around long enough to get that inside joke?

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait... the OP says that the regulations were supposed to be out Thursday, so where are they?

Sorry if I'm being ignorant. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Next Thursday. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I wonder if anybody here has been around long enough to get that inside joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Enjoy!!!!!

TheEngineer said(in the locked thread of same topic)

"I hear the proposed UIGEA regs will be released for public comment within a week. My understanding is that there will be a 90 day comment period, followed by a four-month period for evaluation and incorporation of the comments".

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer said(in the locked thread of same topic)

"I hear the proposed UIGEA regs will be released for public comment within a week. My understanding is that there will be a 90 day comment period, followed by a four-month period for evaluation and incorporation of the comments".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. It will happen this week.

[Fedorfan]

Im curious, worst case scenario will we still be able to play poker or at least cashout prior to the regs going into effect?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Im curious, worst case scenario will we still be able to play poker or at least cashout prior to the regs going into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

The regs will likely take one year to be implemented. I imagine we'll know how concerned we should be long prior to that, based on the verbiage of the proposed regs.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im curious, worst case scenario will we still be able to play poker or at least cashout prior to the regs going into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

The regs will likely take one year to be implemented. I imagine we'll know how concerned we should be long prior to that, based on the verbiage of the proposed regs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any inside dirt? Rumors, etc?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Any inside dirt? Rumors, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't heard a lot. I look forward to reading them when they're out.

[Legislurker]

Next two weeks are going to be hectic in the media, I hope.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait... the OP says that the regulations were supposed to be out Thursday, so where are they?

Sorry if I'm being ignorant. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Next Thursday. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I wonder if anybody here has been around long enough to get that inside joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, yes /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lottery Larry]

What is "iMEGA" ?

edit- never mind
http://www.imega.org/

[PLO8FaceKilla]

[ QUOTE ]
What is "iMEGA" ?

edit- never mind
http://www.imega.org/

[/ QUOTE ]
Idiot
Mutated
Entertainment
Greenhouse
Asswipes