Regulations are out

[JPFisher55]

Ok I am surprised. But http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/noticeofproposedrule.pdf seems to be the new UIGEA regulations. (hope link works)
I have only read the first 13 pages. I note that "unlawful internet gambling" remains undefined and the agency said that it will not define the term because the UIGEA does not define the term. So I cannot see the purpose in any comments on this issue.
OTOH, the second paragraph of exemptions from the regulations starts with this 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 (and certain participants that receive certain cross-border transactions from, or send certain such transactions to,
foreign payment service providers, as discussed further below)."
This seems hopeful, but I will have to read the rest of the regulations to be sure of anything. Without some definition of the term "unlawful internet gambling" I do not understand how banks and other financial institutions are going to obey these regulations? Perhaps this should be a comment. I don't know. I'll post later after I read the entire regulation.

[sup_bro]

going off ur comments on it...it all seems very promising...let's hope they keep the regs as "vague" as u believe they are, no need to define "unlawful internet gambling," which means the status quo will continue for now which is VERY VERY good news......

[jeff329]

Since only some will have the energy/ability to get through this, please anyone who does post significant portions like JP did with your opinion on it...

[sup_bro]

i actually read a bit more and they propose that keeping an updated list of unlawful internet gambling businesses is NOT RECOMMENDED due to the costs involved...another good thing.....i know some were waiting of the sky to fall with these regs, but i have to be honest with you, after reviewing the document, i feel as though a 2+2er was one of the parties involved with writing this document.....very non descript and no teeth whatsoever.....

[1p0kerboy]

Looking forward to thorough reviews from knowledgeable posters when you guys get done reading and interpreting the thing.

[meleader2]

"The Act directs the Agencies to exempt certain restricted transactions or
designated payment systems from any requirements imposed under the regulations if the
Agencies find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise
prevent or prohibit the acceptance of, such transactions. Section 4 of the proposed rule
provides such an exemption for certain participants in ACH systems, check collection
systems, and wire transfer systems. The proposed regulation is structured to impose
requirements on participants in designated payments systems with respect to the
segments of particular transactions that those participants handle. Therefore, rather than
exempting entire categories of restricted transactions or entire payment systems, the
Agencies have structured the exemptions to apply to particular participants in particular
payment systems as described in greater detail below. The Agencies believe that this
limited application of their exemption authority better serves the Act’s purposes of
preventing the processing of restricted transactions."

[Grasshopp3r]

The initial reaction for Party stock is neutral. That is the more relevant indicator to these regs.

[cowboy.up]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Act directs the Agencies to exempt certain restricted transactions or
designated payment systems from any requirements imposed under the regulations if the
Agencies find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise
prevent or prohibit the acceptance of, such transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the money line? If it's too hard to do, then don't bother with it?

[Berge20]

Swamped at the moment, but will try and read today and get a summary up if you haven't already gotten the highlights down.

[Warteen]

[ QUOTE ]
The initial reaction for Party stock is neutral. That is the more relevant indicator to these regs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Party stock be affected by US legislation?

[jeff329]

"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.21 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."

This seems to make it clear that this law changes nothing in terms of the legal ambiguity of online poker. Could a Party re-renter because now it has been established that it isn't established? I mean now that poker is not clearly illegal, what stops them from joining the US market until it is?

[Grasshopp3r]

If the regs are sufficiently toothless, then Party may re-enter the US market. The US market was over 3/4 of their business. If the traders don't pounce on this event, that is meaningful.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
If the regs are sufficiently toothless, then Party may re-enter the US market. The US market was over 3/4 of their business.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true if party wants to be a non-public company, however they're risking a ridiculous amount of negative exposure if they do it, and potential extradition.

also i thought they paid the US gov't fines, y would they risk going back into the us market again?


i think a more relevant conclusion would be that if the UIGEA doesn't state the POKER is illegal they can make software that COMPLIES with the UIGEA and only offer poker, reenter the us market after consulting with numerous lawyers.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

how about the smart people tell me on a scale of 1-10 with (1 being bad and 10 being good) how good this is for poker players?

also, i live in a "danger state" not a felony one, but i have a check on the way. Should i be worried or is this going to take a while for banks to get going with this?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
i actually read a bit more and they propose that keeping an updated list of unlawful internet gambling businesses is NOT RECOMMENDED due to the costs involved...another good thing.....i know some were waiting of the sky to fall with these regs, but i have to be honest with you, after reviewing the document, i feel as though a 2+2er was one of the parties involved with writing this document.....very non descript and no teeth whatsoever.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's all say a prayer for all the people who pushed for and passed the Paperwork Reduction Act.

I had kind of hoped they would suggest a working list so we could fight that issue as I know how to defeat that one with the OMB.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

I have now read all the preample to the regulations which start on page 35. It seems to me that the Treasury is attempting to only have banks etc. "banks" estblish policies to block transactions that they might know, or have access to some knowledge through a relationship with a foreign bank, involve unlawful internet gambling.

I have two proposed comments for the group to consider.

1. On page 25, the Agencies request comment on whether a prohibited list of businesses engaged in unlawful internet gambling is feasible. I believe that we ought to comment that any agency drafting such a list would be exercising a power reserved to the judiciary, defining the term "unlawful internet gambling" so drafting such a list is not practical, feasible or legal.

2. Any bank that does not have a customer relationship with a business engaged in internet gambling should be exempt. How can a bank judge the legality of customers of another bank, domestic or foreign? I propose a comment that such judgment is impractical and attempts to convert the bank to a court of law. Of course this exemption would make the entire UIGEA useless and meaningless.

I have no experience with drafting comments to proposed regulations. I suspect that TheEngineer and D$D do have such experience. So if they, or anyone else with such experience, think that these areas provide good material for comment, I encourage them to draft the relevant comment for review by this forum.

[Grasshopp3r]

The paperwork reduction notice also needs to be challenged as an unfunded mandate. The 25 hours per bank annually is rediculous.

[JPFisher55]

Ok I read the regulations. They are much shorter than the preamble. My gist of the regulations that really affect online poker players and online gamblers are the regulations that concern relationships with foreign senders or foreign banks.

For ACH transactions, this is regulation 6(b)(2)(i). It requires banks to establish policies and procedures with foreign senders to prevent the foreign sender from sending restricted ACH's. 6(d)(2)(i) does the same for checks. The other regulations concern what steps the banks must take when some customer or foreign sender receives or originates a restricted transaction.

So my question is what policy or procedure can identify a restricted transaction when the restricted transaction is not defined because it depends on the undefined term "unlawful internet gambling?" How can a foreign bank or sender know what is a restricited transaction?

Maybe we can comment that such policies and procedures cannot be implemented because it is not practical for a US bank, foreign bank or foreign sender to know what is a restricted transaction. This would further water down the regulations.

The regulations do require a bank to adopt policies and procedures with its commercial customers to insure that such commercial customers do not originate or receive restricted transactions. Could we comment that this is the only practical regulation for US banks? Or even simply require US banks not to have a direct relationship with any commercial customer in the internet gambling industry? I don't know of any businesses in the internet gambling industry that have a customer relationship with a US bank anyway.

IMO, what the regulations demonstrate is how unworkable the UIGEA actually is. Now I wonder if the iMEGA attack on the UIGEA is worth the effort. It's the Wire Act and some state laws that are the real problem.

[oldbookguy]

Excellent point, if the Departments are not going to define what actually is covered or illegal, HOW is a Bank, ACH or other business to know.

Are THEY required to do the legal work to determine, State by State what ther Government has deemed to expensive to do?

This may be our best plan of attack, not just for the regs, but getting a clear bill passed AKA, the Wexler Bill that DOES define legal.

obg

[PLO8FaceKilla]

[ QUOTE ]
The paperwork reduction notice also needs to be challenged as an unfunded mandate. The 25 hours per bank annually is rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
what the hell are you talking about?

please elaborate

[Grasshopp3r]

Starting on page 31 and running for a few pages are the estimates of how much time it will take to comply with the UIGEA. Page 33 states 25 hours for compliance per institution.

[RGL]

Is the unbelievably low 25 hours per year estimate because the regulations really don't ask financial institutions to do anything, or is it because the government doesn't have a clue as to how long anything takes?

[Grasshopp3r]

That is a good question. Lets hope that both apply.

[DeadMoneyDad]

OK since I've been on the other side of the reg writing deak perhaps no one would take my bet on the estimated cost of the little 52 page missive from the Federal Government we are all reading.

Given my read on the reg I am willing to make book on the estimated cost to prepare the document prepreation costs todate.

I'll tally the various bets and amounts and set odds.

Any takers?

D$D

[Uglyowl]

From what I have read this seems pretty positive to me, 25 hours per year is barely enough time to make coffee to get started.

Bank Teller: "Before I cash this check, were all prizes and awards offered to winning participants established and made known to the participants in advance of the game or contest and their value is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants?"

D$D: I have no clue, but I will say $500,000 spent to date on getting this far.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Starting on page 31 and running for a few pages are the estimates of how much time it will take to comply with the UIGEA. Page 33 states 25 hours for compliance per institution.

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, please excuse my stupidity but 25 hours starting when

????????????????????????????

[Uglyowl]

Pages 24-25, Part 6. "List of unlawful Internet gambling businesses" is interesting and probably troublesome to Jon Kyl. We should give him a call to see what he thinks of the regs.

[JPFisher55]

Ok D$D, my guess is $10,000,000. Money not well spent. It should have gone for bullet proof vests, armor for Hunvees or ammo for our troops in Iraq.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
So my question is what policy or procedure can identify a restricted transaction when the restricted transaction is not defined because it depends on the undefined term "unlawful internet gambling?" How can a foreign bank or sender know what is a restricted transaction?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice catch. Precisely why this could drag on for another 5 years.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the unbelievably low 25 hours per year estimate because the regulations really don't ask financial institutions to do anything, or is it because the government doesn't have a clue as to how long anything takes?

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. You know how the government feels about things like 'timetables.'

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok D$D, my guess is $10,000,000. Money not well spent. It should have gone for bullet proof vests, armor for Hunvees or ammo for our troops in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took me 1/2 an hour with GAO and another with OMB to figure out no one has a clue how much it actually costs to prouduce a proposed reg let alone the real costs to the government let alone the private sector.

I'm confident that I can get an answer so don't bother with that, it's the fact that out of 13 people i spoke to no one really had an idea how to figure it out......

/images/graemlins/grin.gif


D$D<--still has a dime check from AT&T with the envelope with more than that as postage on it!

[Mendacious]

From the snippets of the act I read...this seems like a big F.-off to Congress on Enforcement of the crud.

[Tofu_boy]

WIll PP comeback to US now?

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
WIll PP comeback to US now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Edited by Berge

[Orlando Salazar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WIll PP comeback to US now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Edited by Berge

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just mean.

[Skallagrim]

Havent had time to read the regs yet, I will in the next couple of days and post more.

But one thing is pretty clear, if no one in the Federal Government is going to take the time to actually identify who is and who is not engaged in unlawful internet gambling, the banks wont. In working for a friend/company earlier this year trying to figure out what poker players from what states could have their money transfers affected/made illegal by the UIGEA - I, a lawyer, spent over 150 hours (at least) and the answers were still unclear in the majority of states. And my research was limited to poker.

25 hours compliance time - BS! Thats one comment I will definitely post.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

I think that most banks will add a condition to their commercial customer, bank relationship and foreign bank relationship agreements that the other party not knowingly originate or receive a restricted transaction and that the other party not contract or affiliate with a business known by the other party to originate or receive restricted transactions. Could we comment that this example be sufficient to comply with the regs?

Also, D$D, I really enjoyed the comment about the cost of drafting the regulations. ROFLAO

[Halstad]

http://www.compatiblepoker.com/usa.php#usapokerupdates

Commenting period is only until Oct. 12...wtf?

Edit: Just read the press release (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp583.htm) and it says Dec. 12.

[jaminbird]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WIll PP comeback to US now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I JUST DEPOSITED ON PP! IT WORKS!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/images/photos/scet/405/NUP_102478_0216.jpg

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
WIll PP comeback to US now?

[/ QUOTE ]

one time! I need a big loan from the donk zone

Question:

I am scanning the document and noticed this:

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2007.

Does the document mention how long the comment review/reg modification period will be?

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.compatiblepoker.com/usa.php#usapokerupdates

Commenting period is only until Oct. 12...wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm the pdf states Dec 12th

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.compatiblepoker.com/usa.php#usapokerupdates

Commenting period is only until Oct. 12...wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm the pdf states Dec 12th

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, I just woke up and put up the post quickly without double checking my typos. It's correct now. Grrrr I hate falling asleep when important things happen.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Does the document mention how long the comment review/reg modification period will be?

[/ QUOTE ]

To my understanding after the commenting period ends, Dec. 12th, they don't set an exact timeframe for the review period to release the amended regulations.

[oldbookguy]

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp583.htm

Above is the 'official' press release link from the Treasury Department or read below:

To view or print the PDF content on this page, download the free Adobe® Acrobat® Reader®.

October 1, 2007
HP-583

Agencies Propose Joint Rule to Implement Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) on Monday announced the release of a joint proposed rule to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (the Act). The Act prohibits gambling businesses from accepting payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling, including payments made through credit cards, electronic funds transfers, and checks.

The proposed rule would require U.S. financial firms that participate in designated payment systems to have policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent payments being made to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. The proposed rule would provide examples of such policies and procedures. For purposes of the proposed rule, unlawful Internet gambling generally would cover the making of a bet or wager that involves use of the Internet and that is unlawful under any applicable federal or state law in the jurisdiction where the bet or wager is made.<emphasis added>

The Board and Treasury are required by the Act to develop jointly the proposed rule in consultation with the Department of Justice. Comments on the proposed rule are requested by December 12, 2007. The agencies request comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. The Federal Register notice is attached.

Media Contacts:

Treasury Jennifer Zuccarelli 202-622-8657
Federal Reserve Susan Stawick 202-452-2955

REPORTS

Federal Register Notice of Proposed Joint Rule

[thepizzlefosho]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp583.htm

Above is the 'official' press release link from the Treasury Department or read below:

To view or print the PDF content on this page, download the free Adobe® Acrobat® Reader®.

October 1, 2007
HP-583

Agencies Propose Joint Rule to Implement Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) on Monday announced the release of a joint proposed rule to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (the Act). The Act prohibits gambling businesses from accepting payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling, including payments made through credit cards, electronic funds transfers, and checks.

The proposed rule would require U.S. financial firms that participate in designated payment systems to have policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent payments being made to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. The proposed rule would provide examples of such policies and procedures. For purposes of the proposed rule, unlawful Internet gambling generally would cover the making of a bet or wager that involves use of the Internet and that is unlawful under any applicable federal or state law in the jurisdiction where the bet or wager is made.<emphasis added>

The Board and Treasury are required by the Act to develop jointly the proposed rule in consultation with the Department of Justice. Comments on the proposed rule are requested by December 12, 2007. The agencies request comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. The Federal Register notice is attached.

Media Contacts:

Treasury Jennifer Zuccarelli 202-622-8657
Federal Reserve Susan Stawick 202-452-2955

REPORTS

Federal Register Notice of Proposed Joint Rule

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm no guru, and I could totally be wrong but isn't above stating that the Regs make the UIGEA merely an extension of the Wire Act?

[va1halla]

So most people here believe we will be able to send checks and cash checks after these regs are implemented ?

[oldbookguy]

I am no guru either, however, I do know that the 5th circuit Federal Court ruled the Wire Act does not include ANYTHING except sports betting.

I am guessing that perhaps the sites with the 11 state ban may have gotten it right since those states prohibt either all wagering or the Internet specifically.

obg

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does the document mention how long the comment review/reg modification period will be?

[/ QUOTE ]

To my understanding after the commenting period ends, Dec. 12th, they don't set an exact timeframe for the review period to release the amended regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to further this, a quote from the proposed regulations.

The Agencies propose that the final regulations take effect six months after the joint final rules are published, and request comment on whether this period is reasonable.

[Grasshopp3r]

So is there a test case set up for the 5th Circuit? That seems to be a logical move, especially from an UIGEA impacted bank.

[eddytom]

[ QUOTE ]
25 hours compliance time - BS!

[/ QUOTE ]

CGW wrote an article and said the Treasury estimates that it would take 368,254 hours of work to implement these regulations.

Full Article (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/unlawful_internet_gambling_act_regulations_release d_by_us_treasury_47015.html)

[eddytom]

However, an article from Reuters just came out and it seems like the banks are happy with the regs and think they can enforce them easily???

[ QUOTE ]
"At first blush it looks like they took a very practical and pragmatic approach. They did not ask us to do the impossible," said Steve Kenneally, a spokesman for America's Community Bankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reuters Article (http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN0143096420071001)

[grapabo]

If I'm reading this right, then this appears to be the setup of levels of enforcement:

1. All transactions are restricted unless there is an exemption.

2. If the transaction is exempt, then there is no requirement on the banks to identify and block under the Act.

3. If the transaction is not exempt, and therefore restricted, then the banks are required to implement a system of identifying and blocking those that violate UIGEA.

If the authors of these regulations meant this to be what it appears to be, and not some demonstration of the cost and difficulty to the banks, I would be worried. This method of enforcement seems to put the economic and regulatory pinch on financial institutions to have as little to do with non-exempt transactions as possible, and a lot of the transactions currently unhindered would suddenly become hindered.

It would also diminish the importance of whether poker is covered under federal law. The act covers transactions that are in violation of state law where the bet is made. No states have specifically legalized internet gambling, so banks aren't going to be too receptive to a customer's argument to the contrary.

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
i actually read a bit more and they propose that keeping an updated list of unlawful internet gambling businesses is NOT RECOMMENDED...

[/ QUOTE ]

Round 1: Ex-Attorney General 1.............John Kyl 0

http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/06/gonzales.jpg


http://www.redpills.org/wp-content/img/JonKyl1c.jpg

[Grasshopp3r]

US law works the other way around. We are also presumed innocent. An action has to be specifically prohibited or it is legal.

[grapabo]

[ QUOTE ]
US law works the other way around. We are also presumed innocent. An action has to be specifically prohibited or it is legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

A non-exempt transaction isn't automatically illegal. This system of classification merely organizes which transactions are more highly scrutinized and which ones aren't.

[JPFisher55]

Basically, banks only have to adopt policies to identify and block restricted transactions in which the bank is the first US bank involved in the transaction. This includes the first US bank to handle an ACH from a foreign bank or from a customer. Transactions in which the bank is an intermediary are exempt. Checks seem to receive similar treatment. Bank cards are treated much harder because of coding, but most of them are currently blocked anyway.
Problem is that no instruction, list or definition is provided to define unlawful internet gambling. Thus, a bank cannot know what a restricted transaction means. But some of the examples suggest that a bank can meet the regulation by contract terms with customers and foreign banks that the customer or foreign bank not originate or receive a restricted transaction (whatever that is).
I'm not sure that these regulations will make much difference.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm reading this right, then this appears to be the setup of levels of enforcement:

1. All transactions are restricted unless there is an exemption.

2. If the transaction is exempt, then there is no requirement on the banks to identify and block under the Act.

3. If the transaction is not exempt, and therefore restricted, then the banks are required to implement a system of identifying and blocking those that violate UIGEA.

If the authors of these regulations meant this to be what it appears to be, and not some demonstration of the cost and difficulty to the banks, I would be worried. This method of enforcement seems to put the economic and regulatory pinch on financial institutions to have as little to do with non-exempt transactions as possible, and a lot of the transactions currently unhindered would suddenly become hindered.

It would also diminish the importance of whether poker is covered under federal law. The act covers transactions that are in violation of state law where the bet is made. No states have specifically legalized internet gambling, so banks aren't going to be too receptive to a customer's argument to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me like it would be nearly impossible for them to verify all these transactions.

[oldbookguy]

There was already a case there a few years ago.

Some guys ran up a credit card bill with M/C and refused to pay, instead sueing M/C for violating the Wire Act / allowing them to gamble.

Court and appeals agreed, since it was not sports betting, they lose, Pay M/C.

Judge stated Wire Act is specific to Sports betting, Casino Gaming is NOT covered.

This was a Civil, not a Criminal Case. Still, ruling is a ruling. The guys cut their losses and did not appeal anymore. Too bad, it would have been nice for the Supreme Court to have opined on it.

obg

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is that no instruction, list or definition is provided to define unlawful internet gambling. Thus, a bank cannot know what a restricted transaction means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone worried the banks will not allow transactions just to be on the safe side?

[NoahSD]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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."

We win?

[TheEngineer]

These regs are interesting. As we figured, the Treasury Dept. doesn't really know what's legal and what isn't.

I'm working up a comment now. Let's all write now, to get the first comments in. The web site isn't up yet, but we can email our comments now.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WIll PP comeback to US now?

[/ QUOTE ]

one time! I need a big loan from the donk zone

Question:

I am scanning the document and noticed this:

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2007.

Does the document mention how long the comment review/reg modification period will be?

[/ QUOTE ]

90 days unless a good case is made for more time or a good case is made for less.

It isn't offical as far as I know until it is published in the Federal Register.


D$D

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
These regs are interesting. As we figured, the Treasury Dept. doesn't really know what's legal and what isn't.

I'm working up a comment now. Let's all write now, to get the first comments in. The web site isn't up yet, but we can email our comments now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed TE, the following is from the regs and I suggest we work from this angle:

[ QUOTE ]
The costs of implementing a list by the US government to deem certain transactions as unlawful Internet gambling transactions for the banks to use as a guideline were deemed by the Treasury to be 'significant'.

"This is because establishing a list would require considerable fact-finding and legal analysis once the U.S. Government identifies a gambling website. The Government must engage in an extensive legal analysis to determine whether the gambling website is used, at least in part, to place, receive or otherwise knowingly transmit unlawful bets or wagers. This legal analysis would entail interpreting the various Federal and State gambling laws, which 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," the regs state.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF it is TOO expensive and time consuming for the Federal Government to actually determine what is / is not illegal, then how are banks, ACH and others to with far less resources and time to determine this?

Is the Federal Government relegating to individuals the right to interpret and make law?

Next area - I will have to find it, but somewhere it mentions the judicial as the final determiner as to what is / is not legal / illegal.
We need to drat a second comment letter based on the M/C case and Chuck Humphries Fantasy Case where 'Contests' were ruled to not be gambling, I.E. Poker Tournaments fit this description.

We need to try and MAKE the regs writers determine / create a list at least of LEGAL Internet Wagering, State by State, I.E. contests and Skill Gaming and WHAT games are included here.

obg

[asterion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
25 hours compliance time - BS!

[/ QUOTE ]

CGW wrote an article and said the Treasury estimates that it would take 368,254 hours of work to implement these regulations.

Full Article (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/unlawful_internet_gambling_act_regulations_release d_by_us_treasury_47015.html)

[/ QUOTE ]And who is going to pay for 42 man-years of work?

[oldbookguy]

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


I find these proposed regulations for implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, 2006 (UIGEA) incredulous at best.

In the UIGEA Regulations Proposal, you state and I quote:

“The costs of implementing a list by the US government to deem certain transactions as unlawful Internet gambling transactions for the banks to use as a guideline were deemed by the Treasury to be 'significant'.

"This is because establishing a list would require considerable fact-finding and legal analysis once the U.S. Government identifies a gambling website. The Government must engage in an extensive legal analysis to determine whether the gambling website is used, at least in part, to place, receive or otherwise knowingly transmit unlawful bets or wagers. This legal analysis would entail interpreting the various Federal and State gambling laws, which 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," the regs state.”

So, if establishing a list is too considerable of a job for the unlimited resources of the Federal Government, how in the world do you expect a Bank, ACH or Other Money Business to do this? How are THEY supposed to determine legal from Illegal if NO ONE at a minimum states what is / is not legal?

Are you now relegating to Banks, ACH or Other Money Businesses the ability to set policy and make a finding as to what is legal from illegal?

Please, tell me my government can do better than this.

obg

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
We need to try and MAKE the regs writers determine / create a list at least of LEGAL Internet Wagering, State by State, I.E. contests and Skill Gaming and WHAT games are included here.

obg



[/ QUOTE ]

We have dodged a real bullet by there being no list planned for the proposed rule. I would like to hear more reasons for why we should now push for ANY list.

[HelloandGoodby90]

I DON'T want the government making a list of what states are legal, what games are illegal, etc. Let the regs stay vague, so the banks keep their enforcement of them vague, and they do not get enforced.

Please, don't push for a list, obg. IMO, that would be the worst move ever.

Read earlier, when the banks mentioned that they are satisfied, in the reuters arcticle. Why? Because there is not much to enforce. We have dodged a bullet with these regs, by not getting very specific regs, that would be both hard for the banks to enforce, and more effective. The regs we have now, probably will not be enforced. There is no reason to ask for more specific regs.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]

I am no guru either, however, I do know that the 5th circuit Federal Court ruled the Wire Act does not include ANYTHING except sports betting.

I am guessing that perhaps the sites with the 11 state ban may have gotten it right since those states prohibt either all wagering or the Internet specifically.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the 5th Circuit Court only upheld a ruling by a lower court. The main civil suit unwisely attempted to sue under RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Mention of the Wire Act in the original decision was cursory and not determinate or integral to the initial decision, although mention of it was made and infererred that the Wire Act did not apply as a portion of the RICO tort claim.

Jimbo

[oldbookguy]

Actually there never will be a list, it is to show the absurdity of the entire regs.

If the government cannot determine legal from illegal, how on earth are banks and ach's going too?

obg

[HelloandGoodby90]

Well, I don't mind what you are trying to do, but I think there is more productive ways of doing it. Ways that circle around, making the law more specific.

The best way to attack this, IMO, would be to make the law less specific, and easier on the bankers.

Easier on the banks= Easier on us.

For instance, show the absurdity of the law, by how the banks cannot properly enforce the law. Follow up with, because the law is so absurd and not enforcable, there should be less regulations for the banks to follow, by the mere fact they are impossible to follow. (Instead of asking for a list, because that would be more specific regs.)

This helps our cause, without hurting it by trying to make more regulations.

The banks are going to push for the minimum amount of work on their part, through less regs, and less specifity. We should be doing this to, because the banks are less likely to enforce what they don't have to enforce, as that would be less productive (Although some still might and do right now).

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't mind what you are trying to do, but I think there is more productive ways of doing it. Ways that circle around, making the law more specific.

The best way to attack this, IMO, would be to make the law less specific, and easier on the bankers.

Easier on the banks= Easier on us.

For instance, show the absurdity of the law, by how the banks cannot properly enforce the law. Follow up with, because the law is so absurd and not enforcable, there should be less regulations for the banks to follow. (In place of a list)

This helps our cause, without hurting it through the use of a list.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I like the way you think.....

The problem is the law at least as I read it and the regs say that if a bank messes up and blocks a legal transaction there is no recourse.

Given that bankers are NOT the worlds riskiest gamblers unless their is a price to pay for them throwing a wet blanket over anything associated with gambling and saying "so what!" is the problem I have with this law and proposed rule.

There is no hook to make them pay for doing the gov't bidding.

THAT is why they don't have a problem with the reg!


IMPO as always,


D$D

[HelloandGoodby90]

It's not like the Family Research Council is writing the regs. It is the Federal Reserve, and the Department of the Treasury. When the "GAMBLING IS BAD, OMG, HELP" crowd at FOF writes about how terrible gambling is, and should be outlawed because it is the work of Satan, what is the DOT, and FR, likely to think? My guess is they would not care much, considering what their job is, and may even become slightly turned off to the regs.

Now, if we come at the FR, and DOT, saying, these regs are terrible, and all regs would be terrible. We need less of them, as they are impossible to enforce, the reg writing powers are likely to be more turned on to our idea, then FOF's. Why?

A: Our comments address the regs (not what the country needs to outlaw), in a logical manner, that the FR and DOT is likely to be sympathethic to.
B. I am sure DOT and FR care more about the well being of the banks, more than whether or not someone gambles for cents in their living room.
C. FR is a big bank, anyway. (Good that they are writing the regs, huh?)

The banks are going to lobby for less regs, IMO, so that is the best move for us. Less regs work better for us, and it is going to boost us tremendously to be in step with the banks.

No matter what the regs say now, or mean later, we need to be on record supporting our beliefs, and we need to do it in a way that addresses the following four things:

A. In step with the banks.
B. Regs are not logically enforceable. Therefore, no matter how many regs there are, they are not going to be enforced. Also, all regs are SO unenforcable, they place too big a burden on the banks.
C. The regs should be less, and less specific, because of the logic I outlined in letter B.
D. Poker, and gambling in general, are not big threats, and should not have tough regs against them.

FOF is going to lobby for more regs. Why? Because more regs is going to place more burden on the poker industry. We do NOT want more regs.

FOF logic of more regs, is going to fail miserably. The DOT, and FR, is going to see that. When you look at their plan of action, they have no logic to more regs, other than "I HATE GAMBLING!!"

There is NO logic to more regs, and we need to make that clear to the DOT and FR, that what we want is less regs.

[TheEngineer]

Please comment. Thanks

------------------------------------------------------------

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

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations – the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses. Most of the weaknesses, which include the inability of the regulations to define “unlawful Internet gambling” and the risk of overblocking transactions to legal businesses, are inherent in UIGEA itself. I urge the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to further clarify these regulations prior to implementation to ensure orderly and fair enforcement of these regulations.

The primary weakness in the regulations as proposed is the lack of a definition of “illegal Internet gambling”. If the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve were unable to determine what constitutes illegal Internet gambling, how can banks and other financial institutions be expected to? Surely this is an unfair burden to place on our nation’s financial institutions. After all, they are in the business of providing financial services, not of enforcing ambiguous gambling bans.

Banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all gambling transactions. This overblocking could cause many problems for legitimate businesses, including the domestic horse racing industry, which was specifically excluded from the provisions of the Act. Additionally, banks could overblock offshore poker sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

These issues can largely be avoided by defining the term “illegal Internet gambling” in the regulations. I propose defining illegal Internet gambling as all gambling that is clearly illegal under existing federal law, plus that which is unambiguously illegal under state laws. Federal law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers sports betting only (excluding horse racing per the Interstate Horse Racing Act). Additionally, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 covers interstate (and, in 46 states, intrastate) professional and amateur sports betting. That is all that is covered by federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet gambling. To keep from placing an unfair burden on our banks, the regulations should specify that state laws must be unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to the specific forms of gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Treasury Department. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what it required of them.

Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they have been tasked to prevent. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

-------------

edited to change "overblock offshore gambling sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law" to "overblock offshore poker sites..."

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't mind what you are trying to do, but I think there is more productive ways of doing it. Ways that circle around, making the law more specific.

The best way to attack this, IMO, would be to make the law less specific, and easier on the bankers.

Easier on the banks= Easier on us.

For instance, show the absurdity of the law, by how the banks cannot properly enforce the law. Follow up with, because the law is so absurd and not enforcable, there should be less regulations for the banks to follow. (In place of a list)

This helps our cause, without hurting it through the use of a list.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I like the way you think.....

The problem is the law at least as I read it and the regs say that if a bank messes up and blocks a legal transaction there is no recourse.

Given that bankers are NOT the worlds riskiest gamblers unless their is a price to pay for them throwing a wet blanket over anything associated with gambling and saying "so what!" is the problem I have with this law and proposed rule.

There is no hook to make them pay for doing the gov't bidding.

THAT is why they don't have a problem with the reg!


IMPO as always,


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we need to strongly be on record saying that this is not the banks problem, leave them alone. There should be no recourse on the banks, or any effect.

Now, what you say about the banks not being the world's strongest gamblers is true. They are likely to block anything they can, even with no regs. But the thing is, they don't block everything, as they don't actually care to. They do not know what Epassporte is, as they have no incentive to find out. As of right now, most banks are against online gambling. I cannot deposit with my Bank of America Visa, can you? But, I still gamble online everyday. Why? Because my bank doesn't actually care about online gambling.

But, if there are strict regulations, outlining what is bad, and exactly how my bank can block it, the banks are a lot likely to hunt harder, and make it tough for me to play online. More likely to block Epassporte, etc.

As of right now, the banks have no incentive to go after online gambling. It is unproductive for them, and they make no money at it. Obviously, they have have enough incentive to not openly support gambling, as that would be silly on their part. That is why I cannot deposit with my Visa. But I do not want to give them the incentive to hunt gambling down, and be forced to block Epassporte, as well.

This is why, we need to make it easier on the banks, with less regs.

[gringo]

I really respect all of TE's postings, but not sure I understand why we want items specifically listed. I would think the more vague the better.

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
I really respect all of TE's postings, but not sure I understand why we want items specifically listed. I would think the more vague the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

There won't be a poker exemption in the regs. If the regs are clearly defined, poker will be clearly defined as illegal. That is court challengable, and court winnable, but I place little hope in the judicial process.

[Johnny McEldoo]

TE,

I like the letter. At the same time, I wonder if it would be better to attack section by section instead of a general letter format. Also show support for things we like.

For example in the section about exemptions they say:
"The Agencies request comments on all aspects of the exemptions, but in particular, whether the exemptions for certain participants in the ACH systems....are appropriate"

Shouldn't we take the time to echo our support for the ability for financial institutions to receive exemptions and state that we expect that these exemptions will be granted to such financial entities requesting them.

I would think this is important to fight off the FOF type groups when they fight against specific sections and we are silent.

How easily one of these financial institutions are granted an exemption seems like a big thing...

[JPFisher55]

Perhaps the following comment would be best on the list matter.

"Under II. E. 6. of Supplementary Information to the proposed PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING, the agency requests comments on the feasibility of creation of a list of unlawful internet gambling businesses. In my opinion, the creation of such a list is not practical or judicious. Under the UIGEA, the term unlawful internet gambling is essentially defined as any internet gambling that violates any applicable state or federal law. However, the power to interpret state or federal laws is granted to the judiciary branch of government; not to the executive. So how can any government agency determine whether any business is engaged in unlawful internet gambling? Interpretation the laws affecting internet gambling of all 50 states and the federal government and applying these laws to determine which businesses are violating them would place any agency in the position of being judge and jury for any potential business. Besides being extremely costly, I believe that any such judgment should be left to the judiciary branch and not any government agency. Without some judicial ruling about any business engaged in internet gambling how can an agency insure that such business is engaged in unlawful internet gambling. In my opinion, the Agencies discussion about the difficulties of creating a list of businesses engaged in unlawful internet gambling are correct. In my opinion, the Agencies cannot establish, maintain and update such a list."

Please let me know what the group thinks about this comment. Also, should we reveal our names etc. with any comment. D$D or TheEngineer, it might be helpful for you to post general directions about how to properly address and sign comments.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I really respect all of TE's postings, but not sure I understand why we want items specifically listed. I would think the more vague the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

The regs aren't bad. Our biggest threat is overblocking, so I focused on that. Keep in mind that our opponents are the ones who spam the FCC to death every time a curse word is uttered on TV. Imagine if they do that to the Treasury Dept and banks once this goes through.

[Coy_Roy]

Engineer, I understand where it is you're coming from.............but I have to admit that I feel a sense of danger in calling their hand.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
TE,

I like the letter. At the same time, I wonder if it would be better to attack section by section instead of a general letter format.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is EXACTLY what the author of the proposed reg asked people to do..........


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE,

I like the letter. At the same time, I wonder if it would be better to attack section by section instead of a general letter format. Also show support for things we like.

For example in the section about exemptions they say:
"The Agencies request comments on all aspects of the exemptions, but in particular, whether the exemptions for certain participants in the ACH systems....are appropriate"

Shouldn't we take the time to echo our support for the ability for financial institutions to receive exemptions and state that we expect that these exemptions will be granted to such financial entities requesting them.

I would think this is important to fight off the FOF type groups when they fight against specific sections and we are silent.

How easily one of these financial institutions are granted an exemption seems like a big thing...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. We'll be writing LOTS of comments, including short ones like "poker isn't illegal in my state....how will the regs protect my right to play?".

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

Please let me know what the group thinks about this comment. Also, should we reveal our names etc. with any comment. D$D or TheEngineer, it might be helpful for you to post general directions about how to properly address and sign comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

The information is on the site and likely to be on the PPA site soon.

Perhaps in the 2+2 tradition cliff notes??


D$D

[JPFisher55]

TE, I like your comment. However, I have a question. Should our comments be general in nature like your comment or concern specific parts of the proposed regulations and the discussion on them like the one that I posted?
Also, is it wise to suggest that the Agencies define the term unlawful internet gambling? They might not use your excellent definition but one unfavorable to us. Also, the Agencies might then use their interpretation to develop the list of unlawful internet gambling busineses. I thought that you wanted to keep the regulations vague to avoid litigation over them.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, I understand where it is you're coming from.............but I have to admit that I feel a sense of danger in calling their hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do too. Still, you know I like us to be on offense. If FOF asks for a definition, we should be able to match them with a similar request, with our version of why, I think. Besides, if they were able to define it and include poker, they would have already.

Also, the jumbled reg may help us with IGREA and the Wexler bill, especially as the horses are clearly at risk.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I like your comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I have a question. Should our comments be general in nature like your comment or concern specific parts of the proposed regulations and the discussion on them like the one that I posted?
Also, is it wise to suggest that the Agencies define the term unlawful internet gambling? They might not use your excellent definition but one unfavorable to us. Also, the Agencies might then use their interpretation to develop the list of unlawful internet gambling busineses. I thought that you wanted to keep the regulations vague to avoid litigation over them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be submitting many comments. Many will attack specific parts of the regs.

As for the definition, if they were going to include poker, they would have already, I think. After all, poker is the only offshore Internet gaming that still operates in the open, with commercials (at least for the .nets). Surely they'd be the regs' first target if the Treasury Dept felt they could. I don't want litigation at all (and I certainly don't want the definition to go against us), but I do want to demonstrate that we don't fear a definition.

I also want to express our need to stop banks from overblocking, which is a big risk for us. Keeping the vague definition while getting overblocking protection would not be a bad outcome at all.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Please let me know what the group thinks about this comment. Also, should we reveal our names etc. with any comment. D$D or TheEngineer, it might be helpful for you to post general directions about how to properly address and sign comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to reveal your real name when posting your comments.

[IndyFish]

I like your comment, JPFisher. The Agencies seem to agree and mention something along the same lines in the second paragraph of page 25. Some editing to make your comment more reader-friendly might be in order though.

A couple of questions for the legal types here:

1. The last paragraph of page 24 says that a business that engages in unlawful internet gambling might also engage in activities that are not prohibited under the UIGEA and those legal activities should not be blocked. So.....does this clear ePassporte if ePassporte can also be used as a normal VISA? (as their website claims, anyway.)

2. Are those of us in the 11 "axis of evil" states doomed? Or are the banks likely to not differentiate from state to state and go more by federal law?

Also a quick "thank you" to those of you with a legal background helping the rest of us to understand this mess.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I recommend the following language in the place of the last large paragraph of your comment that defines unlawful internet gambling.

These issues can largely be avoided by defining the term “unlawful Internet gambling” in the regulations. I propose defining illegal Internet gambling as all gambling that is clearly illegal under existing federal law, plus that which is unambiguously illegal under state laws. Federal law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers sports betting only (excluding horse racing per the Interstate Horse Racing Act). Additionally, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 covers interstate (and, in 46 states, intrastate) professional and amateur sports betting. That is all that is covered by federal law.
Since federal case law holds that the Wire Act only covers sports betting, then, for the application under federal law, the term unlawful internet gambling should only include all internet sports betting except for horse racing as defined under the Interstate Horse Racing Act.
Very few states have expressly outlawed Internet gambling. For application under state laws, to keep from placing an unfair burden on our banks, in defining the term unlawful internet gambling, the regulations should specify that state laws must contain a provision that uses the term internet gambling and expressly states that all internet gambling is unlawful, or other similar language or expressly states the specific forms of internet gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Treasury Department. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what it required of them.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, I understand where it is you're coming from.............but I have to admit that I feel a sense of danger in calling their hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more thing was on my mind. They didn't define "unlawful Internet gambling" because they couldn't. If they get 2,000 FoF comments, all with the same proposed definition, they may decide it can be defined. OTOH, if they get a bunch of proposals to define it as only sports betting and a bunch of others saying they should ban everything, they'll decide they were right -- they can't define it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[JPFisher55]

Indyfish, the short answer is who knows for sure. IMO, federal law does not prohibit internet poker. While some states do and some probably do, I wonder if any of these laws would hold up to a serious court challenge.
I wish that I knew what banks will do.
Heck yesterday, TE and I exchanged posts about what type of regs that was best for online poker. I thought that specific regs might be best because they would be easier to challenge in court. I was afraid that vague regs might cause the banks to overreact and block too much; especially Epassporte and other online poker transactions.
TE wanted vague regs to avoid litigation. We agreed that vague regs were most likely. I kind of like the proposed regs because they seem to require that banks have some knowledge, or access to knowledge, that a transaction involves unlawful internet gambling before a bank has to have policies to block these restricted transactions. Also, no list of unlawful internet gambling businesses is proposed. But today TE seems to be worried about overblocking by banks. This whole matter seems very muddied to me. In their lawsuit, I think that the iMEGA should have made a better argument that the UIGEA was too vague to be enforceable under the constitution.

[TheEngineer]

Please comment on letter 2.0. Thanks

------------------------------------------------------------

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

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations – the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses. Most of the weaknesses, which include the inability of the regulations to define “unlawful Internet gambling” and the risk of overblocking transactions to legal businesses, are inherent in UIGEA itself. I urge the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to further clarify these regulations prior to implementation to ensure orderly and fair enforcement of these regulations.

The primary weakness in the regulations as proposed is the lack of a definition of “illegal Internet gambling”. If the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve were unable to determine what constitutes illegal Internet gambling, how can banks and other financial institutions be expected to? Surely this is an unfair burden to place on our nation’s financial institutions. After all, they are in the business of providing financial services, not of enforcing ambiguous gambling bans.

Banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all gambling transactions. This overblocking could cause many problems for legitimate businesses, including the domestic horse racing industry, which was specifically excluded from the provisions of the Act. Additionally, banks could overblock offshore poker sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

These issues can largely be avoided by defining the term “illegal Internet gambling” in the regulations. I propose defining illegal Internet gambling as all Internet gambling that is clearly illegal under existing federal law, plus that which is unambiguously illegal under state laws. Federal law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers only sports betting. Additionally, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 covers interstate (and, in 46 states, intrastate) professional and amateur sports betting. That is all that is covered by federal law. Since federal case law holds that the Wire Act covers only sports betting, unlawful Internet gambling as defined by federal laws should include only interstate Internet sports betting and intrastate Internet sports betting in the 46 states covered by the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, excluding horse racing as defined under the Interstate Horse Racing Act.

As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet gambling. To keep from placing an unreasonable burden on our banks, the regulations should specify that state laws must be unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to the specific types of gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Secretary of the Treasury. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what it required of them.

Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they have been tasked to prevent. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I recommend the following language in the place of the last large paragraph of your comment that defines unlawful internet gambling.

These issues can largely be avoided by defining the term “unlawful Internet gambling” in the regulations. I propose defining illegal Internet gambling as all gambling that is clearly illegal under existing federal law, plus that which is unambiguously illegal under state laws. Federal law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers sports betting only (excluding horse racing per the Interstate Horse Racing Act). Additionally, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 covers interstate (and, in 46 states, intrastate) professional and amateur sports betting. That is all that is covered by federal law.
Since federal case law holds that the Wire Act only covers sports betting, then, for the application under federal law, the term unlawful internet gambling should only include all internet sports betting except for horse racing as defined under the Interstate Horse Racing Act.
Very few states have expressly outlawed Internet gambling. For application under state laws, to keep from placing an unfair burden on our banks, in defining the term unlawful internet gambling, the regulations should specify that state laws must contain a provision that uses the term internet gambling and expressly states that all internet gambling is unlawful, or other similar language or expressly states the specific forms of internet gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Treasury Department. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what it required of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[What?]

These regs seem harmless. Why run the risk of stirring things up?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
These regs seem harmless. Why run the risk of stirring things up?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what we said prior to UIGEA passing....keep quiet and don't stir things up. That loss put us on offense, where we should have always been, IMHO. The regs aren't too bad for us, but we have a risk of getting blocked by a bunch of banks that have zero incentive to let our transactions through.

Also, the FoF types will stir this up plenty for us. We'd better get our voice heard, I think.

Even if you like the regs as they are, please post affirmatively to offset the FoF folks. Thanks.

[JPFisher55]

TE, if you want a precise definition of unlawful internet gambling along the lines of the UIGEA that is most favorable to us without court challenge to the few state laws expressly prohibiting one or more forms of Internet gambling, then how about the following.

Unlawful internet gambling is defined to mean placing, receiving or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager (1) involves, or is related to, a sporting event or sporting contest; except for horse racing, (2) involves, or is related to, a game of chance, contest, card game or other event that a statute of the state in which the bank resides expressly prohibits the use of the Internet to place, receive or otherwise transmit such bet or wager or (3) involves, or is related to, a game of chance, contest, card game or other event, and the state in which the bank resides expressly prohibits, by statute, all Internet gambling.

Since I have written lots of contract, I am pretty handy with these types of terms and definitions. I won't pretend to be the foremost expert, but usually lawyers who have reviewed my contracts had few complaints.

[Johnny McEldoo]

[ QUOTE ]
These regs seem harmless. Why run the risk of stirring things up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's important to keep in mind that these are only "proposed regulations". There is a comment period which we are in now. If we stay silent while groups against us are very active, the final product may not turn out to be the same as what we are seeing now.

The wording of the proposed regulations make it sound like the comments submitted during this time will be read and could have a big impact on how the final regulations turn out. Because of this, it seems more important than ever for us to be active and agressive.

[pineapple888]

WTF Cliffs Notes somebody PLZ k thx. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


There are no extra points in the rule making system for speed .

There is no reason to send off a thousand letters before we are exactly sure how we as a group want to attack this proposed reg.

I've only read through it once.

We have quite a few ways we might want to attack this and we may simply end up attacking it on each and every one, but lets keep our group powder dry for at least a week.

There is also some value to letting the other side taking their best shot first and let them show their hand.

Me I'm not ready for a showdown this week...........


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thanks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


There are no extra points in the rule making system for speed .



[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I put it out for comment....so we could start thinking about what we want to do and why. I won't send anything out just yet, as I'm formulating where we wish to end up as well.

[DeadMoneyDad]

Cool.

[Jeffage]

Reuters:Net gambling regulations exempt some transfers

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.

http://www.news.com/Net-gambling-regulations-exempt-some-transfers/2100-1028_3-6211061.html

See full article at link above - PPA quoted.

Jeff

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Reuters:Net gambling regulations exempt some transfers

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.

http://www.news.com/Net-gambling-regulations-exempt-some-transfers/2100-1028_3-6211061.html

See full article at link above - PPA quoted.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Jeff but I'm tired of seeing the gov't's propaganda published in our own forums!

I live in this little town called D.C. I work and drive on a daily basis with the people who are going to determine what is reasonable. Reason and logic went out of favor in US gov't about the time our first President died and everyone figured out it might be a job worth having!


D$D

[Jeffage]

Why are you apologizing to me? I just linked the article, I didn't write it! /images/graemlins/cool.gif Also, if you continue reading, it pretty much says there won't be an effort to stop money transfers, only credit/debit payments.

Jeff

[TheEngineer]

New letter....comments please.

----------------------

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

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations – the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses that are inherent to UIGEA itself. The primary risk is that of overblocking transactions to legal businesses.

I live in Kentucky. Internet horse race betting is legal here under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 (IHRA). Additionally, Internet poker is not illegal here under any state or federal law (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sport betting). Despite the exclusion of the domestic horse racing industry operating under the auspices of the IHRA from the provisions of the Act, banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all Internet gambling transactions (as was noted in the proposed regulations themselves). I am concerned that these legal businesses will be unfairly affected by these regulations, affecting my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses.

An additional risk to overblocking is the risk of an illegal restraint of trade. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

I urge a revision to the proposed regulations to ensure a proactive bias towards processing of all financial transactions. To accomplish this, I propose revising the regulations to remove all penalties for all but willful and egregious noncompliance. Also, I propose that the Monitoring section of the regulations be revised to require banks to process all lawful transactions.

The last thing our country needs is more impediments to lawful financial transactions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

Lettter #2....pls comment:

-------------

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

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I have a comment on the feasibility of banks enforcing state laws.

Very few states have outlawed Internet gambling. To keep from placing an unreasonable burden on our banks, I propose that the regulations specify that any state laws enforced under these regulations must be unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to the specific types of gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have this federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Secretary of the Treasury. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what is required of them.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[luckychancer]

Partygaming stock has not jumped radically up or down on the release of the regs.
Does this tend to suggest the present status quo will remain?

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tasked sounds liking engineering jargon to me. It's a small nit so fel free to ignore it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tasked sounds liking engineering jargon to me. It's a small nit so fel free to ignore it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I speak only engineering jargon. /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[OldNantucker]

Here is the time for PPA to step up:

1. Retain a couple legal experts (perhaps some from 2+2) to highlight potential regulation pitfalls for online poker (since it is hard to define due to vague regs).
2. Give the 700,000 members a framework for comments to shape regs to our advantage.

As long as the regs don't change the status quo, people will find a way to deposit/withdraw.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the time for PPA to step up:

1. Retain a couple legal experts (perhaps some from 2+2) to highlight potential regulation pitfalls for online poker (since it is hard to define due to vague regs).
2. Give the 700,000 members a framework for comments to shape regs to our advantage.

As long as the regs don't change the status quo, people will find a way to deposit/withdraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA has info up already (far ahead of FoF). John Pappas and I have exchanged emails on this topic as well. Stay tuned....

[Lostit]

[ QUOTE ]
Partygaming stock has not jumped radically up or down on the release of the regs.
Does this tend to suggest the present status quo will remain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Working in the Finance world, I can tell you exactly what this means.... Investors aren't sure what to make of the regs, just like the rest of us aren't yet. Watch it over time and I'll bet you see some steady but gradual move in one way or another. Also, look at the derivatives market for party stock (puts, calls, etc), as well as "insider" stock transactions (ie. officers of the company). Many times these are a far better indicator of what people with true knowledge of the situation are doing. At this point however, nothing is clear, so thats why you see no movement.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

how long before the regulations are translated to the English language?

that's going to be an exciting day.

[Wynton]

I have not yet read the regulations myself, and only skimmed this thread. But allow me to pose a question.

Do the proposed regulations really require the banks to make independent determinations of whether particular companies meet the definition of being engaged in illegal gambling operations? This process seems to entail two steps: (1) a factual investigation of what the company actually does; and (2) a legal analysis of whether such conduct violates the law.

These steps seem so beyond the capacity of the banks that it's hard for me to believe that we are not going to end up with a specific list - compiled and continually updated by the Treasury Department, regardless of any comments we may or may not make.

[Wynton]

And I have one strategic questions:

Will we see comments made by others during this review period? If so, then we might have the opportunity to respond or offer rebuttal to comments we don't like. If not, then obviously the onus is on everyone to come forward at roughly the same time.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Partygaming stock has not jumped radically up or down on the release of the regs.
Does this tend to suggest the present status quo will remain?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMPO the "smart money" can't figure out what will happen either.


D$D<--has no "smart money"

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not yet read the regulations myself, and only skimmed this thread. But allow me to pose a question.

Do the proposed regulations really require the banks to make independent determinations of whether particular companies meet the definition of being engaged in illegal gambling operations?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMPO this is the inherent flaw in the FED's request and hope & prayer PR stunt.

IMPO they said, in 52 pages.



October 1, 2007

Dear banks and credit card companies,

Congress didn't write a workable law, if we let you have liability free reign, will you work with us and try to at least be willing to consider perhaps pissing off a few high profile on-line gamblers? Perhaps the stink will help the administration in this hopeless effort to stop money flows to and from on-line poker/gambling.

Please?

Hello?

Hey we like insolvent banks and over extended credit card issuers who are willing to take a free shot for us, we have lots of money! Please ....

HELP me please!

Your's truly,

Valerie A Abend (the jokes write themselves) /images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Depuity Assistant Secretary for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy.





D$D<--once missed a meeting and got to put his name on a proposed rule as a punishment!!!!!

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, if you want a precise definition of unlawful internet gambling along the lines of the UIGEA that is most favorable to us without court challenge to the few state laws expressly prohibiting one or more forms of Internet gambling, then how about the following.

Unlawful internet gambling is defined to mean placing, receiving or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager (1) involves, or is related to, a sporting event or sporting contest; except for horse racing, (2) involves, or is related to, a game of chance, contest, card game or other event that a statute of the state in which the bank resides expressly prohibits the use of the Internet to place, receive or otherwise transmit such bet or wager or (3) involves, or is related to, a game of chance, contest, card game or other event, and the state in which the bank resides expressly prohibits, by statute, all Internet gambling.

Since I have written lots of contract, I am pretty handy with these types of terms and definitions. I won't pretend to be the foremost expert, but usually lawyers who have reviewed my contracts had few complaints.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this in on the right track, but maybe focusing on the state the bank is domiciled in is incorrect? If it's legal for me to bet in Nevada but I bank on-line with a bank in Delaware, whose law should the bank apply? Seems to me my transaction is legal and the Delaware bank should let it go through.

Also, why specify card games? Why not say a game "predominantly determined by chance" which leaves us wiggle room for the standard "poker is a game of skill argument"?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
But allow me to pose a question.

Do the proposed regulations really require the banks to make independent determinations of whether particular companies meet the definition of being engaged in illegal gambling operations? This process seems to entail two steps: (1) a factual investigation of what the company actually does; and (2) a legal analysis of whether such conduct violates the law.

These steps seem so beyond the capacity of the banks that it's hard for me to believe that we are not going to end up with a specific list - compiled and continually updated by the Treasury Department, regardless of any comments we may or may not make.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the idea. Here's an "example"(1 of many)

[ QUOTE ]
(b) Automated clearing house system examples.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, the policies
and procedures of the originating depository financial institution and any
third-party sender in an ACH debit transaction, and the receiving depository
financial institution in an ACH credit transaction, are deemed to be reasonably
designed to prevent or prohibit restricted transactions if they —
(i) Address methods for conducting due diligence in establishing or
maintaining a customer relationship designed to ensure that the customer
will not originate restricted transactions as ACH debit transactions or
receive restricted transactions as ACH credit transactions through the
customer relationship, such as –
(A) Screening potential commercial customers to ascertain the nature of
their business; and
(B) Including as a term of the commercial customer agreement that the
customer may not engage in restricted transactions; and

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jussurreal]

Even if a list is compiled and updated, they still are not going to enforce checks. That is huge.

[JPFisher55]

Ok I agree with waiting at least one week to submit any comments. TE, do we go with proposing a defintion of unlawful internet gambling or not. Your proposed comments seem to vary on this stratedgy.
Also, we could not actually defined the term unlawful internet gambling but submit some proposed examples as follows.

1. Accepting, receiving or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet a bet or wager that involves, or is related to, a sporting event or sporting contest, except for horse racing, is unlawful internet gambling in every state.

2. Accepting, receiving or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet a bet or wager that does not involve, or is not related to, a sporting event or sporting contest, such as the card game of poker, any casino game, or the game of backgammon is not unlawful internet gambling in the state in which the bank resides unless, by state statute, that state expressly prohibits all gambling by use of the Internet or that state expressly prohibits gambling or playing the specified game that the bet or wager involves or relates.

Later I will post some full proposed comments for review. I will not submit any comments until TE or D$D approve them. We need to have a leader in our effort and I propose TE and/or D$D because they seem to understand politics and this process.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
We need to have a leader in our effort and I propose TE and/or D$D because they seem to understand politics and this process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose TE, no if's, and's or but's.

The Engineer is our leader.

[Grasshopp3r]

I think that the list is necessary and if they don't produce a list, it is simply Senator McCarthy waving a sheaf of papers at a press conference. The list is important to establish standing in future litigation. Failure to provide a list is admission that there are no sites that violate Federal laws, including the sports betting sites.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the list is necessary and if they don't produce a list, it is simply Senator McCarthy waving a sheaf of papers at a press conference. The list is important to establish standing in future litigation. Failure to provide a list is admission that there are no sites that violate Federal laws, including the sports betting sites.

[/ QUOTE ]


i agree. it'd be like fighting a cloud of smoke in the future. damn gov't and elastic clauses.

[omgwtf]

I thought someone else would make this comment, but I haven't seen it yet (maybe I missed it?)

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that banks and banking regulators are now having to assume a role not only of complying with the law themselves, but now they are being asked to evaluate the legality (or lack thereof) of BOTH parties of a transaction? We have an entire justice system that struggles with determining what the law really means and identifying those who are breaking the law. UIGEA seems to expect the banking system to do the same thing.

Evaluating whether a business or transaction is legal is the duty of the courts and law enforcement, where due process ensures a degree of fairness. Besides the fact that banking institutions are completely unqualified to make such determinations, I think it's a very bad precedent. I'm suprised that hasn't been a focus of the opposition to UIGEA.

Reading through these regs, I get the sense that at least some of the authors were similarly upset.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not submit any comments until TE or D$D approve them.

[/ QUOTE ]


I DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT!



D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

TY but no thanks!

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought someone else would make this comment, but I haven't seen it yet (maybe I missed it?)

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that banks and banking regulators are now having to assume a role not only of complying with the law themselves, but now they are being asked to evaluate the legality (or lack thereof) of BOTH parties of a transaction? We have an entire justice system that struggles with determining what the law really means and identifying those who are breaking the law. UIGEA seems to expect the banking system to do the same thing.

Evaluating whether a business or transaction is legal is the duty of the courts and law enforcement , where due process ensures a degree of fairness. Besides the fact that banking institutions are completely unqualified to make such determinations, I think it's a very bad precedent. I'm suprised that hasn't been a focus of the opposition to UIGEA.

Reading through these regs, I get the sense that at least some of the authors were similarly upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

With out "due process of law."

The regulation as proposed says if you do this uniquely governmental activity we will absolve you of any and all responsibility!!!!!



D$D<--Will take a lifetime appointment to the bench /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought someone else would make this comment, but I haven't seen it yet (maybe I missed it?)

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that banks and banking regulators are now having to assume a role not only of complying with the law themselves, but now they are being asked to evaluate the legality (or lack thereof) of BOTH parties of a transaction? We have an entire justice system that struggles with determining what the law really means and identifying those who are breaking the law. UIGEA seems to expect the banking system to do the same thing.

Evaluating whether a business or transaction is legal is the duty of the courts and law enforcement, where due process ensures a degree of fairness. Besides the fact that banking institutions are completely unqualified to make such determinations, I think it's a very bad precedent. I'm suprised that hasn't been a focus of the opposition to UIGEA.

Reading through these regs, I get the sense that at least some of the authors were similarly upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is part of my earlier point, that the banks will be forced to make legal judgments.

Again, I cannot imagine any scenrio which does not result in an actual, specific list being compiled. Whether it is created by the treasury department itself, or maybe a consortium of banks, eventually there will be a specific list.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought someone else would make this comment, but I haven't seen it yet (maybe I missed it?)

Anyway, does it bother anyone else that banks and banking regulators are now having to assume a role not only of complying with the law themselves, but now they are being asked to evaluate the legality (or lack thereof) of BOTH parties of a transaction? We have an entire justice system that struggles with determining what the law really means and identifying those who are breaking the law. UIGEA seems to expect the banking system to do the same thing.

Evaluating whether a business or transaction is legal is the duty of the courts and law enforcement, where due process ensures a degree of fairness. Besides the fact that banking institutions are completely unqualified to make such determinations, I think it's a very bad precedent. I'm suprised that hasn't been a focus of the opposition to UIGEA.

Reading through these regs, I get the sense that at least some of the authors were similarly upset.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is part of my earlier point, that the banks will be forced to make legal judgments.

Again, I cannot imagine any scenrio which does not result in an actual, specific list being compiled. Whether it is created by the treasury department itself, or maybe a consortium of banks, eventually there will be a specific list.

[/ QUOTE ]


And a good arguement for us under the Paperwork Reduction Act for us. IMPO

I thought I read the rule didn't want the development of a specific list????



D$D

[Jussurreal]

I don't think a list is a good idea. I am a sports man but even for you poker players it is not a good idea. If a list is made they may very well include the poker sites. The regulations as they are written are good now, stirring it up and hoping it comes out a different way is a -EV move. If it aint broke then don't try to fix it.

[JPFisher55]

Ok TE, I'll wait for your comments. I do have a specific comment opposing the creation of any list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses ready to post or submit. Let me know when or if to post it. In the alternative, do we want to propose our own list of lawful Internet gambling businesses i.e. poker sites?

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought I read the rule didn't want the development of a specific list????



D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you, are you going to force me to read the freakin thing rather than continue to offer uneducated opinions?

[canvasbck]

[ QUOTE ]

D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

TY but no thanks!

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[/ QUOTE ]

William Sherman

[oldbookguy]

William Sherman, D$D, among others.
I believe he was first.

obg

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]



D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[/ QUOTE ]

William Tecumsee Sherman..??

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
William Sherman, D$D, among others.
I believe he was first.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn I thought it was LBJ???


D$D<--watched him on TV???

[Skallagrim]

OK - the regs themselves are not cause for panic...

They are cause for concern, however, and that concern, as our fearless leader TE has already identified, is OVERBLOCKING.

The regs give the banks no clue as to what is or isnt "unlawful internet gambling (UIG, for short)." They do require banks to have polices to block transfers for UIG (except, with a few exceptions I am still trying to puzzle out, checks and ACH transfers). THE WORST PART OF THE WHOLE THING IS THAT BANKS GET FINED FOR NOT PROPERLY BLOCKING A UIG TRANSFER, BUT ARE EXEMPT FROM ANY PENALTY IF THEY BLOCK A TRANSFER THEY REASONABLY THINK IS FOR UIG.

Clearly if you are a bank manager the lesson is clear, when in doubt, block. It is very unlikely any bank will spend the time and effort to determine whether my $5.00 deposit to worldwinner so I can play online bridge for money is covered or not. So they will block it. This, I believe, should be our main area of comment, too many perfectly lawful exchanges will be blocked under these regulations because there is no clear definition of what is and isnt UIG.

Since the regulations wont give a clear definition, we should urge the regs to only require banks to monitor for transactions that have clearly been identified as UIG, under an easy to obtain Federal or State statute.

I am tired today, but will work on a specific comment and proposal letter over the next couple of days, as usual TE and JP have already started that discussion, and I will work off what they have done.

The good news is the exemption for checks and ACH; online poker will not die because of these regulations.

Skallagrim

[omgwtf]

The problem with compiling a list is that businesses are declared "illegal", and their transactions blocked, without due process. Unless, of course, any additions to the list require a court hearing and the judge's approval.

Come to think of it, such a system (court-controlled list) is almost the same as no list at all. Innocent until proven guilty. All transactions are allowed, unless a court finds they are prohibited via UIGEA.

[oldbookguy]

LBJ said it as well, so did Condi Rice, all were quoting Sherman though.

obg

[Uglyowl]

We probably should try getting our fully legal gaming brothers and sisters on board, commenting on this (i.e. Worldwinner, Horse Racing, Fantasy Sports, etc.) that the regulations may cause unintended (heck maybe they are intended) consequences to them.

[Nortonesque]

[ QUOTE ]
Partygaming stock has not jumped radically up or down on the release of the regs.
Does this tend to suggest the present status quo will remain?

[/ QUOTE ]
Party isn't affected by the regs. Party pulled out because the UIGEA made it criminal to accept a deposit*, and the regs don't have any bearing on that. The regs are for financial institutions' compliance with the UIGEA.

*a deposit for "unlawful internet gaming," whatever that may be.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
We probably should try getting our fully legal gaming brothers and sisters on board, commenting on this (i.e. Worldwinner, Horse Racing, Fantasy Sports, etc.) that the regulations may cause unintended (heck maybe they are intended) consequences to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the basis of the most effective tactic, IMHO.

The banks pretty much have what they want: put in a "policy" and enforce it (except they dont really, apparently, have to enforce it for checks and ACH) and they are done. Basically whatever your banks "policy" says will determine whether your credit card works for internet poker, bridge, backgammon, sports, horses, world of warcraft, etc...

Most banks will simply include everything in their "policy" since that is the easiest way to comply with the law and, at least for the big players, the money made off potentially legal gaming is not worth the effort to make distinctions.

So, every gamer of every stripe should write comments about how worried they are their favorite "legal" activity will be blocked if these regulations stand as written. TE had the basics when he wrote in one of his proposed letters how he worries that his legal right to play horses over the internet in WV may be in jeopardy. If the Treasury department wont tell the banks in which states its legal to play the horses online, can we really expect the banks to do it themselves?

More later.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Ah Skall, all checks and ACH's are not exempt. The regs exempt banks in certain roles when processing checks or ACH's. Any bank that is an intermediary or only an operator of a system of check clearing or processing ACH's is exempt. However, a bank whose customer originates a check or ACH, originating or depositary bank, is not exempt and must develope a policy to police its customers. In cross-border transactions, the first US bank to process the transaction must develop policy with its correspondent foreign bank to block restricted transaction that constitute UIG. The theory is that such banks have access to some knowledge that enables them to identify a restricted transaction. However, the examples given may enable a bank to satisfy the policy requirement by adding terms to its customer and bank relationship agreements that forbids the customer or foreign bank from originating a restricted transaction. Then the bank has to have a policy of enforcement of such provisions. We need to develop comments on how unworkable and burdensome these regulations will be on banks.

[oldbookguy]

Reading throught the proposed regs for the third time, I am pleased and MOST concerned about number 5 that begins on page 22 and goes to page 23.

Pleased - To page 23 - In the case of payment transactions for the benefit of offshore gambling businesses, none of the participants in the United States that process the transaction would have a direct relationship with the gambling business that receives the payment and would, under the general regulatory requirements, be exempt and not required to have policies and procedures to prevent or prohibit restricted transactions

Seems Off shore transactions to a payment gateway, I.E. Neteller days, are exempt.

NOW, read on.....

NOT PLEASED - In the case of incoming cross-border ACH debit and check collection transactions, the proposed rule places responsibility on the first participant in the United States that receives the incoming transaction directly from a foreign institution (i.e., an ACH debit
transaction from a foreign gateway operator, foreign bank, or a foreign third-party processor or a check for collection directly from a foreign bank) to take reasonable steps to ensure that their cross-border relationship is not used to facilitate restricted transactions.

Seems they are targeting our ability to actually collect winnings.

Any thoughts?

obg

[Skallagrim]

OBG and JP - you guys have had a couple of days head start on this, thanks for pointing out details I have yet missed (to my own credit I did say that there were some exceptions to the ACH exemption that I hadn't puzzled out yet - JP found it).

So it seems MY bank must have a policy to try and determine what my check or transfer is for... multiple problems there, and multiple reasons to complain.

I also seems that if the transfer is to a non-gaming third party (like neteller) it should go through ... thats a big loophole if correct, lets be sure not to comment on this /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

As to incoming, thats not covered by the law. Lets make sure thats pointed out to the reg writers big time.

I will read them again tomorrow, pretty soon we will have the full understanding needed.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

It still all boils down to the Banks, ACH's and others are going to be required to determine exactly what is Unlawful Internet Gambling and what is LAWFUL Internet Gambling.

The regs writers stated they are not going to, too cumbersome for them to examine all state & federal laws to do this, so, HOW are the banks, ACH's and others to do this?

TE and I discussed this on page three of this thread and this may be our best plan of commenting; if the Feds can't determine one from the other, how are others to do so with far less resources and funds?

obg

[Wish]

I don't know whether or not we can see and rebut the comments of others, but it should be easy enough to search the FOF website or join their mailing list and get their talking points. If one of you can wade through the cesspool of bigotry, xenophobia, hatred, and homophobia without losing your sanity, I'd suggest doing some oppo research.

[oldbookguy]

Once the link is actually functioning for comments, all can be read that are posted.

Go to www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov), clink any open for comment and you can read them.

obg

[Jussurreal]

skallagrim, in the post above yours obg outlines that incoming transactions are in fact covered by the law. Very thouroughly to include even checks.

Question, why did Reuters report that they stopped short of checks? That is flat out false from what obg wrote above.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I also seems that if the transfer is to a non-gaming third party (like neteller) it should go through ... thats a big loophole if correct, lets be sure not to comment on this .

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if this is correct, I'll bet NT is sure pissed right now, pleading the way they did and what, 136 million fine, wow.

obg

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
skallagrim, in the post above yours obg outlines that incoming transactions are in fact covered by the law. Very thouroughly to include even checks.

Question, why did Reuters report that they stopped short of checks? That is flat out false from what obg wrote above.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are all still trying to get a firm handle on these regulations, especially us law types. Dont take anything said here as a fact for at least another few days, after that a consensus will ensue and then a battle plan.

On your specific question it appears that transfer banks dont have to look at each check, but the bank that issues the check has to have some policy to comply with the law, but that policy does not need to include actually determining where the check ends up.

Seems like these regs want to require you to sign an agreement with your bank that none of your checks or electronic transfers will be used for UIG. Then your bank processes it normally. It the bank finds out is was used for UIG? I dont know.... If the bank suspects its for UIG and declines to process it, you cant complain.

Skallagrim

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
skallagrim, in the post above yours obg outlines that incoming transactions are in fact covered by the law. Very thouroughly to include even checks.

[/ QUOTE ]No. Those examples are of money flowing out of the U.S.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the time for PPA to step up:

1. Retain a couple legal experts (perhaps some from 2+2) to highlight potential regulation pitfalls for online poker (since it is hard to define due to vague regs).
2. Give the 700,000 members a framework for comments to shape regs to our advantage.

As long as the regs don't change the status quo, people will find a way to deposit/withdraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA has info up already (far ahead of FoF). John Pappas and I have exchanged emails on this topic as well. Stay tuned....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it's been discussed in the PPA, but in case it hasn't any calls for action need to be proactively sent to members via email, preferably with a linky to let the PPA know that you responded.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We need to have a leader in our effort and I propose TE and/or D$D because they seem to understand politics and this process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose TE, no if's, and's or but's.

The Engineer is our leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. D$D effectively works a proven strategy of being very loud (though some of what he says has merit) to get in on the action. But TE is the man for our cause.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
NOT PLEASED - In the case of incoming cross-border ACH debit and check collection transactions, the proposed rule places responsibility on the first participant in the United States that receives the incoming transaction directly from a foreign institution (i.e., an ACH debit
transaction from a foreign gateway operator, foreign bank, or a foreign third-party processor or a check for collection directly from a foreign bank) to take reasonable steps to ensure that their cross-border relationship is not used to facilitate restricted transactions.

Seems they are targeting our ability to actually collect winnings.

Any thoughts?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

The checks I receive now are not from a foreign bank.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
skallagrim, in the post above yours obg outlines that incoming transactions are in fact covered by the law. Very thouroughly to include even checks.

[/ QUOTE ]No. Those examples are of money flowing out of the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I am missing something this seems to be referring to money coming into the US

[ QUOTE ]

In the case of incoming cross-border ACH debit and check collection transactions, the proposed rule places responsibility on the first participant in the United States that receives the incoming transaction directly from a foreign institution (i.e., an ACH debit transaction from a foreign gateway operator, foreign bank, or a foreign third-party processor or a check for collection directly from a foreign bank) to take reasonable steps to ensure that their cross-border relationship is not used to facilitate restricted transactions.


[/ QUOTE ]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also seems that if the transfer is to a non-gaming third party (like neteller) it should go through ... thats a big loophole if correct, lets be sure not to comment on this .

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if this is correct, I'll bet NT is sure pissed right now, pleading the way they did and what, 136 million fine, wow.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]


Has anyone given any though to the mixed money question/angle. If the banks are going to have a hard time picking legal and illegal transfers what happens to mixed source funds? Legal as good money trumps any bad? Or illegal as once tainted...




D$D's mom wanted her little boy to go to law school.

[Uglyowl]

Going back to the 25 hours per year spent on compliance, what do they expect banks to get done in this short amount of time? 25 hours precludes any type of program where all or the majority of employees must be on board as training alone will go way over that even for a smallish type institution.

You are absolutely right about overblocking, Skallagrim is from NH, I am from Mass., Engineeer KY and all use Bank of America. How are they going to set different rules for different people in all of 25 hours worth of time. It's either all or nothing.

[JPFisher55]

Skall, how would you like to represent a big bank with assets overseas? You receive an ACH from your correspondent foreign bank that you think might be restricted because it originates from an offshore online gambling site. So you decide to decline the transaction. Next the foreign correspondent bank demands that you process its transactions or face legal action in an overseas court. You respond that you are obeying your obligations under the UIGEA and its regs. Even if the originating customer of the foreign bank is a sports betting site, the foreign bank responds that you are in breach of your contract with it because the foreign bank is not bound by the UIGEA and it violates the WTO. So how much does the protection in the regs for mistakenly blocking a lawful internet gambling transaction help you. You either obey the UIGEA or face liability in a foreign court which I doubt will think much of the UIGEA and its regs.
I think that some of our future comments about ACH's and checks ought to state that a bank only has to block a transaction for which it has actual knowledge involves unlawful internet gambling and when such blocking does not violate its contracts with a foreign bank.

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Those examples are of money flowing out of the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless I am missing something this seems to be referring to money coming into the US

[/ QUOTE ]
You have it exactly backwards. What is incoming is the requests for payment.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of incoming cross-border ACH debit and check collection transactions, the proposed rule places responsibility on the first participant in the United States that receives the incoming transaction directly from a foreign institution (i.e., an ACH debit transaction from a foreign gateway operator, foreign bank, or a foreign third-party processor or a check for collection directly from a foreign bank) to take reasonable steps to ensure that their cross-border relationship is not used to facilitate restricted transactions.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]FYP

[Skallagrim]

Another good point for comment indeed JP - the regs seem to assume that it will be easy for US banks to find foreign banks willing to comply with the UIGEA by agreeing they will somehow identify incoming UIG money and agree the US bank does not have to honor suspected UIG transfers. Kinda presumptuous on our part...surely the foreign bank would want some quid pro quo for the time and effort at least, so at a minimum another expense.

And I should have been clearer that the "cant complain about denied transactions" rule could only apply to us customers in the US.

Skallagrim

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Those examples are of money flowing out of the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless I am missing something this seems to be referring to money coming into the US

[/ QUOTE ]
You have it exactly backwards. What is incoming is the requests for payment.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of incoming cross-border ACH debit and check collection transactions, the proposed rule places responsibility on the first participant in the United States that receives the incoming transaction directly from a foreign institution (i.e., an ACH debit transaction from a foreign gateway operator, foreign bank, or a foreign third-party processor or a check for collection directly from a foreign bank) to take reasonable steps to ensure that their cross-border relationship is not used to facilitate restricted transactions.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for explaining this in as prickish a way as possible.

[JPFisher55]

Skall, this point was going to be part of my comments on the regulations affecting processing of ACH's and checks. I have drafted proposed comments agreeing that a list of unlawful internet gambling busineses should not be created and a comment on the definition of unlawful internet gambling.
I am waiting for others to get up to speed before I post my comments. In the near future I plan to draft a comment about the regs that concern processing ACH's and checks which are similar in their approach. I may include my point about the difficulty with cross-border transactions or draft a separate comment about them. Maybe we should comment that all cross-border transactions should be exempt because foreign banks will not be anxious to be bound to the UIGEA.

[omgwtf]

[ QUOTE ]
Skall, how would you like to represent a big bank with assets overseas? You receive an ACH from your correspondent foreign bank that you think might be restricted because it originates from an offshore online gambling site. So you decide to decline the transaction. Next the foreign correspondent bank demands that you process its transactions or face legal action in an overseas court. You respond that you are obeying your obligations under the UIGEA and its regs. Even if the originating customer of the foreign bank is a sports betting site, the foreign bank responds that you are in breach of your contract with it because the foreign bank is not bound by the UIGEA and it violates the WTO. So how much does the protection in the regs for mistakenly blocking a lawful internet gambling transaction help you. You either obey the UIGEA or face liability in a foreign court which I doubt will think much of the UIGEA and its regs.
I think that some of our future comments about ACH's and checks ought to state that a bank only has to block a transaction for which it has actual knowledge involves unlawful internet gambling and when such blocking does not violate its contracts with a foreign bank.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. Your comments made me think of another caveat.

These regs shouldn't be blocking all transactions to/from businesses involved in UIG... just to those transactions that are funding UIG. The UIGEA was never intended to prevent offshore gambling sites from doing business with US companies; it was intended to prevent US citizens from gambling online.

If the regulations prevent Party poker from paying US companies, or prevents US companies from legally competing for Party Poker's business, then the regs go beyond the intention of UIGEA.

For example, I work for a small US software company. Our software could be very useful to the various poker sites. The regulations shouldn't interfere with Party paying us should they decide to use our software.

[oldbookguy]

OK, I know and I think most all have the same opinion, but, Allyn Schulman summed things up that my help us develope a good response to comment about as follows:

Her article a CP:
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/article/9849/the-uigea-proposed-regulations


Reasonably Designed Policies and Procedures

Section 6 of the proposed regulations sets forth examples of policies and procedures that could be utilized. This includes (1) due diligence, (2) remedial action, (3) monitoring, (4) coding, (5) cross-border relationships, and (6) the issue of a black list.


Due diligence: Participants should use a flexible risk-based approach in that the level of due diligence performed would match the level of risk posed by the customer. The due diligence is intended to apply to a participant who has a customer, not an entity with no direct relationship.

Remedial action: There must be policies if a participant discovers that one of its customer relationships was being used to process forbidden transactions. Such a policy could include fines, closing the account, filing a suspicious activity report, etc.

Monitoring: This includes payment patterns, monitoring websites, etc.

Coding: Business/merchant category codes will be utilized as they have been used. The Agencies suggest different codes for gambling transactions not restricted by the UIGEA.

Cross-border relationships: The Agencies recognize that offshore gaming companies are not subject to the UIGEA. The act suggests that some Internet gambling sites indicate on their website how and with whom to make a wire transfer. The Agencies suggest that: “The U.S. participant should consider whether wire-transfer services should continue.”

List of unlawful Internet gambling businesses: The UIGEA doesn’t specifically mention the creation of a blacklist, nor do the Agencies compile one. In sum, the Agencies comment that, although there is some interest in a blacklist, it is neither practical nor legally desirable given the risk of misidentification, the task of identifying what constitutes unlawful gambling in each jurisdiction, the ability of an unlawful site to change its name, and the cost associated with establishing and maintaining an accurate list.

C is the most interesting since it is suggested a different code be used for lawful Internet Gambling to distinguish between Illegal Internet Gambling, HOWEVER, the Regs DO NOT determine which is which.

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I agree with waiting at least one week to submit any comments. TE, do we go with proposing a defintion of unlawful internet gambling or not. Your proposed comments seem to vary on this strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not really my decision to make, but I will try to make a recommendation for everyone's consideration later this week. My proposed comments really were for discussion purposes, to get us started on evaluating pros and cons of specific approaches. I don't plan to submit any comments for a few days. Based on input here and from some other folks, the second letter seems most popular so far:

[ QUOTE ]
Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20551

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations – the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses that are inherent to UIGEA itself. The primary risk is that of overblocking transactions to legal businesses.

I live in Kentucky. Internet horse race betting is legal here under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 (IHRA). Additionally, Internet poker is not illegal here under any state or federal law (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sport betting). Despite the exclusion of the domestic horse racing industry operating under the auspices of the IHRA from the provisions of the Act, banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all Internet gambling transactions (as was noted in the proposed regulations themselves). I am concerned that these legal businesses will be unfairly affected by these regulations, affecting my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses.

An additional issue concerning overblocking is the risk of an illegal restraint of trade. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in either new or increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

I urge a revision to the proposed regulations to ensure a proactive bias towards processing of all financial transactions. To accomplish this, I propose revising the regulations to remove from the regulations all penalties for all but willful and egregious noncompliance. Also, I propose that the Monitoring section of the regulations be revised to require banks to process all lawful transactions.

The last thing our country needs is more impediments to lawful financial transactions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Later I will post some full proposed comments for review. I will not submit any comments until TE or D$D approve them. We need to have a leader in our effort and I propose TE and/or D$D because they seem to understand politics and this process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the compliment. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'd offer to approve it, but I'm not smarter than anyone else here. Perhaps we should all consider posting proposed comments here for opinions, at least until we've formed our strategy.

[Shoe]

Sorry I haven't been able to read this whole thread. Can anyone please provide the cliff notes?

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I haven't been able to read this whole thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could start now?

[JPFisher55]

TE, I think that we will accomplish more with a coordinated stratedgy and comments. If all of us submit comments on our own, they will be confusing and at cross purposes at times. Of course, anyone can submit any comment that they desire. But I think that the online poker community is best served by a coordinated effort. And I think you have the best polictical knowledge to lead this effort.
I like your post about overblocking the best and I have drafted one that proposes a formal definition of unlawful Internet gambling or some suggested examples as an alternative to a formal definition. I'll post it and my proposed comment on the list of UIG businesses tomorrow for all to review.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I think that we will accomplish more with a coordinated stratedgy and comments. If all of us submit comments on our own, they will be confusing and at cross purposes at times. Of course, anyone can submit any comment that they desire. But I think that the online poker community is best served by a coordinated effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I suggested posting them here first. That way, we can all comment. Hopefully PPA will have talking points out this week. I also have other requests for comments out. With these, we should be able to determine where we aim to end up.

[ QUOTE ]
And I think you have the best polictical knowledge to lead this effort.
I like your post about overblocking the best and I have drafted one that proposes a formal definition of unlawful Internet gambling or some suggested examples as an alternative to a formal definition. I'll post it and my proposed comment on the list of UIG businesses tomorrow for all to review.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I see overblocking as a big threat, so I wrote my comment specifically to not possibly be contrary to any other interest we may have. Hopefully we'll have more data on how best to comment on these regs soon.

I look forward to seeing your proposal.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I haven't been able to read this whole thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could start now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could just summarize it for me?

[KEW]

Could this be used to our advantage???

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post12337323 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12337323&an=0&page=0#Pos t12337323)

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Could this be used to our advantage???

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post12337323 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12337323&an=0&page=0#Pos t12337323)

[/ QUOTE ]

Community banks were some of the most vocal opponents of the UIGEA before it was passed; they had the balls to take some stances that the big guns didn't. And some of those banks are in trouble now because of the subprime mortgage crisis. Still, I think it's a little bit of a stretch; from the average bank's point of view, these regulations are more a nuisance than some kind of financial sinkhole.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that most banks will add a condition to their commercial customer, bank relationship and foreign bank relationship agreements that the other party not knowingly originate or receive a restricted transaction and that the other party not contract or affiliate with a business known by the other party to originate or receive restricted transactions. Could we comment that this example be sufficient to comply with the regs?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, it wouldn't. As far as I can tell, it is not illegal for the individual to receive these payments, only for the bank to process them. So if I sign this contract you mention, and then break it, what is the bank going to do to me? Steal my money?

[mshalen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not submit any comments until TE or D$D approve them.

[/ QUOTE ]


I DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT!



D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

TY but no thanks!

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember this. I feel very old.

[Halstad]

[ QUOTE ]
...IMPO...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry I see you write this all the time, what does the damn "P" stand for?

Thanks

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...IMPO...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry I see you write this all the time, what does the damn "P" stand for?

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

No I should be sorry.

I was once accused at one time of speaking for the PPA and 2+2. So I ofen include a "P" in the common usagage of IMO to indicate that it is my PERSONAL opinion. I do not ever speak for the PPA nor 2+2, but do consider myself a member of both groups.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...IMPO...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry I see you write this all the time, what does the damn "P" stand for?

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

No I should be sorry.

I was once accused at one time of speaking for the PPA and 2+2. So I ofen include a "P" in the common usagage of IMO to indicate that it is my PERSONAL opinion. I do not ever speak for the PPA nor 2+2, but do consider myself a member of both groups.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I never saw IMPO before. Actually, I thought you were saying "in my professional opinion. Personal, OTOH, is cool. Maybe just use IMO or IMHO....acronyms are tricky if no one knows what they mean. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not submit any comments until TE or D$D approve them.

[/ QUOTE ]


I DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT!



D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

TY but no thanks!

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember this. I feel very old.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just hope UIGEA doesn't take as long to resolve as the issue that prompted that statement.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not submit any comments until TE or D$D approve them.

[/ QUOTE ]


I DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT!



D$D<--"If nominatiated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" as some sort of poker semi-god.

TY but no thanks!

Extra credit for anyone who can ID who said that quote..
Sorry to those of you who remember hearing it live!

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember this. I feel very old.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just hope UIGEA doesn't take as long to resolve as the issue that prompted that statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be willing to bet it takes at least 12 times longer.



D$D<--loves a sure thing!

[Legislurker]

We will all be dead by then.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...IMPO...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry I see you write this all the time, what does the damn "P" stand for?

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

No I should be sorry.

I was once accused at one time of speaking for the PPA and 2+2. So I ofen include a "P" in the common usagage of IMO to indicate that it is my PERSONAL opinion. I do not ever speak for the PPA nor 2+2, but do consider myself a member of both groups.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I never saw IMPO before. Actually, I thought you were saying "in my professional opinion. Personal, OTOH, is cool. Maybe just use IMO or IMHO....acronyms are tricky if no one knows what they mean. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Since IMHO means "In my humble opinion," I naturally thought "IMPO" meant, "in my prideful opinion." I guess I've been misreading it all along. Lol.