Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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?".

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ 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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ 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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

Cool.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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-reg...3-6211061.html

See full article at link above - PPA quoted.

Jeff

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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-reg...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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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

Jeff

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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?

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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....

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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

that's going to be an exciting day.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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"

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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) [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]
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!!!!!

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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"?

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

[ 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 ]

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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

Re: Regulations are out - TREASURY PRESS RELEASE
 

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.