Regulations are out
 

Ok I am surprised. But http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...oposedrule.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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

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......

Re: Regulations are out
 

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...

Re: Regulations are out
 

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.....

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

"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."

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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?

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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?

Re: Regulations are out
 

"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?

Re: Regulations are out
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

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?

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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

Re: Regulations are out
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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

Re: Regulations are out
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

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?

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

O/U on the reg costs.
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

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.

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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.'

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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......

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


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

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

WIll PP comeback to US now?

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ QUOTE ]
WIll PP comeback to US now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Edited by Berge

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Edited by Berge

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just mean.

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

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

Edit: Just read the press release and it says Dec. 12.

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I JUST DEPOSITED ON PP! IT WORKS!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/images...02478_0216.jpg

Re: Regulations are out
 

[ 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?

Re: Regulations are out
 

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm the pdf states Dec 12th