[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
....you just tell banks that the only transactions that you must worry about must involve sportsbetting, other than horse racing and fantasy league, and any other games expressly prohibited by state law.
However, I think that the regulators are even less likely to make this reg, then define the term UIG. They know if they tell banks that you only have to worry about x, then the banks will never block y. The problem is that the regulators really want x, y and z banned regardless of whether they are covered under the UIGEA......

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be ascribing motives to the regulators that are not there. The regulators are charged with regulating their clients, the banks. They are probably quite happy to do this in any manner that lessens their burden and lessens the burden on the banks.

I think if we push really hard for a set of regs that say you must block this, this, and this, and only this, this, and this because these have been specifically ruled illegal, we probably are better off.

If we push them to do less work, and they see that that would result in a satisfactory outcome of their efforts, they may very well do less work. Let us help them in that direction.

Tuff

PS, it might behoove us to put that idea into the bankers heads too. Specific regulations regarding previously well defined gambling activities and no requirements to go looking for anything else.

T