Regulations are out

omgwtf · #1 10-02-2007, 01:25 PM

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 · #2 10-02-2007, 01:30 PM

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

Jussurreal · #3 10-02-2007, 01:43 PM

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.

Wynton · #4 10-02-2007, 01:38 PM

[ 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 · #5 10-02-2007, 01:41 PM

[ 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

JPFisher55 · #6 10-02-2007, 01:46 PM

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 · #7 10-02-2007, 01:46 PM

[ 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?

omgwtf · #8 10-02-2007, 02:21 PM

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.