Regulations are out

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

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, 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