Regulations are out

[jeff329]

"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?

[Grasshopp3r]

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.

[meleader2]

[ 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.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

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?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ 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

[JPFisher55]

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.

[Grasshopp3r]

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

[JPFisher55]

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.

[oldbookguy]

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

[PLO8FaceKilla]

[ 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