Regulations are out

[Jeffage]

Reuters:Net gambling regulations exempt some transfers

Internet gambling regulations proposed by U.S. officials on Monday stopped short of requiring U.S. banks to block checks their customers make to online casinos while forcing banks to halt debit and credit payments.

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve issued a plan requiring bank policies and procedures that are "reasonably designed to prevent payments being made to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful Internet gambling," they said in a statement.

http://www.news.com/Net-gambling-reg...3-6211061.html

See full article at link above - PPA quoted.

Jeff

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Reuters:Net gambling regulations exempt some transfers

Internet gambling regulations proposed by U.S. officials on Monday stopped short of requiring U.S. banks to block checks their customers make to online casinos while forcing banks to halt debit and credit payments.

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve issued a plan requiring bank policies and procedures that are " reasonably designed to prevent payments being made to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful Internet gambling," they said in a statement.

http://www.news.com/Net-gambling-reg...3-6211061.html

See full article at link above - PPA quoted.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Jeff but I'm tired of seeing the gov't's propaganda published in our own forums!

I live in this little town called D.C. I work and drive on a daily basis with the people who are going to determine what is reasonable. Reason and logic went out of favor in US gov't about the time our first President died and everyone figured out it might be a job worth having!


D$D

[Jeffage]

Why are you apologizing to me? I just linked the article, I didn't write it! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] Also, if you continue reading, it pretty much says there won't be an effort to stop money transfers, only credit/debit payments.

Jeff

[TheEngineer]

New letter....comments please.

----------------------

Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20551

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations – the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses that are inherent to UIGEA itself. The primary risk is that of overblocking transactions to legal businesses.

I live in Kentucky. Internet horse race betting is legal here under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 (IHRA). Additionally, Internet poker is not illegal here under any state or federal law (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sport betting). Despite the exclusion of the domestic horse racing industry operating under the auspices of the IHRA from the provisions of the Act, banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all Internet gambling transactions (as was noted in the proposed regulations themselves). I am concerned that these legal businesses will be unfairly affected by these regulations, affecting my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses.

An additional risk to overblocking is the risk of an illegal restraint of trade. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

I urge a revision to the proposed regulations to ensure a proactive bias towards processing of all financial transactions. To accomplish this, I propose revising the regulations to remove all penalties for all but willful and egregious noncompliance. Also, I propose that the Monitoring section of the regulations be revised to require banks to process all lawful transactions.

The last thing our country needs is more impediments to lawful financial transactions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

Lettter #2....pls comment:

-------------

Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20551

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I have a comment on the feasibility of banks enforcing state laws.

Very few states have outlawed Internet gambling. To keep from placing an unreasonable burden on our banks, I propose that the regulations specify that any state laws enforced under these regulations must be unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to the specific types of gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have this federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Secretary of the Treasury. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what is required of them.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[luckychancer]

Partygaming stock has not jumped radically up or down on the release of the regs.
Does this tend to suggest the present status quo will remain?

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tasked sounds liking engineering jargon to me. It's a small nit so fel free to ignore it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tasked sounds liking engineering jargon to me. It's a small nit so fel free to ignore it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I speak only engineering jargon. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[OldNantucker]

Here is the time for PPA to step up:

1. Retain a couple legal experts (perhaps some from 2+2) to highlight potential regulation pitfalls for online poker (since it is hard to define due to vague regs).
2. Give the 700,000 members a framework for comments to shape regs to our advantage.

As long as the regs don't change the status quo, people will find a way to deposit/withdraw.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the time for PPA to step up:

1. Retain a couple legal experts (perhaps some from 2+2) to highlight potential regulation pitfalls for online poker (since it is hard to define due to vague regs).
2. Give the 700,000 members a framework for comments to shape regs to our advantage.

As long as the regs don't change the status quo, people will find a way to deposit/withdraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA has info up already (far ahead of FoF). John Pappas and I have exchanged emails on this topic as well. Stay tuned....