Regulations are out

[Lostit]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Working in the Finance world, I can tell you exactly what this means.... Investors aren't sure what to make of the regs, just like the rest of us aren't yet. Watch it over time and I'll bet you see some steady but gradual move in one way or another. Also, look at the derivatives market for party stock (puts, calls, etc), as well as "insider" stock transactions (ie. officers of the company). Many times these are a far better indicator of what people with true knowledge of the situation are doing. At this point however, nothing is clear, so thats why you see no movement.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

how long before the regulations are translated to the English language?

that's going to be an exciting day.

[Wynton]

I have not yet read the regulations myself, and only skimmed this thread. But allow me to pose a question.

Do the proposed regulations really require the banks to make independent determinations of whether particular companies meet the definition of being engaged in illegal gambling operations? This process seems to entail two steps: (1) a factual investigation of what the company actually does; and (2) a legal analysis of whether such conduct violates the law.

These steps seem so beyond the capacity of the banks that it's hard for me to believe that we are not going to end up with a specific list - compiled and continually updated by the Treasury Department, regardless of any comments we may or may not make.

[Wynton]

And I have one strategic questions:

Will we see comments made by others during this review period? If so, then we might have the opportunity to respond or offer rebuttal to comments we don't like. If not, then obviously the onus is on everyone to come forward at roughly the same time.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMPO the "smart money" can't figure out what will happen either.


D$D<--has no "smart money"

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not yet read the regulations myself, and only skimmed this thread. But allow me to pose a question.

Do the proposed regulations really require the banks to make independent determinations of whether particular companies meet the definition of being engaged in illegal gambling operations?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMPO this is the inherent flaw in the FED's request and hope & prayer PR stunt.

IMPO they said, in 52 pages.



October 1, 2007

Dear banks and credit card companies,

Congress didn't write a workable law, if we let you have liability free reign, will you work with us and try to at least be willing to consider perhaps pissing off a few high profile on-line gamblers? Perhaps the stink will help the administration in this hopeless effort to stop money flows to and from on-line poker/gambling.

Please?

Hello?

Hey we like insolvent banks and over extended credit card issuers who are willing to take a free shot for us, we have lots of money! Please ....

HELP me please!

Your's truly,

Valerie A Abend (the jokes write themselves) [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]
Depuity Assistant Secretary for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy.





D$D<--once missed a meeting and got to put his name on a proposed rule as a punishment!!!!!

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, if you want a precise definition of unlawful internet gambling along the lines of the UIGEA that is most favorable to us without court challenge to the few state laws expressly prohibiting one or more forms of Internet gambling, then how about the following.

Unlawful internet gambling is defined to mean placing, receiving or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager (1) involves, or is related to, a sporting event or sporting contest; except for horse racing, (2) involves, or is related to, a game of chance, contest, card game or other event that a statute of the state in which the bank resides expressly prohibits the use of the Internet to place, receive or otherwise transmit such bet or wager or (3) involves, or is related to, a game of chance, contest, card game or other event, and the state in which the bank resides expressly prohibits, by statute, all Internet gambling.

Since I have written lots of contract, I am pretty handy with these types of terms and definitions. I won't pretend to be the foremost expert, but usually lawyers who have reviewed my contracts had few complaints.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this in on the right track, but maybe focusing on the state the bank is domiciled in is incorrect? If it's legal for me to bet in Nevada but I bank on-line with a bank in Delaware, whose law should the bank apply? Seems to me my transaction is legal and the Delaware bank should let it go through.

Also, why specify card games? Why not say a game "predominantly determined by chance" which leaves us wiggle room for the standard "poker is a game of skill argument"?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
But allow me to pose a question.

Do the proposed regulations really require the banks to make independent determinations of whether particular companies meet the definition of being engaged in illegal gambling operations? This process seems to entail two steps: (1) a factual investigation of what the company actually does; and (2) a legal analysis of whether such conduct violates the law.

These steps seem so beyond the capacity of the banks that it's hard for me to believe that we are not going to end up with a specific list - compiled and continually updated by the Treasury Department, regardless of any comments we may or may not make.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the idea. Here's an "example"(1 of many)

[ QUOTE ]
(b) Automated clearing house system examples.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, the policies
and procedures of the originating depository financial institution and any
third-party sender in an ACH debit transaction, and the receiving depository
financial institution in an ACH credit transaction, are deemed to be reasonably
designed to prevent or prohibit restricted transactions if they —
(i) Address methods for conducting due diligence in establishing or
maintaining a customer relationship designed to ensure that the customer
will not originate restricted transactions as ACH debit transactions or
receive restricted transactions as ACH credit transactions through the
customer relationship, such as –
(A) Screening potential commercial customers to ascertain the nature of
their business; and
(B) Including as a term of the commercial customer agreement that the
customer may not engage in restricted transactions; and

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jussurreal]

Even if a list is compiled and updated, they still are not going to enforce checks. That is huge.

[JPFisher55]

Ok I agree with waiting at least one week to submit any comments. TE, do we go with proposing a defintion of unlawful internet gambling or not. Your proposed comments seem to vary on this stratedgy.
Also, we could not actually defined the term unlawful internet gambling but submit some proposed examples as follows.

1. Accepting, receiving or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet a bet or wager that involves, or is related to, a sporting event or sporting contest, except for horse racing, is unlawful internet gambling in every state.

2. Accepting, receiving or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet a bet or wager that does not involve, or is not related to, a sporting event or sporting contest, such as the card game of poker, any casino game, or the game of backgammon is not unlawful internet gambling in the state in which the bank resides unless, by state statute, that state expressly prohibits all gambling by use of the Internet or that state expressly prohibits gambling or playing the specified game that the bet or wager involves or relates.

Later I will post some full proposed comments for review. I will not submit any comments until TE or D$D approve them. We need to have a leader in our effort and I propose TE and/or D$D because they seem to understand politics and this process.