AP/DowJones on Gambling legislation: Banks say regs aren't that strict

[Kramer.]

XPost from internet


BC-Internet Gambling-Banks,0453 �
Banking group sees protections in Internet gambling bill �
With BC-Britain-Internet Gambling �
By GREG EDWARDS Ž
Dow Jones Newswires Ž

ST. LOUIS (Dow Jones/AP) — The Internet gambling legislation passed late last week by the U.S. Congress, which led to a major sell-off of Britain-based online gambling stocks Monday, remains a concern to the U.S. banking industry but isn’t as burdensome as feared.

“We got some language in the bill that looks like it protects the financial services industry,” said Steve Verdier, director of congressional relations for the Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents almost 5,000 banks in the United States. “It could have been a lot worse.”

The legislation is designed to prohibit U.S. banks and credit card companies from processing payments for illegal online gambling. Financial services companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had expressed concerns about the compliance burdens that would be imposed, such as tracking and blocking potentially millions of transactions.

Under the legislation as passed, “If you are acting as a normal bank, and you’re not in some sort of conspiracy with a betting house, then you are not going to be held liable,” Verdier said.

In addition, the legislation will be guided and enforced by regulations written by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department.

“If they find that the banks just don’t have the technology to track and block these transactions, then we don’t have to,” Verdier said. “The Fed and Treasury are not supposed to ask us to do the impossible.”

Still, Verdier said, “we will have to see how those regulations get written.”

The legislation, attached to an unrelated port security bill, was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Friday and by the U.S. Senate early Saturday. It is expected to be signed into law by President Bush.

Shares in Britain-based betting companies, such as PartyGaming PLC, 888 Holdings PLC and Sportingbet PLC, plunged Monday. The companies said they would suspend business from the United States if the legislation is enacted.

The U.S. Justice Department has been bringing fraud charges against online gambling companies and their executives.

For example, BetOnSports PLC and its former chief executive, David Carruthers, were indicted in June in federal court in St. Louis, and the company closed its U.S. operations Aug. 12.

AP-CS-10-02-06 1428EDT �

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
Under the legislation as passed, “If you are acting as a normal bank, and you’re not in some sort of conspiracy with a betting house, then you are not going to be held liable,” Verdier said.

In addition, the legislation will be guided and enforced by regulations written by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department.

“If they find that the banks just don’t have the technology to track and block these transactions, then we don’t have to,” Verdier said. “The Fed and Treasury are not supposed to ask us to do the impossible.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of these statements are true. Banks are going to be able to allow transfers to Neteller because Neteller is not in the business of betting or wagering. And Verdier is also correct that banks aren't going to be asked to do the impossible, or even the impractical (again, this is explicitly in the bill).

Good find/post.

[DONTUSETHIS]

Maybe in the end, this will not be as bad as it seemed this weekend or earlier this morning.

[Beastmaster]

Nice ,if true...hopefully most will not have the means or the $ to enforce this.

[DuderinoAB]

This is an encouraging POV. I think its pretty much a wait and see game though.

[JuntMonkey]

Very good news.

[jupiterpig]

Wouldnt the big banks like BOA and Wachovia have the "means" to enforce it?

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe in the end, this will not be as bad as it seemed this weekend or earlier this morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

The longer you look at things and the more you think it through the more you are convinced that the change will be trivial.

If the banks get away with not blocking things because they don't already have something in place then it's pretty much business as usual except for the executives of the sites that stay open to US players who may want to avoid stopping in the US.

[FoldYourLife]

I want to believe these positive reports, but I don't know how realistic any of them are...

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt the big banks like BOA and Wachovia have the "means" to enforce it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's going to depend on what the regulations actually are which won't be known for months.