Regulations are out

[grapabo]

If I'm reading this right, then this appears to be the setup of levels of enforcement:

1. All transactions are restricted unless there is an exemption.

2. If the transaction is exempt, then there is no requirement on the banks to identify and block under the Act.

3. If the transaction is not exempt, and therefore restricted, then the banks are required to implement a system of identifying and blocking those that violate UIGEA.

If the authors of these regulations meant this to be what it appears to be, and not some demonstration of the cost and difficulty to the banks, I would be worried. This method of enforcement seems to put the economic and regulatory pinch on financial institutions to have as little to do with non-exempt transactions as possible, and a lot of the transactions currently unhindered would suddenly become hindered.

It would also diminish the importance of whether poker is covered under federal law. The act covers transactions that are in violation of state law where the bet is made. No states have specifically legalized internet gambling, so banks aren't going to be too receptive to a customer's argument to the contrary.

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
i actually read a bit more and they propose that keeping an updated list of unlawful internet gambling businesses is NOT RECOMMENDED...

[/ QUOTE ]

Round 1: Ex-Attorney General 1.............John Kyl 0

[Grasshopp3r]

US law works the other way around. We are also presumed innocent. An action has to be specifically prohibited or it is legal.

[grapabo]

[ QUOTE ]
US law works the other way around. We are also presumed innocent. An action has to be specifically prohibited or it is legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

A non-exempt transaction isn't automatically illegal. This system of classification merely organizes which transactions are more highly scrutinized and which ones aren't.

[JPFisher55]

Basically, banks only have to adopt policies to identify and block restricted transactions in which the bank is the first US bank involved in the transaction. This includes the first US bank to handle an ACH from a foreign bank or from a customer. Transactions in which the bank is an intermediary are exempt. Checks seem to receive similar treatment. Bank cards are treated much harder because of coding, but most of them are currently blocked anyway.
Problem is that no instruction, list or definition is provided to define unlawful internet gambling. Thus, a bank cannot know what a restricted transaction means. But some of the examples suggest that a bank can meet the regulation by contract terms with customers and foreign banks that the customer or foreign bank not originate or receive a restricted transaction (whatever that is).
I'm not sure that these regulations will make much difference.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm reading this right, then this appears to be the setup of levels of enforcement:

1. All transactions are restricted unless there is an exemption.

2. If the transaction is exempt, then there is no requirement on the banks to identify and block under the Act.

3. If the transaction is not exempt, and therefore restricted, then the banks are required to implement a system of identifying and blocking those that violate UIGEA.

If the authors of these regulations meant this to be what it appears to be, and not some demonstration of the cost and difficulty to the banks, I would be worried. This method of enforcement seems to put the economic and regulatory pinch on financial institutions to have as little to do with non-exempt transactions as possible, and a lot of the transactions currently unhindered would suddenly become hindered.

It would also diminish the importance of whether poker is covered under federal law. The act covers transactions that are in violation of state law where the bet is made. No states have specifically legalized internet gambling, so banks aren't going to be too receptive to a customer's argument to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me like it would be nearly impossible for them to verify all these transactions.

[oldbookguy]

There was already a case there a few years ago.

Some guys ran up a credit card bill with M/C and refused to pay, instead sueing M/C for violating the Wire Act / allowing them to gamble.

Court and appeals agreed, since it was not sports betting, they lose, Pay M/C.

Judge stated Wire Act is specific to Sports betting, Casino Gaming is NOT covered.

This was a Civil, not a Criminal Case. Still, ruling is a ruling. The guys cut their losses and did not appeal anymore. Too bad, it would have been nice for the Supreme Court to have opined on it.

obg

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is that no instruction, list or definition is provided to define unlawful internet gambling. Thus, a bank cannot know what a restricted transaction means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone worried the banks will not allow transactions just to be on the safe side?

[NoahSD]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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."

We win?

[TheEngineer]

These regs are interesting. As we figured, the Treasury Dept. doesn't really know what's legal and what isn't.

I'm working up a comment now. Let's all write now, to get the first comments in. The web site isn't up yet, but we can email our comments now.