U.S. to implement rules for Internet gambling ban

SBR_John · 10-01-07, 01:58 PM

Just in record keeping alone, the Treasury estimates that it would take 368,254 hours of work to implement these regulations.

Yea, thats what we need. So lets see here. I'm no Ganch but that comes to 15,343 days to implement these complicated regulations. Well, looks like I will be 90 years old when they figure'em out.

louis · 10-01-07, 02:19 PM

rules that reasonably restrict these financial transactions

Great, the rules have to be reasonable.

The banks and credit card companies have already done what is reasonable. What else is left for them to do?

Business will continue as usual.

jon13009 · 10-01-07, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by louis

Great, the rules have to be reasonable.

The banks and credit card companies have already done what is reasonable. What else is left for them to do?

Business will continue as usual.

I would hope that business would continue as usual, but after watching how things changed after the passing of the Act itself, I would not count on it. Right now US player deposit options are getting smaller and smaller, and payouts are getting longer to obtain and more difficult to secure - with bad checks being thrown here and there. At this point, I only keep funds in my book that would not be difficult to part with if the whole thing shuts down tomorrow.

While I agree that enforcement of the Anti-Gambling laws is difficult for the Feds, all they really want to accomplish is a sense of fear in the financial institutions to stop the flow of money out (and IN?!) of the US. Once that fear is installed, the door will be shut.

jjgold · 10-01-07, 03:23 PM

This will be final straw for books, I have heard they are going to stop western union also.

pico · 10-01-07, 04:03 PM

western union, moneygram, adn teh banks can get a list of companies (and names) that is related to the books. like the vegas blackbook. that'll be enough to choke a lot of books.

most books only have 2-3 processing companies and 5-20 names, so it won't be too hard to implement. they can get around to register new companies, but their volumn will be significantly lower

ferndog · 10-01-07, 04:15 PM

What about getting a friend or relative who lives outside the U.S. to open an account with one of the sportsbooks or betting exchanges? I could fund that account by sending them the money. I could place the plays and use Vonage or whatever to block my ip address. Because i could call in my plays or send them by email so they could enter them but that can become a pain. What do you guys think?

jjgold · 10-01-07, 04:18 PM

ferner you cant trust anyone, your own friend will fuk you

jon13009 · 10-01-07, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by ferndog

What about getting a friend or relative who lives outside the U.S. to open an account with one of the sportsbooks or betting exchanges? I could fund that account by sending them the money. I could place the plays and use Vonage or whatever to block my ip address. Because i could call in my plays or send them by email so they could enter them but that can become a pain. What do you guys think?

I think moving to Vegas would be easier and less risky. Anyone in Vegas looking to hire?

pico · 10-01-07, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by jjgold

ferner you cant trust anyone, your own friend will fuk you

yep, especially if you hit a lucky streak, the your pal chico in panama suddenly disappeared.

loceastwood · 10-01-07, 05:13 PM

How could they possibly stop Western Union when most of the transactions are considered person to person? I mean how could they really know that you are sending money to a book? That would take way too much monitoring. Waste of time and money. How many years would it take for them to actually put a stop to all of this? Does anyone believe that the books are that concerned over this because they have beaten the odds before and they know that the people are on their side even though the government is clearly not. It should be the people that matter right? A couple final questions why don't the people get to vote on the major laws that congress wants to pass that affects our daily lives instead of just politicians with other motives? What happened to for the people and by the people? I guess it doesn't matter anymore if it ever did.

pico · 10-01-07, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by loceastwood

How could they possibly stop Western Union when most of the transactions are considered person to person? I mean how could they really know that you are sending money to a book? That would take way too much monitoring. Waste of time and money. How many years would it take for them to actually put a stop to all of this? Does anyone believe that the books are that concerned over this because they have beaten the odds before and they know that the people are on their side even though the government is clearly not. It should be the people that matter right? A couple final questions why don't the people get to vote on the major laws that congress wants to pass that affects our daily lives instead of just politicians with other motives? What happened to for the people and by the people? I guess it doesn't matter anymore if it ever did.

one way for them to do, which i highly doubt they'll do it...is open bunch of of sportsbook account at different sportsbooks and get a list of names talking to the customer service reps. but that is wasting resources, they have more important stuff to do like catching osama

jon13009 · 10-01-07, 05:22 PM

I have never tried using Western Union, and that would indeed be my method of last resort. The politicians involved are really looking in the interests of Vegas lobbyists (who want you to travel there and bet on sports legally), religious moral majority voters, and even organized crime elements who want you to go to them for your sporting bets.

It would require a politician with large balls to come out in with a bill providing the legalization, regulation and taxation of US nationwide internet gambling because too many states would object and the moral ignorant hypocrites would be streaming out of the woodwork. I think that bill would have the same support as bills calling for the nationwide legalization of weed.

Also you have to remember how the Internet Gambling Law passed - as a rider onto a piece of legislation called the Safe Port Act of 2006. Kyl and Frist used the Port Act to blackmail Congress into passing the internet law. By the time anyone knew what had happened, the US banks were shutting the doors to American's rights to deposit to the books. Basically Kyl and Frist legislated against Americans to have the rights that many citizens around the world enjoy - freedom to utilize licensed sportsbooks.

Regardless of the regulation's actual enforcement value, the real problem is that the financial institutions involved would rather play ball with the US authorities than face the potential of penalties. The mere threats involved is enough for the Banks to shut down avenues for responsible gamblers to deposit (and risk on their own behalf) funds to any sportsbook. I think many Sportsbooks also feel that they can survive without American customers. Thus for American it looks like it is back to the stone ages of going to Vegas to place a bet or finding a local bookie if this US government anti-internet gambling incentive continues.

JBC77 · 10-01-07, 06:03 PM

I don't give a sh1t, let them stop **......I'll send a paper check in the mail to my books. I don't give a f!@#.

What really boils my blood is this: if I don't gamble on the choices they provide me, I can't gamble legally? If I want to spend my whole paycheck on scratch tickets....no problem though right? How bought the numbers lottery. Why the f!@# would I want to spend money on a game with 400-1 odds and greater?

These guys don't get it. It's the principle of it. I'm a grown man. I work 50 hours a week. No one......certainly not a bunch of corrupt politicians is going to tell me how or where to spend my money. It's just as simple as that. I gamble on no matter what.

loceastwood · 10-01-07, 06:06 PM

What gets to me is that people vote these politicians into office without actually knowing what is going to come up for vote during their terms. Once they get voted in they could care less about what most people think they only care about what their counterparts think. The only time the people matter is election year. As far as Vegas is concerned I have no beef with Vegas every city in the states should have the rights that Nevada residents have. I just don't understand how they let one state in the entire United States control the whole industry. It's not like Vegas is a hour drive for everybody. Vegas will make their money regardless. Most americans can't afford trips to Vegas everytime they would like to place a bet it's humanly impossible. So what's the average working stiff to do play the state run lotteries (yeah right)! Give me a 3 team parlay anyday & i'll take my chances.

jon13009 · 10-01-07, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by JBC77

I don't give a sh1t, let them stop **......I'll send a paper check in the mail to my books. I don't give a f!@#.

What really boils my blood is this: if I don't gamble on the choices they provide me, I can't gamble legally? If I want to spend my whole paycheck on scratch tickets....no problem though right? How bought the numbers lottery. Why the f!@# would I want to spend money on a game with 400-1 odds and greater?

These guys don't get it. It's the principle of it. I'm a grown man. I work 50 hours a week. No one......certainly not a bunch of corrupt politicians is going to tell me how or where to spend my money. It's just as simple as that. I gamble on no matter what.

Totally Agree. What makes it even worse it that we are paying taxes to enforce the denial of our rights to make a bet to an on-line sportsbook. I would rather our great government spend those tax dollars to catch drug dealers and terrorists, but the idiot politicians seem to think gambling on the internet poses some great security risk to the United States of America.

JBC77 · 10-01-07, 06:20 PM

I'm just not going to let a thief in a suit dictate to me what I can and can't gamble on. Sometimes you just have to take a stand against these punks. Enough is enough. I draw they line when these a$$holes try to tell me where to spend my money. Especially, when they offer an alternative gambling product to the masses. Thats the kicker right there. I can bet horses till' I'm blue in the face over the net'......but I can't try to make an informed wager on a sports event. They can go f!@# themselves. Each and every last one of them.

WileOut · 10-01-07, 06:50 PM

Somebody wake me up now this nightmare is getting too real.

curious · 10-01-07, 07:52 PM

I can tell you what is going to happen. They are going to start equating sending money to books and getting money from books with funding terrorism. There will be a money laundering watchlist. If they see you make any transaction to the books your name will go on the watchlist and your life will become a living hell.

The "war" on drugs started out with lofty goals, which were to stop all the big time drug smugglers. Now, far more money is spent "apprehending" the casual user. Local police forces receive large sums of money to do their share in the drug war. Getting more money the next year is dependent on how many "drug arrests" they make this year. The "war" on drugs has turned into a huge crooked police / attorney machine that grinds casual users into the dust.

The same thing will be done with offshore betting. There will be a "war" on offshore betting (bettors) and the same gestapo tactics will be used by the new crooked police / attorney machine that is set up to "win the war" on offshore gambling.

There are currently more people in jail in the United States on relatively minor drug charges than were in the gulag archipelligo at the height of the Stalin era.

jon13009 · 10-01-07, 08:39 PM

Wow, the whole mess sounds quite intimidating. The current US government will equate anything with terrorism to justify what it wants. The whole homeland security thing is a setup to make Americans feel like it is always under some bogus alert, and in the end the alerts are really there to send a scare into voters. The current American political propaganda machine would make Goebbels proud.

All I want to do is place a few crummy bets on sports, and not be branded an international money laundering terrorist. Thanks for the heads up.

Cyclone · 10-01-07, 08:43 PM

The proposed regulations can be found here: http://treas.gov/press/releases/repo...oposedrule.pdf Comments are due December 12, and it is anticipated that the regulations will go into effect six months later.

I worked for one of the federal banking regulatory agencies for many years. I have seen many bank regulations, and these are probably the weakest I have ever seen. There are loopholes in there big enough for a truck. For example, they are proposing to exempt all participants in the ACH systems, check collections systems, and wire transfer systems. The idea is that these systems do not have mechanisms to identify and block restricted transactions. Also, the government is not going to try to keep a list of prohibited businesses. They would have to determine if a particular business was engaged in illegal activities. Also, they would have to make sure a "legitimate" business was not accidentally included on the list. So, they aren't even going to try. If the government cannot identify these businesses, I don't see how your local bank will be able to identify them either. I am also suspicious abouth the six-month period before the regulations go into effect. Usually, they start 60 days or so after the comment period ends. Overall, my impression was that the banking regulatory agencies aren't very enthusiastic about trying to enforce this vague law. If they aren't enthusiastic, then neither will the banks. Personally, I was extremely happy when I read the regulation. I don't see where it is going to change much of anything.

michael777 · 10-01-07, 08:50 PM

cyclone,thanks for your information

jon13009 · 10-01-07, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Cyclone

The proposed regulations can be found here: http://treas.gov/press/releases/repo...oposedrule.pdf Comments are due December 12, and it is anticipated that the regulations will go into effect six months later.

I worked for one of the federal banking regulatory agencies for many years. I have seen many bank regulations, and these are probably the weakest I have ever seen. There are loopholes in there big enough for a truck. For example, they are proposing to exempt all participants in the ACH systems, check collections systems, and wire transfer systems. The idea is that these systems do not have mechanisms to identify and block restricted transactions. Also, the government is not going to try to keep a list of prohibited businesses. They would have to determine if a particular business was engaged in illegal activities. Also, they would have to make sure a "legitimate" business was not accidentally included on the list. So, they aren't even going to try. If the government cannot identify these businesses, I don't see how your local bank will be able to identify them either. I am also suspicious abouth the six-month period before the regulations go into effect. Usually, they start 60 days or so after the comment period ends. Overall, my impression was that the banking regulatory agencies aren't very enthusiastic about trying to enforce this vague law. If they aren't enthusiastic, then neither will the banks. Personally, I was extremely happy when I read the regulation. I don't see where it is going to change much of anything.

I hope you are right. But I would not put anything past what this current administration will pull given how they passed the last Anti-Gambling bill in the first place. This bill is unenforceable (as you indicated), but that didn't stop my bank from shutting off my ability to make a direct deposit from my checking account into and out of a book.

I am just too paranoid to believe that this empty shell of regulatory legislation is just out there put a scare into the on-line industry and its US account holders.

tblues2005 · 10-01-07, 09:08 PM

There is suppposed to be a hearing with the imgea on this and I do believe that they government may lose this one in the Circuit court from what i have seen. I just think that books will always find a way around it, even if it means you have to mail international money orders out to fund the books ahead of time.

ritehook · 10-01-07, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by jjgold

ferner you cant trust anyone, your own friend will fuk you

Ive a longtime close friend in Mexico who I'd trust with my life savings. Honor crosses all national borders.

'Course, I wouldn't give him my life savings, just enough to open accounts at a few books, if it came to that.

And I don't think Unk Sam can stop the flow outward. Slow it, yeah, they've already done that. But there's so much money involved for the books other options will be found.

If the govt outlawed gold mining by banning spades and dynamite the miners would chew the dirt out with their teeth and carry it in their pants.

"THERE WAS NEVER A HORSE THAT COULDN'T BE RODE, AND NEVER A COWBOY THAT COULDN'T BE THROWED."

jon13009 · 10-01-07, 09:31 PM

Ok let me get this straight. The law has passed, and these proposed rules for enforcing the Anti-Gambling act are so full of loopholes that, for now, nothing is going to happen. That means during the comment period, reworking of the regs, more proposals for inforcement......nothing is going to change. Meanwhile, my bank is going to continue to stop transactions to and from my book, and I am going to have to use 3rd party agencies (like ewalletexpress) to fund my account and hope my bank will cash a check from a separate 3rd party when I request a withdrawal.

In the end, millions and millions of US tax dollars will be spent in courtrooms, legal fees and legislation costs to just confirm that an unenforceable piece of legislation was passed that will not conform to banking standards and the WTO. Where are we headed to from here?

ritehook · 10-01-07, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by curious

I can tell you what is going to happen. They are going to start equating sending money to books and getting money from books with funding terrorism. There will be a money laundering watchlist. If they see you make any transaction to the books your name will go on the watchlist and your life will become a living hell.

The "war" on drugs started out with lofty goals, which were to stop all the big time drug smugglers. Now, far more money is spent "apprehending" the casual user. Local police forces receive large sums of money to do their share in the drug war. Getting more money the next year is dependent on how many "drug arrests" they make this year. The "war" on drugs has turned into a huge crooked police / attorney machine that grinds casual users into the dust.

The same thing will be done with offshore betting. There will be a "war" on offshore betting (bettors) and the same gestapo tactics will be used by the new crooked police / attorney machine that is set up to "win the war" on offshore gambling.

There are currently more people in jail in the United States on relatively minor drug charges than were in the gulag archipelligo at the height of the Stalin era.

No, I don't think so.

Not only the post by Cyclone, which seems right on, but the whole general picture. IE, anti-net gambling fervor reached its peak during GBush II, and it will surely wane, not wax, with the years.

The US is in a "late empire" stage. No civilization at this stage can for long impose the old morality on its general populace. Tho futile attempts are usually put into place.

Rome in the last centuries tried to restore the old morality and civic senses, and failed. For one, Augusus tried to bribe the old Roman families to have more children. But in late civilizations the populace sees large families as a troublesome burden, not a joy or a duty. (Sound familiar? - look down any gringo street)

The "control gambling" game is really in its last innings, not its first. The will simply is not there, but the overriding lust for Money, for more and more revenues to fund the bread and circuses, and endless wars - that will is there.

Vegas is not really behind this ban. If it's legalized, the big Vegas players will jump in fast. They already have the software developed.

I actually (tho not a Christian) appreciate some of the issues (like on screw gun control and lower taxes) that the Family Values people are strong on. But they wasted a lot of effort and capital on this UIGEA loser.

SBR_John · 10-02-07, 12:03 AM

These 52 pages of manic coma inducing regulation makes this law ripe for repeal. Throw in the WTO and iMega's lawsuit challenging this law and one has to think its just a matter of time.

It can't be understood by either the folks trying to comply or the ones trying to enforce compliance. Keep in mind the bill provided only $10 mil for compliance efforts.

swifty · 10-02-07, 12:44 AM

agree, can't send from my bank, wish they can just get over it and let us do what we want. we going to do it anyway. taxes us or not. but let us live free and do what we want.

prop · 10-02-07, 12:52 AM

Anyone know where I can find some resources on capping lottery numbers? Seems like a career in that is safer with it being legal and all.

LargeMouthBass · 10-02-07, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by prop

Anyone know where I can find some resources on capping lottery numbers? Seems like a career in that is safer with it being legal and all.

I've been picking ~70% winners in the past 5 years... $39.99 a month and I'll give you all the numbers you need.

fathead · 10-02-07, 06:38 AM

Just Credit Cards and Debit Cards

According to Reuters only credit and debit cards will be blocked, checks will be ignored.

*****************

Mon Oct 1, 6:13 PM ET

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.

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.

The new U.S. regulations would make the banks responsible for blocking credit and debit card payments for online gambling. It also bars bank customers such as online casinos from receiving Internet gambling proceeds

jon13009 · 10-02-07, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by ritehook

No, I don't think so.

Not only the post by Cyclone, which seems right on, but the whole general picture. IE, anti-net gambling fervor reached its peak during GBush II, and it will surely wane, not wax, with the years.

The US is in a "late empire" stage. No civilization at this stage can for long impose the old morality on its general populace. Tho futile attempts are usually put into place.

Rome in the last centuries tried to restore the old morality and civic senses, and failed. For one, Augusus tried to bribe the old Roman families to have more children. But in late civilizations the populace sees large families as a troublesome burden, not a joy or a duty. (Sound familiar? - look down any gringo street)

The "control gambling" game is really in its last innings, not its first. The will simply is not there, but the overriding lust for Money, for more and more revenues to fund the bread and circuses, and endless wars - that will is there.

Vegas is not really behind this ban. If it's legalized, the big Vegas players will jump in fast. They already have the software developed.

I actually (tho not a Christian) appreciate some of the issues (like on screw gun control and lower taxes) that the Family Values people are strong on. But they wasted a lot of effort and capital on this UIGEA loser.

Interesting angle.

Before the Anit-Gambling Act went into play, I never would have imagined such a thing would ever pass into law. Rumors abounded that some type of legislation was going to pass that restricted internet gambling, but those rumors and proposals seemed to be unfounded.

Suddenly BAM - this law passes under a rider of the Port act, and I couldn't fund my book or get withdrawals out in less than a months time. Now it is becoming evident (as it should have been in the first place) that this "law" is totally unenforceable and has cost US taxpayers millions of dollars so some moralistic anti-gambling faction could be appeased. If it is not Vegas, then who are the people behind this legislation - Just the Moral Majority faction alone? Are those responsible for the drafting and implementation of this unenforceable piece of legislation still in office? In the end, I think Kyl and Frist got what they wanted, a speed bump in the way of US on-line bettors. Let's hope that is all that this is. While poker players have the PPA, what lobbying groups are there for on-line books? I hope on-line sportsbettors are not relying solely on the efforts of the PPA to fight this thing.

Time has passed, and alternative means of funding my account have developed, but the naive days of thinking I could withdraw my funds without a hassle are gone.

ritehook · 10-02-07, 10:10 AM

Vegas is definitely not a big proponent of UIGEA, tho they may grunt a few affirming noises now and then to please anti-gaming legislators, to keep them occupied elsewhere.

eBay also lent it's support to UIGEA, and it's PayPal subsidiary has long banned payments to offshore books/casinos. It was all a show, a demonstration of solidarity with legislators so that ebay sales would not be taxed and interstate commerce not regulated.

Totally phony. PayPal in Europe allows transfers to online books/casinos.

If all bans are lifted on sports betting, online poker and casinos, who do you think will most benefit?

The big long-time Vegas operators, that's who. Because who would the average casino freak or sports bettor rather post up with - the Hilton or MGM, or some book in CR or Panama that may become another Cascade or BetOnSports?

A few years ago a U.S. casino exec told a friend of mine that all the big players there already have the software, for "if and when" legalization arrives. In fact, if memory serves, I think one of the vegas entities was for a while offereing free online "entertainment" type games for casino players.

Right. Just out of the goodness of their hearts LOL! Clearly, that was a beta test for them. But pressure was appplied,and they stopped offering the free casino games.

ritehook · 10-02-07, 10:13 AM

Of course, what Vegas would greatly fear is the legalization of offshore betting, but not if the operator also has land-based operations in the USA.

But if that kind of thing ever developed Vegas would scream bloody murder, and money being money = equals power and pull, that kind of thing woldn't last long.