U.S. to implement rules for Internet gambling ban

[jon13009]

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.

Ok, I think you are saying that Vegas would be ok with on-line books if they were allowed to have it for themselves. Also, many people would be ready to drop their off-shore accounts and go to a reputable Vegas on-line book. Vegas has beta tested their software and is ready to start. I agree.

Also if Vegas had on-line books, the Feds could license, regulate, monitor, and even tax those enterprises. Fine.

Then it is the moral hypocritical political pull that is stopping the Feds from doing the sensible thing. Looking at it a bit more closely, it is likely the efforts of the sporting leagues themselves. After all, who else but MLB would call for hearings on steroid use in a public congressional forum, and the depth and scope of NFL political influence on this matter is probably scary. Finally, it is likely many states would jump in and say no to the whole thing - and cut players in their bounds from going to a Vegas on-line book

[ShamsWoof10]

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.

SOLID F*CKIN' POST!

The bold are related... It didn't "turn into" anything it was put together to be that way from the start... We process one another and call it a "carrier"... It's like the economics that BrentCrude mentions.. Digging holes to stay busy... This is worse...

[ritehook]

Ok, I think you are saying that Vegas would be ok with on-line books if they were allowed to have it for themselves. Also, many people would be ready to drop their off-shore accounts and go to a reputable Vegas on-line book. Vegas has beta tested their software and is ready to start. I agree.

Also if Vegas had on-line books, the Feds could license, regulate, monitor, and even tax those enterprises. Fine.

Then it is the moral hypocritical political pull that is stopping the Feds from doing the sensible thing. Looking at it a bit more closely, it is likely the efforts of the sporting leagues themselves. After all, who else but MLB would call for hearings on steroid use in a congressional hearing, and the depth and scope of NFL political influence on this matter is probably scary. Finally, it is likely many states would jump in and say no to the whole thing - and cut players in their bounds from going to a Vegas book

Right, the leagues also. The NFL/NBA meet the Bible Belt.

The same NFL which will shortly stage a regular season game in England, a game all those legal bookies over there will be accepting wagers on. The commissioner may want to drop by and and bet a few bob on the team he likes.

[louisvillekid]

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.

i remember reading about that last year. and it happens to bills all the time. just recently, i got a letter from a state rep., i had signed an online petition for an agriculture bill, that would help out farmers. well my state reps letter said he was going to vote for it, but at the last minute, a amendment was made to give corporations tax breaks for doing business overseas and it could have costed jobs and loss revenue. i don't have the letter anymore, but it was something to that effect.
that kind a crap pisses me off, a bill should be voted on whatever the main topic is, not some hidden agenda for some other lawmaker.
i would like to see a bill passed that says the bill has to stick to the matter at hand, not a bunch of riders added to it, that have nothing to do with the original bill.
but i guess i better not hold my breath.

[WileOut]

I don't understand why Reuters reported that the regulations stopped short of checks. From what I read checks coming in are clearly covered by these regulations:

"In the case of incoming cross-border ACH debit and check collection transactions, the proposed rule places responsibility on the first participant in the United States that receives the incoming transaction directly from a foreign institution (i.e., an ACH debit transaction from a foreign gateway operator, foreign bank, or a foreign third-party processor or a check for collection directly from a foreign bank) to take reasonable steps to ensure that their cross-border relationship is not used to facilitate restricted transactions"

[WileOut]

As much as I hate to admit this, from what I read if these regulations are put into effect just like they are written we will not be able to receive any kind of payments (checks included) from any sportsbook.

[jon13009]

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.

Cyclone seems to think that there are exemptions to the check collection systems and loopholes galore in that document regarding enforcement ability. Perhaps Cyclone could be more specific as to the exemption provisions or search the regs for "exempt" and try to interpret what the heck is stated there.

[Cyclone]

Checks being exempt applies, I believe, to outgoing checks we would send to a book. Banks don't have a way to automatically read the payee, and trying to sort them by hand would be time-consuming and impossible. The other passage I think is referring to checks and other transactions coming in. As many of us have experienced, when you get a check, it doesn't say "Sportsbook" or "Gambling Proceeds" on it, it just looks like a regular check. There is no practical way for a US bank to know where that came from. The regulation uses words like "reasonable efforts", which basically says to me that the regulators don't have any idea how to implement this law. To me, they are just throwing up their hands and saying, "Okay, here's the rules. Try your best." I still don't think it will change much of anything.

[jon13009]

Thanks again Cyclone. Just looking at that regulatory mumbo-jumbo makes my head hurt. I only hope you are right because if the checks start bouncing, It will be a sad day indeed.