IGEA Regs Are Outs.

[White_Tiger]

Possibly good news. ( As least for Poker Players and could be better for the rest.)

The Act directs the Agencies to exempt certain restricted transactions or
designated payment systems from any requirements imposed under the regulations if the
Agencies find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise
prevent or prohibit the acceptance of, such transactions.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/noticeofproposedrule.pdf

[jon13009]

Thanks for the post. Regardless of the transaction exemptions written into the regs, and the likely problems enforcing such a regs in the international forum, what is the probability of the regs actually being enforced? Anti-Gambling law was passed under rather suspect conditions as a rider of The the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006. If Frist and Kyl were able to slip that legislation through by blackmailing Congress, who is to say that a similar type of ploy will be used to change the regs to make them more stringent by the Feds?

[Cyclone]

The law has already passed. These are the proposed implementing regulations. But, they are extremely weak in my opinion (and I have a lot of experience with bank regulations).

[tblues2005]

Thanks cyclone I do believe you are right about that they are weak because they don't have the funding to do much.

[jon13009]

The law has already passed. These are the proposed implementing regulations. But, they are extremely weak in my opinion (and I have a lot of experience with bank regulations).

Cyclone, thanks for your input on this one. I think I see where we are now with the law. My question is do you think the Banks or the Feds will beef up the regs once comments are made, and what happens to the regs after the comment period? If the Courts find the regs meaningless and unusable, will they have to go back to the drawing board? Also who decides when the regs are final and put into play? I hope you can clarify this a bit further. Thanks.

[Cyclone]

The final regulations usually don't change very much. If anything, they are usually made weaker, not stronger. The banks normally complain that the proposal puts too much burden on them, and ask for simplifications. The agencies will take the comments into account, and make reasonable changes. The agencies decide when the final regulations go into effect. It is usually around 60 days later, but one of the weird things here is they are saying it will probably be six months. If something needs to go to the court system for interpretation, that could take years to decide.

You might have the anti-gambling people commenting that these rules don't go far enough. But I think the agencies understand they truly aren't enforceable anyway.

[jon13009]

Thanks again cyclone. It just looks like someone out there (Probably the lobbying dollars of the NFL, MLB, NBA,.....) spent millions and millions of our tax dollars to create, pass and try to enforce a piece of crap legislation that has no real value and is there just to cause a major pain in the butt for on-line account holders. Legislation like this makes the United States (once again) look like a nation that feels like it can step in and control world commerce on a whim. I just wish they would get their heads out of their asses and license, regulate, and even tax on-line books from Vegas. The only problem I see with Vegas on-line books (coming from proposals like the Frank legislation) is that most states would "opt-out" from allowing such activity, and leave us on-bettors in the dark once again.