buddyboy I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that financial institutions are immune. What the act did was extend the definition of what constituted a financial institution. The analysis of the bill in the link below lays it out pretty well.
You may be right about how Costa Rica handles the internet gambling companies there, I honestly have no idea, but regardless the country has authorized what the gambling companies do or they wouldn't be operating from there. I just threw them into the mix as countries where online gambling companies operate from. I know for a fact Antigua, Kahanawake, Britain etc. all license their operators.
____
I
The guy wrote this in November of 2006. He was sure wrong with regards to Neteller huh?
The great unknown is how far into the Internet commerce stream federal regulators are willing to go. The Act requires institutions like the Bank of America and Neteller to i.d. and block transactions to unlawful gambling sites, whatever they are. But, while the Bank of America will comply, Neteller might not, because it is not subject to U.S. regulations. Will federal regulators then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to Neteller? And would they then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to an overseas bank, which forwards the money to Neteller?
For financial institutions within the U.S, the Act provides that exclusive regulatory enforcement rests with their federal regulators, like the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to enforce regulations on everyone else. It is extremely doubtful whether the F.T.C. will ever try to do anything about the Netellers of the world, who are beyond regular U.S. regulatory control.