ONLINE SPORTSBOOKS

Go Back   MajorWager Forums > MW - Online Sportsbooks > Mess Hall
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 12:33 PM
Rogthedodger Rogthedodger is offline
Editor-in-Chief, MajorWager.com
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,871
Default U.S. Banks Offer "Due Diligence" as UIGEA Deadline approaches...By Hartley Henderson

In a couple of weeks financial institutions will be obligated to abide by the UIGEA regulations. It appears unlikely that a motion by Barney Frank and over 50 co-sponsors to postpone mandatory compliance to UIGEA regulations for a year will pass the House, so banks are getting their ducks in a row and are preparing to offer due diligence as is required under the UIGEA.

Some bettors they have received a notice with their bank statements the last month or so relating to internet gambling. The wording is slightly different for each bank, but the points being are similar. The following was the exact wording on a statement from a larger Midwest bank. The name of the bank is being withheld so as not to promote them.

"As a (fill in the blank) customer, we'd like to inform you that in accordance with the requirements of the Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 and Regulation GG, certain transactions are prohibited from being processed through your account

Prohibited transactions include those in which a person accepts credit, funds, or other proceeds from another person in connection with unlawful internet gambling. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this regulation, please contact us."

Apparently notices like these have been sent to bettors with accounts at big banks, as well as those at some smaller independent banks. In fact these notices have even been sent to people who don't bet online. I contacted a relative in Cincinnati who stated that he has never placed a bet online and has never opened a gambling account at any sportsbook, poker room or casino, yet he received a letter from his bank with similar wording. He does occasionally attend riverboat casinos and takes trips to Vegas, but he doesn't bet online.

So what exactly are the banks doing to adhere to the UIGEA regulations and prevent online gambling? The answer is they are doing as little as is required, and rightly so. When the UIGEA was passed banks were upset that they were going to be forced to police the internet, but they said they were willing to do so provided the Treasury and AG gave them clear guidelines and a list of transactions that were illegal, including the names of any companies considered to be operating illegally. (Most banks were already blocking credit card transactions for online gambling and many did block transactions when it was very clear they were for internet gambling). The Treasury and the discredited Attorney General took forever to write the rules, but when push came to shove the Treasury penned a bunch of rules that put the onus on the banks to identify illegal transactions, and they were set to impose heavy fines on banks that failed to do so. A House Financial Services subcommittee meeting was held the next year and was attended by the American Banking Association, who made it clear that the rules as written were impossible to adhere to and that trying to track down that elusive online gambling transaction was equivalent to looking for a needle in a haystack (not to mention that finding these transactions would be extremely costly). Nevertheless, the rules were passed and must be adhered to by December 1.

With all the rhetoric and severe threats implied within the UIGEA rules, there is one bit of comfort for financial institutions, and it is significant. The regulations states that as long as financial institutions perform "due diligence" they will be absolved of any wrongdoing should illegal gambling transactions make their way through. The question as to what constitutes due diligence is open to debate, but most experts, including Professor i. Nelson Rose, have suggested that simply informing customers about the UIGEA and asking them not to bet online is sufficient. In fact the letter posted earlier from the bank may be more due diligence than is required. I contacted a few U.S. banks and no one in authority was willing to discuss specifics on what they planned to do (probably because they weren't sure themselves), although one manager did say to me that his bank would be blocking any transactions that it easily identifies as an illegal gambling transaction. He did, however, also imply that he wasn't prepared to be led on a wild goose chase spending days and money trying to identify the source of transactions that seem out of the ordinary.

One has to suspect that at some point a State Attorney will try to take a bank to task for letting through an offshore internet deposit or withdrawal, but when this happens the attorneys and courts have to consider whether it's worth the effort before they make a major issue of it. The UIGEA's past may seem like old news now, but to date the constitutionality of this legislation has never been challenged, nor has the real purpose of the law ever really been discussed in court. And without question the last thing any government would want to do is defend the UIGEA in a court of law. Barney Frank, iMEGA and other groups have been itching to challenge the legitimacy and constitutionality of the legislation, but they have been thwarted at every turn. If the courts do agree to hear a case related to the UIGEA, then iMEGA and others will have to be given standing, and at that point the DOJ will have to defend the legislation and provide reasons why they couldn't come up with meaningful rules to enforce it. Furthermore, they will have to answer why the law was passed in the first place.

Don't forget, the UIGEA was a cynical Republican bill attached to an unrelated piece of legislation in 2006 for the sole purpose of appeasing the religious right wing lobby groups like Focus on the Family who were calling for the government to do something about the growth of gambling online. It was also passed as a present for John Kyl, Robert Goodlatte and other Republicans who had been chasing their personal agenda for years. It couldn't pass by normal means (every time similar legislation was brought forward it failed to get enough votes to pass), so Bill Frist sneakily attached it to a bill on port security (many believe on the advice of George W. Bush himself) since that piece of legislation was a sure thing to pass. Ironically, Frist likely attached the bill thinking it would bolster his bid for the presidency, but he read the public's attitude towards online gambling wrong and the legislation actually hindered his chances. In fact, Congressman Jim Leach lost to a write-in Democratic candidate in the 2006 mid term elections almost exclusively because of the efforts of gambling interests who opposed him. Several polls have been conducted in the U.S. related to online gambling, and in each one the public said it didn't want the activity criminalized. Nevertheless, the Port Bill passed both the House and the Senate easily, and the rest is history. The Republicans and some Democrats have suggested that the public wanted the UIGEA and are surprised about many of the naysayers, but nothing could further from the truth.

The UIGEA achieved one of its initial objectives of scaring off potential newcomers, along with publicly traded companies who didn't want to challenge the government on the legislation, but in the end the legislation was so poorly thought out that when it came time to write the regulations for it the Treasury threw up its hands and essentially said it wasn't possible, so they wrote a set of rules that demanded that the financial institutions do their dirty work for them. The cynical Republican government, however, couldn't be viewed as having passed an impotent piece of legislation, so it simply passed the regulations warts and all just prior to George W. Bush's departure and told the banks to deal with it. In fact this was one of the last pieces of legislation that was rammed through for the sake of George W. Bush's legacy. Barak Obama has stated that any regulations that were passed prior to Bush's departure would be scrutinized closely, but for whatever reason the UIGEA regulations don't seem to be among those being scrutinized.

That brings us back to the original purpose of the article: what due diligence the banks are doing and what they ought to be doing come December 1st. If the letter from the Midwest bank mentioned earlier, along with a couple of publicly traded banks, is any indication, then the banks are going to send out letters to all customers telling them that the UIGEA is now law and please don't bet online. Anything beyond that isn't the banks problem. If the DOJ wants to challenge the banks to do more, then they can pass better regulations with teeth and clearer guidelines and come forth with an open and honest discussion about the law as Barney Frank, Robert Wexler, iMEGA and others have demanded. More importantly, bettors shouldn't be intimidated by the letters from their financial institutions and should continue to conduct transactions as they always have. After all, the UIGEA (and in fact no federal U.S. law) does not make it illegal for an American citizen to bet online. Only the state of Washington has a law that makes it illegal for a bettor to wager online, and it seems evident that Washington only passed it as a form of intimidation.

The banks in America have been given an impossible task with a set of unworkable rules. There's an old adage in the IT and accounting fields called Garbage In, Garbage Out, which means that you get can only get out of something as good as you put into it. And the reality is that there is no bigger piece of garbage than the UIGEA and its regulations.

11-16-2009
Hartley Henderson
MajorWager.com
henderson@majorwager.com

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-780.html
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
MajorWager.com
editor@majorwager.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 12:54 PM
Juice Juice is online now
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,735
Default

THIS IS THE BEST ARTICLE ON THIS SUBJECT EVER. GREAT. GREAT. GREAT.
__________________
INVISIBLE AND QUIET IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE. INVISIBLE AND QUIET IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE.

The Voice of a New Generation.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 01:02 PM
Juice Juice is online now
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,735
Default

UIGEA more than any law they have passed in the last 70 years, positivly shows what a massive failure at stamping out sportsbetting the US/DOJ has really been all these years. They win the battles, but we continue to fight the wars and win. And WIN handily at that.

Always have. Always will.
__________________
INVISIBLE AND QUIET IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE. INVISIBLE AND QUIET IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE.

The Voice of a New Generation.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 07:03 PM
stevo stevo is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 64,179
Default

Prohibited transactions include those in which a person accepts credit, funds, or other proceeds from another person in connection with unlawful internet gambling. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this regulation, please contact us."


And they will tell how?
__________________
May the odds be ever in your favor.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 07:59 PM
Hartley Hartley is offline
5 STAR GENERAL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 8,903
Default

I think that's the whole idea Steve. The UIGEA just said the banks had to do something but didn't stress what per se constitutes "due diligence". So some banks (and I'm assuming all in the next month) put a blurb in customer statements about prohibited transactions - taken right out of the UIGEA - and will say that they have done what was asked of them and now the government can leave them alone and let them do their real jobs.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 08:11 PM
stevo stevo is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 64,179
Default

I of course don't want to put to much info out here of course but there is no way my bank can tell where I recieve the funds I deposit. Period.

Good read Hartley.
__________________
May the odds be ever in your favor.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 08:42 PM
Caitlyn Cwissy Caitlyn Cwissy is offline
Four Paw General
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 37,270
Default

Will this affect pre-paid cards? If yes, that's pretty much ballgame.
__________________
Cwissy
As gamblers we must understand that there is no such thing as too big to fail. It is bettor to lose it all than win some of it.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 09:39 PM
indio indio is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,979
Default

If you read the final regulations set forth by the Federal Reserve, bank wires and checks DO NOT have to be screened, It's pretty much just credit cards and debit cards, which means it's a lot of hoopla over not much. I'ts actually pretty much like it used to be.

If you read page 13, section 2y, it states under the Restricted Transaction heading that Under the final rule "restricted transaction" would not include funds going to a gambler,and would only include funds going to an Internet gambling business.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...20081112a1.pdf - This is the actual final regs.

Naturally, sending money is a royal pain the rear, but there is a way to get it out, and getting paid shouldn't be a problem (at least because of your bank).

Now, obviously, it's not like the good old days of Neteller, and sending money out in 5 minutes, and getting $ in your bank account in 2 days, but the final regs were kept soft on purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2009, 09:41 PM
Hartley Hartley is offline
5 STAR GENERAL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 8,903
Default

Girls is taking a whizz on the sidewalk? Where the hell did you come up with that Dell?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2009, 03:25 AM
Juice Juice is online now
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indio View Post
If you read the final regulations set forth by the Federal Reserve, bank wires and checks DO NOT have to be screened, It's pretty much just credit cards and debit cards, which means it's a lot of hoopla over not much. I'ts actually pretty much like it used to be.

If you read page 13, section 2y, it states under the Restricted Transaction heading that Under the final rule "restricted transaction" would not include funds going to a gambler,and would only include funds going to an Internet gambling business.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...20081112a1.pdf - This is the actual final regs.

Naturally, sending money is a royal pain the rear, but there is a way to get it out, and getting paid shouldn't be a problem (at least because of your bank).

Now, obviously, it's not like the good old days of Neteller, and sending money out in 5 minutes, and getting $ in your bank account in 2 days, but the final regs were kept soft on purpose.



This sums it all up perfectly. All of that stuff that went on back then and this is the net result of Kyl's, Goodlatte's and Leaches efforts. Thats it.

Was it all you ever imagined it would be you stupid fucks????


They got more out of the failed vegas Crusade efforts than that. Not much more though. They went on a continuous and constant crusade/campaign of terror from the spring of 97 all the way thru 2007 to stamp out not only legal sportsbetting in Vegas, but so called illegal sportsbetting offshore and failed greatly.


I really can tell the story from both sides of the coin. All three if I go operations 101 with it.

As far as the offshores are concerend I can tell you for a fact it did not make a difference at all. Each season since the loss of BOS/Neteller the kinks in the system each year have vanishned and each problem that would cause a loss of sales that we could see was addressed and fixed. Whatever "pain in the ass" system is in place now, is working just perfect now.


From just this time 2007 when there was fear and queasiness in the system and you could see how many players were lost due to the BOS mess as the paper from the as yet uncorked part of there database hit our desk. The story that paper tells me is unreal. They had a freakin gold mine of players on there books. Got millions out em. Millions. Without the benfit of neteller around at that. They were scared, but kept right on stpepping. It was a fight to get money in and out, plus there was an article a day about this processor and that shutting down.


Now its smooth as can be and many think how things are done now and the speed it which it is done is always hows its been done and always will be. No complaints. No fear. They dont feel threatned. They feel there money is safe.
Plenty of choices. Lots of toys to play with. All the things a sports bettor can ask for and then some, right at there finger tips.


From the very unique toutworld point of view I hold on things and realtive to your history that I have studied much of, as well as my deep understanding of how toutdom and offshoredom are tied together and the inverse relationship to one another, things are exactly like they were in 2000-2002 on both sides of the coin.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED AT ALL.
__________________
INVISIBLE AND QUIET IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE. INVISIBLE AND QUIET IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE.

The Voice of a New Generation.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2009, 12:07 PM
Caitlyn Cwissy Caitlyn Cwissy is offline
Four Paw General
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 37,270
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartley View Post
Girls is taking a whizz on the sidewalk? Where the hell did you come up with that Dell?
Thanks to Drew Pees. Asshole decided to take a piss on my suicide parlay bingo cards. Searched and found perfect gif to metaphorize what was happening. Drew is the girl. I'm the old man.
__________________
Cwissy
As gamblers we must understand that there is no such thing as too big to fail. It is bettor to lose it all than win some of it.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2009, 12:13 PM
stevo stevo is offline
Five Star General
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 64,179
Default

She was looking very satisfied till the kick in the ass.

Classic find Dell.
__________________
May the odds be ever in your favor.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2009, 07:52 PM
StarnetGypsy StarnetGypsy is offline
Five Star Gypsy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Miles From Nowhere.
Posts: 21,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogthedodger View Post
Only the state of Washington has a law that makes it illegal for a bettor to wager online, and it seems evident that Washington only passed it as a form of intimidation.
Excellent write-up Hartley!

Just one thing about the law here in Washington which you mention above. Can't argue our fair state didn't pass the law as a form of intimidation, this is the police state de jour. The legislation however was presented to be voted on by a female representative in the south end of Seattle who received over $500k in contributions by the indian casinos to move it forward. The indians felt that online was competing with their casinos, and got her to do their dirty work of scalping the public here making anything to do with Poker & Online Gaming illegal. The main newspaper here even wrote on the topic joking that they may be arrested because they were talking about Poker Online.

AND ... speaking of the letter you mention that the banks would be sending out? I got one, and bear in mind that NEVER have i used the account for anything to do with online gambling, NEVER EVER.

- - - - - The Letter - - - - -

Notice Regarding the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, implemented by the Federal Reserve Bank as Regulation GG, prohibits any person engaged in a business from betting, wagering or knowingly accepting payments in connection with unlawful Internet Gambling. Unlawful Internet Gambling means to place, receive or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received or otherwise made.

As a customer of ##### Bank, you are prohibited from using your account to process proceeds from Internet Gambling, whether those funds are originated or received through deposits, withdrawals, checks, electronic funds transfers (including ATM and debit cards), credit cards (including Merchant Services Processing), domestic or international wire transmission or by any other means.

If you would like additional information on Regulation GG, please contact your local branch office.
__________________
no matter where you go, there you are ...
"And remember, no matter where you go, there you are." .—Confucius


Gyps


AL 29:11 Just Win Baby
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2009, 08:03 PM
StarnetGypsy StarnetGypsy is offline
Five Star Gypsy
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Miles From Nowhere.
Posts: 21,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo View Post
She was looking very satisfied till the kick in the ass.

Classic find Dell.
I'm glad the old blister kicked her in the ass. He looks like someone who holds 'old fashion' teachings close to his heart, and resented that slut disrespecting them by pissing out in the open like that (tits hanging out no less)
__________________
no matter where you go, there you are ...
"And remember, no matter where you go, there you are." .—Confucius


Gyps


AL 29:11 Just Win Baby
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The UIGEA Regulations are a Dud, Now What?...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 3 12-02-2008 08:30 AM
U.S. Banks Unhappy With UIGEA Regulations...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 3 04-01-2008 03:37 AM
UIGEA: Where are the Regulations?...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 6 07-15-2007 07:54 PM
Antigua & EU Ask for Compensation as Deadline Approaches...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 2 06-21-2007 12:22 AM
NETeller Deadline is Approaching...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 5 06-04-2007 05:44 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:08 PM.

Please be advised that if you are wagering over the internet, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. A wagering site may be operating legally at their location but it may still be illegal for you to wager from your location. We suggest you check on the legal situation from any jurisdiction in which you may wager.
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6