xxx---->> Net Gambling Funding Bill Worries Banks

Net Gambling Funding Bill Worries Banks


The "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act" being considered by the U.S. Senate is worrying banks and credit-card companies. The bill seeks to curb online gambling by requiring banks and other financial institutions to block all payments to online betting firms. If banks do not comply, attorneys general would be allowed to request injunctions against them. "We don't want banks to play cops. The onus should not be put on us to enforce this," declares Katherine Pulley, spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association. Pulley is concerned that a customer could send money to a company called, for example, "AMC Funtimes... and it could be an online casino. But how do we know?" However, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), who introduced the Senate version of the bill, says it would be up to investigators to give banks and credit-card companies a list of offshore companies that violate the law.

BILL WOULD MAKE BANKS GAMING COPS

Banks could be put on the front line in stopping Internet gambling - and they're not happy about it.
The Senate is considering a bill that would require banks and other financial institutions to block all payments to online betting houses. A similar bill already passed the House, and backers are hoping to send it to the White House before the end of the year.

But Katherine Pulley, a spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association, said the group is worried that lawmakers are trying to put badges on tellers.

"We don't want banks to play cops," Pulley said. "The onus should not be put on us to enforce this."

One big issue, Pulley added, is that someone could send money to a company called, say, "AMC Funtimes . . . and it could be an online casino. But how do we know?"

Many online gaming companies already have been prosecuted under the Interstate Wire Act of 1961. Jay Cohen, founder of World Sports Exchange, was imprisoned in Nevada when he tried to fight the law in court.

But some Internet casinos survive off-shore in countries like Antigua, their executives unable to return to the United States.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who introduced the Senate version of the bill, said cutting off the bets is the only way to put the companies out of business.

"This would significantly crimp their style," he said.

The legislation was requested by state attorneys general, who have been stymied in their efforts to shut down online gaming. In addition to avoiding state and federal taxes, online gambling firms also cut into states' own revenue from lotteries and Indian gaming.

Kyl said that it would be up to investigators to determine which offshore companies are violating the law, and that lists would be given to bank and credit-card companies. But if banks did not comply, attorneys general would be allowed to request injunctions against them.

Pulley said the ABA would be trying to work out a compromise with legislators this fall.



http://www.nypost.com/business/5282.htm

we just need this bill not hang until we can get a democrat elected

How does this affect a bank's relationsship with Neteller is what I want to know.

oldmantime - I guess it would depend on what country that bank was located in and how strong their relationship was with the "Bank of New York"

IB--The Country ???

Bank of New York---I thought Neteller's closest tie was Bank of America

Neteller is NOT a credit card company in any sense--so maybe not affected?

S.627
Title: A bill to prevent the use of certain payments instruments, credit cards, and fund transfers for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] (introduced 3/13/2003)


>>>Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act - Establishes within the Department of the Treasury the Office of Electronic Funding Oversight to coordinate Federal efforts to prohibit restricted transactions.

Prohibits any person engaged in the business of betting or wagering from knowingly accepting in connection with another person's participation in Internet gambling: (1) credit; (2) electronic fund transfers or funds transmitted through money transmitting businesses; (3) any instrument drawn by or on behalf of another and payable through any financial institution; or (4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction involving a financial institution as payer or financial intermediary on behalf of another person.<<<<


Sorry oldmantime, but this bill would certainly effect Neteller.

Neteller is not located in the USA and is therefore not subject to US laws. You're right in thinking that this will not impact them

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EverFresh:
Neteller is not located in the USA and is therefore not subject to US laws. You're right in thinking that this will not impact them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hope you are right, everfresh, but for US citizens Neteller's payout checks are from a US bank and they use the US electronic clearinghouse for EFT's. I'm not sure that these would still be available to them. A US dollar check or cashiers check from a Canadian bank might work for payouts, but I imagine it would take a lot longer to clear. EFT's and wire transfers would be gone. The debit card (FSV in Houston) would be gone. It is a bit depressing. It is best if the bill does not pass.

Why don't you read the bill again. I keep saying this and it gets ignored. The enforcement, as it stands now, is on the books "the person engaged in the business of gambling or wagering". What I have been saying is quite simply this is a law that says "bookmakers, please follow our rules cause we are Congress and we think we can solve all the world's problems with our laws". Its really as simple as that and if the books choose to tell the Congress to f**k off, how is that going to slow this at all? You notice how Kyl would have the Justice Dept tell banks who is good and bad? This is a joke, this presumes the JD cares and wants to help banks in a futile attempt here. They might do it at first, but they could easily blow it off after that because they have even admitted many times that they cannot stop the flow of money to offshores, its just too big a task because the books aren't named anything like their operating name. In short Neteller would only be subject to this if they choose voluntarily to follow the directives of US law, but they certainly aren't required to do so. And since their business would be almost zero without this industry, they aren't going to follow these orders I guarantee that.

WildBill - Thanks for your input.

I agree. I don't think NETeller would want to Volunteer to Police transactions they are NOT required to even if it became U.S. law, and the U.S. banks would Blow it off after a while.

The bottom line is no law passed by Congrees will have an impact UNLESS the player is punished--in which case I'm gone.
Say it ain't so--Sosa!
Thanks Wild Bill

Yes Oldman and just remember who puts those guys into office. Common theme in Congress is to always put the burden of proof and enforcement on entities, not people. After all Microsoft doesn't vote, but Bill Gates does. They damn well know there are thousands of gamblers out there that will have a fit and never vote for them if they make it possible to put people in jail for these things, but their thinking is they can tell the voters hey I went after evil such and such company and now they are going to pay if they let this go on. Yeah right, posturing as usual out of DC.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
Why don't you read the bill again. I keep saying this and it gets ignored. The enforcement, as it stands now, is on the books "the person engaged in the business of gambling or wagering". What I have been saying is quite simply this is a law that says "bookmakers, please follow our rules cause we are Congress and we think we can solve all the world's problems with our laws". Its really as simple as that and if the books choose to tell the Congress to f**k off, how is that going to slow this at all? You notice how Kyl would have the Justice Dept tell banks who is good and bad? This is a joke, this presumes the JD cares and wants to help banks in a futile attempt here. They might do it at first, but they could easily blow it off after that because they have even admitted many times that they cannot stop the flow of money to offshores, its just too big a task because the books aren't named anything like their operating name. In short Neteller would only be subject to this if they choose voluntarily to follow the directives of US law, but they certainly aren't required to do so. And since their business would be almost zero without this industry, they aren't going to follow these orders I guarantee that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



thanks wildbill for the info. I think we may make it thru this year again without it even getting voted on thanks to the NEW money Bush wants and other bills taking higher prioity. If it does not get voted on this year they have to redo it all over again next

Time might be on our side. The UK DCMS, essentially the biggest players in the gambling debate there have repeatedly issued statements saying they believe its quite obvious that an interactive wager (internet, phone...whatever) takes place where the server or phone office is, not where the person places the wager quite simply because without the server or the phone clerk to confirm the bet, there would be no action. Simple enough, but the biggest UK books have just mostly decided to steer clear of the US to avoid trouble. In time they won't ignore it anymore and if they get their new regulations passed I think the chances go up greatly that UK books get a spine and take on the US market. If you have books that have long histories of bookmaking with public ownership and oversight by regulators, all these arguments of Congress get watered down. The UK people will tell the US idiot lawmakers that they vigourously keep out underage bettors, they don't allow credit betting, they will have a clear sense of money flows so laundering will be a difficult task, etc. I am sure the idiots will keep trying, but if UK gets up and running then the argument to try to ban this becomes a lot tougher and the arguments are going to have to get a lot more creative.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Pulley is concerned that a customer could send money to a company called, for example, "AMC Funtimes... and it could be an online casino. But how do we know?" However, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), who introduced the Senate version of the bill, says it would be up to investigators to give banks and credit-card companies a list of offshore companies that violate the law.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if Neteller is on that list?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Pulley is concerned that a customer could send money to a company called, for example, "AMC Funtimes... and it could be an online casino. But how do we know?" However, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), who introduced the Senate version of the bill, says it would be up to investigators to give banks and credit-card companies a list of offshore companies that violate the law.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if Neteller is on that list?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'says it would be up to investigators to give banks and credit-card companies a list of offshore companies that violate the law.'

To me it seems as though it would be just easier and alot more profitable for the USA to regulate internet gambling for USA customers..and the companies that deal with USA customers..to me this is just putting our taxpayers dollars to waist. If we are paying this money for the fbi/task forces to investigate then every american citizen would have to pay more through taxes. We are paying for them to violate our American citizen rights.

Why don't they just regulate it so they can profit off of it and improve America and even Bush can use some of this money to further fight terrorism. These politicians are dropping the ball on this one. As they think they are improving America and flexing their strengths as politicians with FOREIGN enterprise, they are in reality missing an opportunity to generate 'free' money to help the quality of life in America.