Forces of evil at it again, US Sports Leagues Back Internet GamblinProhibition Effort

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
987
Tokens
Wake up people and write your Congresspeople while you still have a few rights left.

US Sports Leagues Back Prohibition Effort
February 03, 2006
by Bradley Vallerius

The United States' major sports leagues are urging members of the U.S. House of Representatives to co-sponsor the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (H.R. 4411). Each representative received a letter this week signed by top officials from the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
 

FreeRyanFerguson.com
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
13,308
Tokens
Last time I checked, the US gov't had no jurisdiction over what is legal in other countries. They can't stop pot from being legal in the Netherlands, and they can't shut down legal wagering in Antigua. I mean, I know you got busted, but you would still be in the business if you had stayed over there. Do you have any regrets about coming back to the US?
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
28,775
Tokens
This isn't surprising at all. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize how much pressure each league was under to "jump on board".

Typical US politics, a bunch of arm twisting BS.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
6,480
Tokens
TTinCO said:
Typical US politics, a bunch of arm twisting BS.

Do you mean that if the leagues did not support the bill they would then be guilty of promoting gambling.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
28,775
Tokens
Woody0 said:
Do you mean that if the leagues did not support the bill they would then be guilty of promoting gambling.

In a twisted sense, that's probably more or less what they would be accused of had they not put their name behind the bill. Basically a "if you're not against it, you're supporting it" thing.
 

New member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
4,615
Tokens
I posted it over at SBR

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PAYMENT INSTRUMENT FOR UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.

(a) In General- Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:

`SUBCHAPTER IV--PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING

`Sec. 5361. Congressional findings and purpose

`(a) Findings- The Congress finds the following:

`(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.

`(2) The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent such sites.

`(3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry.

`(4) New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or national borders.

`(b) Rule of Construction- No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.

`Sec. 5362. Definitions

`In this subchapter, the following definitions shall apply:

`(1) BET OR WAGER- The term `bet or wager'--

`(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;

`(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);

`(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 3702 of title 28;

`(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering; and

`(E) does not include--

`(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the purchase or sale of securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of that Act);

`(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act;

`(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;

`(iv) any other transaction that--

`(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act; or

`(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

`(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;

`(vi) any contract for insurance;

`(vii) any deposit or other transaction with an insured depository institution; or

`(viii) any participation in a simulation sports game, an educational game, or a contest, that--

`(I) is not dependent solely on the outcome of any single sporting event or nonparticipant's singular individual performance in any single sporting event;

`(II) has an outcome that reflects the relative knowledge of the participants, or their skill at physical reaction or physical manipulation (but not chance), and, in the case of a simulation sports game, has an outcome that is determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting events; and

`(III) offers a prize or award to a participant that is established in advance of the game or contest and is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants.

`(2) BUSINESS OF BETTING OR WAGERING- The term `business of betting or wagering' does not include a financial transaction provider, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service.

`(3) DESIGNATED PAYMENT SYSTEM- The term `designated payment system' means any system utilized by a financial transaction provider that the Secretary, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Attorney General, determines, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

`(4) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDER- The term `financial transaction provider' means a creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, or international, national, regional, or local network utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value product transaction, or money transmitting service, or a participant in such network, or other participant in a designated payment system.

`(5) INTERNET- The term `Internet' means the international computer network of interoperable packet switched data networks.

`(6) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE- The term `interactive computer service' has the same meaning as in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934.

`(7) RESTRICTED TRANSACTION- The term `restricted transaction' means any transaction or transmittal involving any credit, funds, instrument, or proceeds described in any paragraph of section 5363 which the recipient is prohibited from accepting under section 5363.

`(8) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury.

`(9) UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `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.

`(B) INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where--

`(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single State;

`(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made is expressly authorized by and placed in accordance with the laws of such State, and the State law or regulations include--

`(I) age and location verification requirements reasonably designed to block access to minors and persons located out of such State; and

`(II) appropriate data security standards to prevent unauthorized access by any person whose age and current location has not been verified in accordance with such State's law or regulations; and

`(iii) the bet or wager does not violate any provision of the--

`(I) Interstate Horseracing Act;

`(II) Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act;

`(III) Gambling Devices Transportation Act; or

`(IV) Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

`(C) INTRATRIBAL TRANSACTIONS- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where--

`(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively--

`(I) within the Indian lands of a single Indian tribe (as those terms are defined by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act); or

`(II) between the Indian lands of 2 or more Indian tribes to the extent that intertribal gaming is authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;

`(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made is expressly authorized by and complies with the requirements of--

`(I) the applicable tribal ordinance or resolution approved by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission; and

`(II) with respect to class III gaming, the applicable Tribal-State Compact;

`(iii) the applicable tribal ordinance or resolution or Tribal-State compact includes--

`(I) age and location verification requirements reasonably designed to block access to minors and persons located out of the applicable Tribal lands; and

`(II) appropriate data security standards to prevent unauthorized access by any person whose age and current location has not been verified in accordance with the applicable tribal ordinance or resolution or Tribal-State Compact; and

`(iv) the bet or wager does not violate any provision of the--

`(I) Interstate Horseracing Act;

`(II) the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act;

`(III) the Gambling Devices Transportation Act; or

`(IV) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

`(D) INTERSTATE HORSERACING- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager that is governed by and complies with the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.

`(E) INTERMEDIATE ROUTING- The intermediate routing of electronic data shall not determine the location or locations in which a bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

`(10) OTHER TERMS-

`(A) CREDIT; CREDITOR; CREDIT CARD; AND CARD ISSUER- The terms `credit', `creditor', `credit card', and `card issuer' have the same meanings as in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act.

`(B) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER- The term `electronic fund transfer'--

`(i) has the same meaning as in section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, except that such term includes transfers that would otherwise be excluded under section 903(6)(E) of that Act; and

`(ii) includes any fund transfer covered by Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State.

`(C) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION- The term `financial institution' has the same meaning as in section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, except that such term does not include a casino, sports book, or other business at or through which bets or wagers may be placed or received.

`(D) INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION- The term `insured depository institution'--

`(i) has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and

`(ii) includes an insured credit union (as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act).

`(E) MONEY TRANSMITTING BUSINESS AND MONEY TRANSMITTING SERVICE- The terms `money transmitting business' and `money transmitting service' have the same meanings as in section 5330(d) (determined without regard to any regulations issued by the Secretary thereunder).

`Sec. 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling

`No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling--

`(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);

`(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;

`(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any financial institution; or

`(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction, as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation, which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of such other person.

`Sec. 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions

`(a) Regulations- Before the end of the 270-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and prevent restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and prevent restricted transactions in any of the following ways:

`(1) The establishment of policies and procedures that--

`(A) allow the payment system and any person involved in the payment system to identify restricted transactions by means of codes in authorization messages or by other means; and

`(B) block restricted transactions identified as a result of the policies and procedures developed pursuant to subparagraph (A).

`(2) The establishment of policies and procedures that prevent the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system in connection with a restricted transaction.

`(b) Requirements for Policies and Procedures- In prescribing regulations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--

`(1) identify types of policies and procedures, including nonexclusive examples, which would be deemed, as applicable, to be reasonably designed to identify, block, or prevent the acceptance of the products or services with respect to each type of restricted transaction;

`(2) to the extent practical, permit any participant in a payment system to choose among alternative means of identifying and blocking, or otherwise preventing the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system or participant in connection with, restricted transactions; and

`(3) consider exempting restricted transactions from any requirement imposed under such regulations, if the Secretary finds that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise prevent, such transactions.

`(c) Compliance With Payment System Policies and Procedures- A financial transaction provider shall be considered to be in compliance with the regulations prescribed under subsection (a), if--

`(1) such person relies on and complies with the policies and procedures of a designated payment system of which it is a member or participant to--

`(A) identify and block restricted transactions; or

`(B) otherwise prevent the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system, member, or participant in connection with restricted transactions; and

`(2) such policies and procedures of the designated payment system comply with the requirements of regulations prescribed under subsection (a).

`(d) No Liability for Blocking or Refusing to Honor Restricted Transactions- A person that is subject to a regulation prescribed or order issued under this subchapter and blocks, or otherwise refuses to honor a transaction--

`(1) that is a restricted transaction;

`(2) that such person reasonably believes to be a restricted transaction; or

`(3) as a member of a designated payment system in reliance on the policies and procedures of the payment system, in an effort to comply with regulations prescribed under subsection (a),

shall not be liable to any party for such action.

`(e) Regulatory Enforcement- The requirements of this section shall be enforced exclusively by the Federal functional regulators and the Federal Trade Commission, in the manner provided in section 505(a) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

`Sec. 5365. Civil remedies

`(a) Jurisdiction- The district courts of the United States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this subchapter by issuing appropriate orders in accordance with this section, regardless of whether a prosecution has been initiated under this subchapter.

`(b) Proceedings-

`(1) INSTITUTION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The United States, acting through the Attorney General, may institute proceedings under this section to prevent or restrain a violation or a threatened violation of this subchapter.

`(B) RELIEF- Upon application of the United States under this paragraph, the district court may enter a preliminary injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a violation or threatened violation of this subchapter, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

`(2) INSTITUTION BY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of a State in which a violation of this subchapter allegedly has occurred or will occur may institute proceedings under this section to prevent or restrain the violation or threatened violation.

`(B) RELIEF- Upon application of the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of an affected State under this paragraph, the district court may enter a preliminary injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a violation or threatened violation of this subchapter, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

`(3) INDIAN LANDS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for a violation of this subchapter that is alleged to have occurred, or may occur, on Indian lands (as that term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)--

`(i) the United States shall have the enforcement authority provided under paragraph (1); and

`(ii) the enforcement authorities specified in an applicable Tribal-State compact negotiated under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
The same leagues that are so popular and viewed because of gambling...this isn't 1975, no one cares about who wins anymore unless they have money on it....There's too much to do to in this age....sports would be 1/4th as popular, without gambling.
 

I think I want my money back!
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
41,267
Tokens
Journeyman said:
The same leagues that are so popular and viewed because of gambling...this isn't 1975, no one cares about who wins anymore unless they have money on it....There's too much to do to in this age....sports would be 1/4th as popular, without gambling.

:suomi: A Very True Statement


It Would Kill Their Interest. Imagine an NFL w/o Gambling:nopityA:
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
2,442
Tokens
don't worry, even though abramoff and delay are under indictment, somebody will step up to the plate and take and give bribes to kill the bill.
i have faith that members our corupt senate and house of representatives will get the job done.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Santo said:
`Sec. 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling

`No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling--

`(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);

`(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;

`(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any financial institution; or

`(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction, as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation, which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of such other person.

`Sec. 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions

`(a) Regulations- Before the end of the 270-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and prevent restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and prevent restricted transactions in any of the following ways:

`(1) The establishment of policies and procedures that--

`(A) allow the payment system and any person involved in the payment system to identify restricted transactions by means of codes in authorization messages or by other means; and

`(B) block restricted transactions identified as a result of the policies and procedures developed pursuant to subparagraph (A).

`(2) The establishment of policies and procedures that prevent the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system in connection with a restricted transaction.

`(b) Requirements for Policies and Procedures- In prescribing regulations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--

`(1) identify types of policies and procedures, including nonexclusive examples, which would be deemed, as applicable, to be reasonably designed to identify, block, or prevent the acceptance of the products or services with respect to each type of restricted transaction;

`(2) to the extent practical, permit any participant in a payment system to choose among alternative means of identifying and blocking, or otherwise preventing the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system or participant in connection with, restricted transactions; and

`(3) consider exempting restricted transactions from any requirement imposed under such regulations, if the Secretary finds that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise prevent, such transactions.

`(c) Compliance With Payment System Policies and Procedures- A financial transaction provider shall be considered to be in compliance with the regulations prescribed under subsection (a), if--

`(1) such person relies on and complies with the policies and procedures of a designated payment system of which it is a member or participant to--

`(A) identify and block restricted transactions; or

`(B) otherwise prevent the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system, member, or participant in connection with restricted transactions; and

`(2) such policies and procedures of the designated payment system comply with the requirements of regulations prescribed under subsection (a).

`(d) No Liability for Blocking or Refusing to Honor Restricted Transactions- A person that is subject to a regulation prescribed or order issued under this subchapter and blocks, or otherwise refuses to honor a transaction--

`(1) that is a restricted transaction;

`(2) that such person reasonably believes to be a restricted transaction; or

`(3) as a member of a designated payment system in reliance on the policies and procedures of the payment system, in an effort to comply with regulations prescribed under subsection (a),

shall not be liable to any party for such action.

`(e) Regulatory Enforcement- The requirements of this section shall be enforced exclusively by the Federal functional regulators and the Federal Trade Commission, in the manner provided in section 505(a) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

`Sec. 5365. Civil remedies

`(a) Jurisdiction- The district courts of the United States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this subchapter by issuing appropriate orders in accordance with this section, regardless of whether a prosecution has been initiated under this subchapter.

`(b) Proceedings-

`(1) INSTITUTION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The United States, acting through the Attorney General, may institute proceedings under this section to prevent or restrain a violation or a threatened violation of this subchapter.

`(B) RELIEF- Upon application of the United States under this paragraph, the district court may enter a preliminary injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a violation or threatened violation of this subchapter, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

`(2) INSTITUTION BY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of a State in which a violation of this subchapter allegedly has occurred or will occur may institute proceedings under this section to prevent or restrain the violation or threatened violation.

`(B) RELIEF- Upon application of the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of an affected State under this paragraph, the district court may enter a preliminary injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a violation or threatened violation of this subchapter, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

`(3) INDIAN LANDS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for a violation of this subchapter that is alleged to have occurred, or may occur, on Indian lands (as that term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)--

`(i) the United States shall have the enforcement authority provided under paragraph (1); and

`(ii) the enforcement authorities specified in an applicable Tribal-State compact negotiated under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.



OK, so here is the real relevant law in all this. The rest is just descriptions basically. Read it very carefully people. Notice it will not punish you for being a bettor since very very few of you would be considered "in the business of betting or wagering". The two groups of people on the hook are the sports books, who are regulated and have to abide by the laws of their own domicile and the financial institutions and all the others thrown in with them for the purposes of the bill. Please read what I just said again carefully. THIS IS NOT A BILL TO BAN ONLINE WAGERING! The DOJ has told Congress repeatedly they don't need to do this since in their faulty thinking, this was already done in 1961.

This is so unwieldy and unenforceable that it borders on ridiculous. Remember when people in the US were appalled that Ebay in the US got sued for letting someone put up Nazi memorabilia, in violation of France's laws? It seemed ridiculous to us that just because a French person could see an item that was intended to be sold by a non-French person to another non-French person that the French authorities could enter the equation, but they pursued a lawsuit and the French courts said there was liability there. This is the same thing, companies in Costa Rica are going to say "hey, we are a licensed business here and we have to follow local laws". To think they have to follow everyone else's laws is RIDICULOUS. They should just go to court and say hey look, if you don't want Americans to bet, make a law saying it is a crime for Americans to make a bet from U.S. territory. We dare you to do it. The U.S. Congress just doesn't have the f-ing balls to do it and that is the 110% truth here. In the meantime, go ahead and pursue some action in the U.S. against us, we don't have any financial interests there. If Ebay didn't have financial interests in France they could have ignored the ruling against them.

Even worse is the spot the banks and institutions are in. They are supposed to set up codes or systems to block sending money for gambling, but good luck to them. Are they supposed to pay some army of investigators to figure out every possible route we could take to get money to say Pinnacle Sports? What if they accept money into an account owned by PS Ventures for example? Are U.S. regulatory people going to hold the bank that did the transfer to PS Ventures responsible for enabling a gaming related transaction? I wouldn't put anything past this ridiculous Attorney General's office. If they could shake down Discovery Channel for $3 million and Vulcan for $7 million, they surely won't mind quietly grabbing untold millions from banks and financial institutions. These are the ones who really have to step up to the plate and defend their interests. Will be interesting to see if they do when it comes time to lobby against this bill.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,196
Messages
13,449,390
Members
99,401
Latest member
gift-express
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com