Congressman Barney Frank spoke this morning about his new bill in Congress!

Search

Cui servire est regnare
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
11,033
Tokens
Barney Frank Introduces New Internet Gambling Act
[FONT='Trebuchet MS',Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=2][FONT='Verdana']<!-- AddThis Bookmark Button BEGIN -->Congressman Barney Frank spoke this morning about his new bill that would look to repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enactment Act (UIGEA). The law requires banks to monitor credit card transactions that could be used for the purpose of betting online. [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
The chairman of the Financial Services Committee is looking to raise tens of billions of dollars with his new bill, which could be used to pay for expensive tax, healthcare, or other domestic legislation Democrats want to move this year.

“It’s a terrible idea and there are a large number of people who think it is a terrible idea,” Frank said yesterday. “I don’t know how it ends. The worst that happens is that enough anti-gambling busybodies will be less inclined to interfere in people’s lives.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) today introduced the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 that would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators, allowing Americans to lawfully bet online.

The Act establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals in the U.S., to the extent permitted by individual states, Indian tribes and sport leagues. All such licenses would include protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud.

“The existing legislation is an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans and this interference should be undone,” said. Rep. Frank.

In 2006, the House passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, restricting the handling of payments by U.S. financial institutions for unlawful forms of Internet gambling. That law prohibits the use of payment instruments by such institutions to handle the processing of any form of Internet gambling that is illegal under U.S. federal or state law.

Traditional forms of legalized gambling already exist in nearly every state. By continuing to prohibit Internet gambling in the U.S., the U.S. has left Americans who choose to gamble online without meaningful consumer protections. The proposed legislation would institute practical and enforceable standards to bring transparency to Internet gambling and provide consumers the protections they expect and deserve.

The Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing entitled, “Can Internet gambling be regulated to protect consumers and the payments system?” at a date to be determined in June, 2007.




Q&A About the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007:



LICENSE REQUIREMENTS

How will the government ensure that the proper consumer protections are put in place?

No applicant would receive a license unless the following requirements with respect to any Internet bet or wager, at a minimum, are met:

• Safeguards to ensure the individual placing the bet or wager is 18 years of age or older

• Safeguards to combat fraud and money laundering and compulsive gambling

• Mechanisms to ensure all appropriate taxes and fees are collected from individuals and the licensees

• Safeguards to ensure that the individual placing the bet or wager is physically located in a jurisdiction that permits that form of Internet gambling



What safeguards would be implemented to ensure that licenses are granted only to qualified Internet gambling operators?

Applicants for a license would be required to provide comprehensive financial statements and corporate structure documents, and to agree to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and all applicable laws related to Internet gambling. No license would be granted to any applicant convicted of a criminal violation of any law relating to gambling, money laundering, fraud or other financial laws. Licensing would be handled by the U.S. Treasury through its anti-money laundering agency, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).



CONSUMER SAFETY

How does the bill protect consumers?

The framework set forth in the bill would for the first time effectively regulate Internet gambling, thus making it possible to address underage and compulsive gambling, neither of which are prevented under prohibition regimes. Regulation combined with proven technology would establish a system of effective controls to block children and compulsive gamblers from gambling.

How can restrictions against underage Internet gambling be enforced?

Existing technology can enforce requirements that licensed Internet gambling operators restrict minors’ access to Internet gambling. For example, when registering at a gambling site, the customer would be required to provide a range of information including name, address, date of birth, telephone number and details of an identity document, such as a driver’s license or social security number. This information would then be passed on to the Payment Service Provider (PSP) and run through the Know Your Customer (KYC) system to confirm that the data being provided matches against several separate sources of information and is in fact accurate. The operators may also have KYC systems in place.

Operators could also request a physical copy of documentation, such as a utility bill and/or a copy of the customer’s identity document, for further verification.

Is it possible to identify and enforce restrictions on compulsive gambling?

There are a number of techniques that can be used, from systems that limit the total amount of funds that may be wagered based on credit limits, to the use of public databases that include details used to identify persons who have chosen to exclude themselves from online gambling. Customers could be added to this list at their own request.

Additionally, limits can be placed on the number of transactions a customer can put through on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, by the operator acting alone, by the credit card company, by the PSP, or by all three. In the event that an unusual spending pattern is noticed, these transactions could automatically be put on hold for further investigation.



FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF INTERNET GAMBLING TRANSACTIONS

How will a license and regulation framework protect against money laundering and fraud?

Funds entering a gambling operator’s system are already resident in the banking network somewhere. That is, the funds have previously been deposited into a bank account at some stage, subjected to stringent KYC requirements, and which greatly increases the traceability of any funds entering the system. All transactions can also be checked at the time of authorization against a number of anti-fraud, money laundering and terrorism databases.

What additional security measures could be put in place to protect the consumer from merchant fraud?
Payment Service Providers could set-up escrow accounts for each licensee in which money is set aside for a period of time to ensure that when a financial transaction is successfully contested the operator immediately refunds the consumer. Therefore, any claim regarding the use of an unauthorized credit card could automatically result in a full repayment to the principal credit card holder.



STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

Would individual states and Indian tribes have the option to opt-out of legalized Internet gambling?

To protect States’ and Indian tribes’ rights to control gambling activities within their respective geographic borders, the Act permits States and Indian tribes either to prohibit Internet gambling activities or impose limits on various types of Internet gambling activities.

Is it possible for restrictions to be enforced if individual states decide to “opt-out” from permitting persons in their states from Internet gambling?

Yes. In using the Internet, a customer’s IP address is broadcast to the operator, which can then be used to identify the state in which a customer resides with a 99 percent level of accuracy. This information is also made available and compared to the customer’s registration information. In the event the information differs, the transaction is not approved and the customer is prevented from engaging in Internet gambling.



SPORTS BETTING

If professional sports leagues and college associations decide to opt-out from allowing bets and wagers on their sporting activities, could that be enforced?

Yes. Under the proposed legislation, all licensed Internet gambling operators would be prohibited from accepting bets or wagers on sports leagues or associations that have opted-out. In the event of a violation, the operator’s license could be withdrawn and the operator may be prohibited from applying for a new license. As part of its contract with the Internet gambling operator, the PSP would be required to enforce these requirements throughout the collection and payment process.
 

Active member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
71,780
Tokens
thats great and it is a positive step, if only it would be passed

but the DOJ won't allow it and they run everything that has to do with gambling do not fool yourself
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
393
Tokens
Don't get too excited. The NFL, NBA, and MLB will opt out of this, and any new online operation such as MGM would then not allow sports betting on the major leagues.

That would still leave some offshore operations, I guess, who would still offer NFL bets.

I'll settle for a repeal of the current law, which would allow other payment processors to come aboard.

But this new proposal is good for poker, not really sports betting.

As Barney Frank said though, the worst case scenario is this knocks peeps like Kyl and Goodlatte on their ass. This will certainly curtail the anti-gambling movement.

At the very least, things are swaying back in our direction. And thank God. That means that no one will have success in trying to criminalize the actual bettor by updating the wire act.

The currect prohibition environment is about as bad as it will get IMO. The Anti-Gambling Nazi's had their day in the sun.
 

Cui servire est regnare
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
11,033
Tokens
sounds to me like he is trying to get something legalized here in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>...no impact on the offshores from what i can tell..<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
393
Tokens
Yes, it now suddenly appears that he's going for the whole prize - legalization and regulation of online gambling.

It will succeed some day, but I think it's too early for that to win.

Just repeal the last law and allow a new Neteller-type and I'll be happy.

Go Barney Go
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
No license would be granted to any applicant convicted of a criminal violation of any law relating to gambling, money laundering, fraud or other financial laws.

Jay Cohen would still be prevented from participating in the industry. Amazing.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
29,752
Tokens
CNBC...just reported on this and said hearings on the bill will take place in JUNE..........
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
393
Tokens
Since offshores like theGreek and WSEX would presumably still take bets on Pro Sports (NFL, NBA, etc.), they would not be granted a license. WSEX would probably still be held in contempt anyway by the US govt.

Some of those books would undoubtedly just drop pro sports bet offerings so that they could get a US license and then just be a poker site or whatever.

Frickin' NFL and MLB would opt out of this in a heartbeat.

Basically, what this would do is allow MGM, Harrah's, Playboy Enterprises, etc. to have a licensed, regulated presense for online gambling in the US. But mainly it would just be poker because what the hell else are you going to bet on if the major pro leagues opt out and certainly the NCAA would opt out too?

Why not just call it like it is - the right to legally play poker in the US.

Sportsbetting would continue to get the shaft.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
204
Tokens
Since offshores like theGreek and WSEX would presumably still take bets on Pro Sports (NFL, NBA, etc.), they would not be granted a license. WSEX would probably still be held in contempt anyway by the US govt.

Some of those books would undoubtedly just drop pro sports bet offerings so that they could get a US license and then just be a poker site or whatever.

Frickin' NFL and MLB would opt out of this in a heartbeat.

Basically, what this would do is allow MGM, Harrah's, Playboy Enterprises, etc. to have a licensed, regulated presense for online gambling in the US. But mainly it would just be poker because what the hell else are you going to bet on if the major pro leagues opt out and certainly the NCAA would opt out too?

Why not just call it like it is - the right to legally play poker in the US.

Sportsbetting would continue to get the shaft.

I share you pessimism, and for the precise reasons you stated. There are other possible ramifications, however. This bill would repeal the UIGEA! Although I agree with you that NCAA, NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. will likely opt out, a repeal of the UIGEA might bring us closer to the way things were with respect to the overseas books pre-UIGEA. That would be huge, regardless of how useless the U.S.-regulated books might be.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
393
Tokens
Yes, TheBigFish, my sentiments exactly.

I just want things to return to the way they were last year before the UIGEA. Bring back a Neteller-type company, have a decent book or two like Pinnacle, and I'll be content.

The US can have their MGMs, Harrah's, and other new online entities. I'll never use them if they don't offer pro sports.
 

New member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
4,821
Tokens
This bill is a complete and utter total joke.

Either Barney tried to make things sound good so some people will vote for it or his is a moron.

I'm going with he is trying to make things sound good.

1. There is no way to ensure people online are 18 100%...
2. You can not make companies located in another country pay US taxes.
3. Individuals are not going to pay taxes on each bet. No thank you. I'll used the unlicensed places. IT's like taxing cocaine purchases. I think people will go to the tax free ones.
4. States can no opt out by IP address. I can make my IP be anywhere in the world. In a few years, I can probably route through the moon.
5. Allowing states to opt out is a 100% violation of the WTO findings.

The only catch phrase that might help is preventing money laundering.

What I like best is if this passes, is your bank gonna be supposed to know which gambling places are ok?

Sean
 

New member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
4,821
Tokens
BTW, the major leagues would not opt out. They can say all they want about being anti gambling, but money talks and they are not that stupid.

-Sean
 

New member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
4,821
Tokens
And beyond that, you'd have books meet the requirements, drop sports, etc just to be a front to transfer to other books...

Barney knows this law would not work at all. He just went with one that might pass.... Any half reasonable person knows that if you make online gaming legal again, you have no ability to regulate it but you can't say that if you want to pass a bill.

Sean
 

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
4,668
Tokens
Frank Has No Backing On This. He Can Say Whatever He Wants...this Is Getting Peoples Hopes Up For Nothing.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
987
Tokens
It doesn't repeal the UIGEA, it just makes more carveouts that are UIGEA exempt.

This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market
 

RX Senior
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
8,135
Tokens
the problem is the government fears and doesnt understand something that they are now considering regulating.

they have no idea what they are doing. frists whacko bill and arresting a few brits off planes for operating legally licensed companies proved that.

they are stupid
 

RX Senior
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
8,135
Tokens
I cant believe people think the US govt has some sort of plan. make it illegal then turn around and tax it. they dont have a plan.

some of them want to go this way, some want to go that way. none of them understand gambling or how to regulate it.

instead of prosecuting JC, they should have offered him a job to help educate them.

which gets us back to my main point, they are stupid
 

New member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
4,821
Tokens
US is really dumb.

I think Mr. Frank knows if you make some sportsbooks online/offshore legal, they all become legal. He couldnt exactly get let's reopen a bunch of books with no regulations passed...

Sean
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,093
Messages
13,448,515
Members
99,393
Latest member
jaybone34
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