SAD SHIT but good read
***********
UIGEA Regulations – What They Mean to the Future and How to Get Involved <hr size="1">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="arttext">
Oct 12, 2007, 13:10
</td> <td class="arttext" align="right" valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
The government is asking for your help to finalize regulations, procedures and penalties for the law that they passed over a year ago – the UIGEA. The government was supposed to come out with policies and procedures for the UIGEA within 270 days, but that date in June came and went. So, earlier this month the Department of Treasury issued a notice of joint proposed rulemaking. These are only proposed regulations; the government has given a period for public comment to this bill until December 12. We have created detailed instructions on how you can get involved and make your voice heard. Please go to http://www.osga.com/gov_regs.html to read the full 52 page document and to get involved.
What do these proposed regulations mean?
Last October the bomb was dropped and the UIGEA was passed into law, thus making payment system providers become the monitors and enforcers of a still ambiguous act. But, there were no regulations for this newly passed bill. Thus, one could argue that since there were no regulations, there was nothing that could actually be violated. However, now there are regulations on the table with associated procedures, costs and penalties. This will undoubtedly make processors who are currently walking the line of violating this law, realize that they have stepped over it and may cause some of the newer processors that have come online in recent months to rethink their choice toof processing gambling transactions. Those who do choose to stay will continue to escalate their pricing models and this will be a cost, that will in some way, will affect the current price of transactions for the consumer. It may even get to the point where your bonus is a free transaction….no more 20% cash or 45% Bonus Plays, instead get a free transfer …valued at $100 or more…
Though the law does seem to exempt ACH, check collection, and wire transfer systems, the exemptions for these participants reflect the fact that these systems currently do not have a way to reasonably identify and block illegal transactions. It has become the banks' responsibility to come up with policies and methods to ensure all transactions are not "illegal" internet gambling related transactions. The proposed rule provides flexibility for regulated entities in crafting their policies and procedures, allowing them to tailor their policies and procedures to their individual circumstances. Thus, different entities may treat Internet and international transactions differently. MBNA may let an ACH through from Turkey, but Citibank may question every Internet transaction.
There is a section in the proposal that talks about creating a prohibited list of vendors. The creation of a list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses may include sportsbooks, processors and who knows what. Would the public get access to this list and what would prevent ABC processor from becoming 123 processor the day after it makes the list? Still, a list of this nature would make the business of gambling offshore continue to seem shady and would wipe out all but the savviest operators.
Now the biggie…..
The proposed regulations mention Western Union and MoneyGram specifically. They are classified under Money Transmitting systems along with ‘PayPal-type’ operational models. These money-transmitting businesses are expected to address ongoing monitoring to detect possible restricted transactions. Examples of this include monitoring and analyzing payment patterns to detect suspicious patterns of payments to a recipient. Anyone who has been shut down by Western Union knows, these businesses have already developed procedures to detect suspicious payment volumes to an individual recipient. However, this will definitely clamp down on person-to-person transfers even more, with potentially lower limits and higher associated costs. In addition, certain money transmitting businesses subscribe to a service that will search the Internet for unauthorized use of the money transmitting business’s trademark. Thus, you may not be able to tell if an online gambling house can use one of these methods by simply going to their website. This will surely drive the business in the US even a bit more underground. Who will want to advertise that they accept Echecks from Chex-R-Us or that MasterCard and Visa are accepted?
So what can be done to prevent the hypocrisy that is the UIGEA from continuing?
Voice your opinion! Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2007. We have created detailed instructions here and outlined a few ideas that you may include below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agencies request comment on whether ongoing monitoring and testing should be included within the examples for the ACH, check collection, and wire transfer systems, and, if so, how such functionality could reasonably be incorporated into those
systems.
Comment:
The idea that every ACH, check and wire transfer should be scrutinized to see if it is an illegal gaming transaction is ludicrous. In this country, the ACH system has become necessary for day to day business. Analyzing each of these transactions may delay processing, thus defeating the entire purpose of the entire system.
The Agencies request comment on whether establishment and maintenance of
such a prohibited list by the Agencies is appropriate. The Agencies also request comment on any other practical or operational aspects of establishing, maintaining, updating, or using such a list. Finally, the Agencies request comment on whether relying on such a list would be an effective means of carrying out the purposes of the Act, if unlawful Internet gambling businesses can change their corporate names with relative ease.
Comment:
Significant investigation and legal analysis would be needed to create such a list. The amount of man hours and associated costs in establishing and maintaining such a list that perhaps is under-inclusive and could potentially damage a company that engages in businesses other than gambling is mind-boggling. In the request for comment “Internet gambling businesses can change their corporate names with relative ease,” seems to answer the question of feasibility of such a list.
Because the Treasury does not have sufficient information to quantify reliably the
costs of developing specific policies and procedures, the Treasury seeks information and
comment on any costs, compliance requirements, or changes in operating procedures
arising from the application of the proposed rule.
Comment:
The proposal states, “It is estimated that the total annual cost to regulated entities
to maintain the policies and procedures will be approximately $4 million.” This might be the cost to sustain the policies, but what will be the associated cost for each of these entities to craft its own polices and have them approved by government…ten of millions! This cost will be most likely passed directly along to the general public. This would ultimately become a burden to all consumers, not just the gamblers. There may be a new monthly fee on our bank statements – UIGEA enforcement - $3.
AND FINALLY…..
The Agencies request comment on additional ways to reduce regulatory burden associated with this proposed rule.
Comment:
You should insert your own comments here……ours range from, ‘eliminate the UIGEA and ALL of the associated costs so that I can do what I want, with my money, in the freedom of my own home’ to ‘repeal the UIGEA and find a way to regulate and tax the Internet Gambling Industry’…..take your pick or use this space to vent your frustration.
Again, the government has given a period for public comment to this bill until December 12. We have created detailed instructions on how you can get involved and make your voice heard. Please go to http://www.osga.com/gov_regs.html to read the full 52 page document and to get involved.
***********
UIGEA Regulations – What They Mean to the Future and How to Get Involved <hr size="1">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="arttext">
Oct 12, 2007, 13:10
</td> <td class="arttext" align="right" valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
The government is asking for your help to finalize regulations, procedures and penalties for the law that they passed over a year ago – the UIGEA. The government was supposed to come out with policies and procedures for the UIGEA within 270 days, but that date in June came and went. So, earlier this month the Department of Treasury issued a notice of joint proposed rulemaking. These are only proposed regulations; the government has given a period for public comment to this bill until December 12. We have created detailed instructions on how you can get involved and make your voice heard. Please go to http://www.osga.com/gov_regs.html to read the full 52 page document and to get involved.
What do these proposed regulations mean?
Last October the bomb was dropped and the UIGEA was passed into law, thus making payment system providers become the monitors and enforcers of a still ambiguous act. But, there were no regulations for this newly passed bill. Thus, one could argue that since there were no regulations, there was nothing that could actually be violated. However, now there are regulations on the table with associated procedures, costs and penalties. This will undoubtedly make processors who are currently walking the line of violating this law, realize that they have stepped over it and may cause some of the newer processors that have come online in recent months to rethink their choice toof processing gambling transactions. Those who do choose to stay will continue to escalate their pricing models and this will be a cost, that will in some way, will affect the current price of transactions for the consumer. It may even get to the point where your bonus is a free transaction….no more 20% cash or 45% Bonus Plays, instead get a free transfer …valued at $100 or more…
Though the law does seem to exempt ACH, check collection, and wire transfer systems, the exemptions for these participants reflect the fact that these systems currently do not have a way to reasonably identify and block illegal transactions. It has become the banks' responsibility to come up with policies and methods to ensure all transactions are not "illegal" internet gambling related transactions. The proposed rule provides flexibility for regulated entities in crafting their policies and procedures, allowing them to tailor their policies and procedures to their individual circumstances. Thus, different entities may treat Internet and international transactions differently. MBNA may let an ACH through from Turkey, but Citibank may question every Internet transaction.
There is a section in the proposal that talks about creating a prohibited list of vendors. The creation of a list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses may include sportsbooks, processors and who knows what. Would the public get access to this list and what would prevent ABC processor from becoming 123 processor the day after it makes the list? Still, a list of this nature would make the business of gambling offshore continue to seem shady and would wipe out all but the savviest operators.
Now the biggie…..
The proposed regulations mention Western Union and MoneyGram specifically. They are classified under Money Transmitting systems along with ‘PayPal-type’ operational models. These money-transmitting businesses are expected to address ongoing monitoring to detect possible restricted transactions. Examples of this include monitoring and analyzing payment patterns to detect suspicious patterns of payments to a recipient. Anyone who has been shut down by Western Union knows, these businesses have already developed procedures to detect suspicious payment volumes to an individual recipient. However, this will definitely clamp down on person-to-person transfers even more, with potentially lower limits and higher associated costs. In addition, certain money transmitting businesses subscribe to a service that will search the Internet for unauthorized use of the money transmitting business’s trademark. Thus, you may not be able to tell if an online gambling house can use one of these methods by simply going to their website. This will surely drive the business in the US even a bit more underground. Who will want to advertise that they accept Echecks from Chex-R-Us or that MasterCard and Visa are accepted?
So what can be done to prevent the hypocrisy that is the UIGEA from continuing?
Voice your opinion! Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2007. We have created detailed instructions here and outlined a few ideas that you may include below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agencies request comment on whether ongoing monitoring and testing should be included within the examples for the ACH, check collection, and wire transfer systems, and, if so, how such functionality could reasonably be incorporated into those
systems.
Comment:
The idea that every ACH, check and wire transfer should be scrutinized to see if it is an illegal gaming transaction is ludicrous. In this country, the ACH system has become necessary for day to day business. Analyzing each of these transactions may delay processing, thus defeating the entire purpose of the entire system.
The Agencies request comment on whether establishment and maintenance of
such a prohibited list by the Agencies is appropriate. The Agencies also request comment on any other practical or operational aspects of establishing, maintaining, updating, or using such a list. Finally, the Agencies request comment on whether relying on such a list would be an effective means of carrying out the purposes of the Act, if unlawful Internet gambling businesses can change their corporate names with relative ease.
Comment:
Significant investigation and legal analysis would be needed to create such a list. The amount of man hours and associated costs in establishing and maintaining such a list that perhaps is under-inclusive and could potentially damage a company that engages in businesses other than gambling is mind-boggling. In the request for comment “Internet gambling businesses can change their corporate names with relative ease,” seems to answer the question of feasibility of such a list.
Because the Treasury does not have sufficient information to quantify reliably the
costs of developing specific policies and procedures, the Treasury seeks information and
comment on any costs, compliance requirements, or changes in operating procedures
arising from the application of the proposed rule.
Comment:
The proposal states, “It is estimated that the total annual cost to regulated entities
to maintain the policies and procedures will be approximately $4 million.” This might be the cost to sustain the policies, but what will be the associated cost for each of these entities to craft its own polices and have them approved by government…ten of millions! This cost will be most likely passed directly along to the general public. This would ultimately become a burden to all consumers, not just the gamblers. There may be a new monthly fee on our bank statements – UIGEA enforcement - $3.
AND FINALLY…..
The Agencies request comment on additional ways to reduce regulatory burden associated with this proposed rule.
Comment:
You should insert your own comments here……ours range from, ‘eliminate the UIGEA and ALL of the associated costs so that I can do what I want, with my money, in the freedom of my own home’ to ‘repeal the UIGEA and find a way to regulate and tax the Internet Gambling Industry’…..take your pick or use this space to vent your frustration.
Again, the government has given a period for public comment to this bill until December 12. We have created detailed instructions on how you can get involved and make your voice heard. Please go to http://www.osga.com/gov_regs.html to read the full 52 page document and to get involved.
