Regulations are out - Poker Legislation

JPFisher55 · 10-01-2007, 11:15 AM

Ok I am surprised. But http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...oposedrule.pdf seems to be the new UIGEA regulations. (hope link works)
I have only read the first 13 pages. I note that "unlawful internet gambling" remains undefined and the agency said that it will not define the term because the UIGEA does not define the term. So I cannot see the purpose in any comments on this issue.
OTOH, the second paragraph of exemptions from the regulations starts with this sentence. "The Agencies are proposing to exempt all participants in the ACH systems, check collection systems, and wire transfer systems, except for the participant that possesses the customer relationship with the Internet gambling business (and certain participants that receive certain cross-border transactions from, or send certain such transactions to,
foreign payment service providers, as discussed further below)."
This seems hopeful, but I will have to read the rest of the regulations to be sure of anything. Without some definition of the term "unlawful internet gambling" I do not understand how banks and other financial institutions are going to obey these regulations? Perhaps this should be a comment. I don't know. I'll post later after I read the entire regulation.

sup_bro · 10-01-2007, 11:36 AM

going off ur comments on it...it all seems very promising...let's hope they keep the regs as "vague" as u believe they are, no need to define "unlawful internet gambling," which means the status quo will continue for now which is VERY VERY good news......

jeff329 · 10-01-2007, 11:36 AM

Since only some will have the energy/ability to get through this, please anyone who does post significant portions like JP did with your opinion on it...

sup_bro · 10-01-2007, 11:45 AM

i actually read a bit more and they propose that keeping an updated list of unlawful internet gambling businesses is NOT RECOMMENDED due to the costs involved...another good thing.....i know some were waiting of the sky to fall with these regs, but i have to be honest with you, after reviewing the document, i feel as though a 2+2er was one of the parties involved with writing this document.....very non descript and no teeth whatsoever.....

1p0kerboy · 10-01-2007, 11:57 AM

Looking forward to thorough reviews from knowledgeable posters when you guys get done reading and interpreting the thing.

meleader2 · 10-01-2007, 12:00 PM

"The Act directs the Agencies to exempt certain restricted transactions or
designated payment systems from any requirements imposed under the regulations if the
Agencies find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise
prevent or prohibit the acceptance of, such transactions. Section 4 of the proposed rule
provides such an exemption for certain participants in ACH systems, check collection
systems, and wire transfer systems. The proposed regulation is structured to impose
requirements on participants in designated payments systems with respect to the
segments of particular transactions that those participants handle. Therefore, rather than
exempting entire categories of restricted transactions or entire payment systems, the
Agencies have structured the exemptions to apply to particular participants in particular
payment systems as described in greater detail below. The Agencies believe that this
limited application of their exemption authority better serves the Act&#8217;s purposes of
preventing the processing of restricted transactions."

Grasshopp3r · 10-01-2007, 12:02 PM

The initial reaction for Party stock is neutral. That is the more relevant indicator to these regs.

cowboy.up · 10-01-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

"The Act directs the Agencies to exempt certain restricted transactions or
designated payment systems from any requirements imposed under the regulations if the
Agencies find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise
prevent or prohibit the acceptance of, such transactions.

Isn't that the money line? If it's too hard to do, then don't bother with it?

**Berge20** · 10-01-2007, 12:06 PM

Swamped at the moment, but will try and read today and get a summary up if you haven't already gotten the highlights down.

Warteen · 10-01-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

The initial reaction for Party stock is neutral. That is the more relevant indicator to these regs.

Why would Party stock be affected by US legislation?

jeff329 · 10-01-2007, 12:13 PM

"The Agencies do not enforce the gambling laws, and interpretations by the
Agencies in these areas may not be determinative in defining the Act’s legal coverage.
As noted above, the Act does not comprehensively or clearly define which activities are
lawful and which are unlawful, but rather relies on underlying substantive law.21 In order
to compile a list of businesses engaged in unlawful Internet gambling under the Act, the
Agencies would have to formally interpret the various Federal and State gambling laws in
order to determine whether the activities of each business that appears to conduct some
type of gambling-related function are unlawful under those statutes."

This seems to make it clear that this law changes nothing in terms of the legal ambiguity of online poker. Could a Party re-renter because now it has been established that it isn't established? I mean now that poker is not clearly illegal, what stops them from joining the US market until it is?

Grasshopp3r · 10-01-2007, 12:15 PM

If the regs are sufficiently toothless, then Party may re-enter the US market. The US market was over 3/4 of their business. If the traders don't pounce on this event, that is meaningful.

meleader2 · 10-01-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

If the regs are sufficiently toothless, then Party may re-enter the US market. The US market was over 3/4 of their business.

this is true if party wants to be a non-public company, however they're risking a ridiculous amount of negative exposure if they do it, and potential extradition.

also i thought they paid the US gov't fines, y would they risk going back into the us market again?

i think a more relevant conclusion would be that if the UIGEA doesn't state the POKER is illegal they can make software that COMPLIES with the UIGEA and only offer poker, reenter the us market after consulting with numerous lawyers.

PLO8FaceKilla · 10-01-2007, 12:34 PM

how about the smart people tell me on a scale of 1-10 with (1 being bad and 10 being good) how good this is for poker players?

also, i live in a "danger state" not a felony one, but i have a check on the way. Should i be worried or is this going to take a while for banks to get going with this?

DeadMoneyDad · 10-01-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

i actually read a bit more and they propose that keeping an updated list of unlawful internet gambling businesses is NOT RECOMMENDED due to the costs involved...another good thing.....i know some were waiting of the sky to fall with these regs, but i have to be honest with you, after reviewing the document, i feel as though a 2+2er was one of the parties involved with writing this document.....very non descript and no teeth whatsoever.....

Let's all say a prayer for all the people who pushed for and passed the Paperwork Reduction Act.

I had kind of hoped they would suggest a working list so we could fight that issue as I know how to defeat that one with the OMB.

D$D