I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

[THE SHRINK]

Barney Frank introduced his new Bill today..

Franks' Bill would exempt online operators from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enactment Act (UIGEA) and would require them to put in place protections against underage and compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud.

The Act would also set up a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals in the U.S, but only to the extent already permitted by individual states, Indian tribes and sport leagues.

As such, the Act is limited in scope, and by no means represents a green light to allow offshore gambling companies back into the US.

P.S.

Here is a link to the actual Bill...

http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/internet-gambling-regulations-act.pdf

 

[Dawg Pound]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Well....wasn't that their "master plan"??????? It's just coming a year or two earlier. Wipe out the offshore industry, take them to their knees, cut off funding, prosecute operators..........then bring the bacon home to the US in the form of domestic Casinos providing the services such as MGM etc. and benefiting in revenues, and the US reaping millions in tax revenues.

What Barney Frank doesn't realize is that this adds salt to the wounds of the WTO decision between the US and Antigua and adds more full to the fire, as it is further openly discriminating, and protectionism for US based interests.

Antigua has already responded saying they hope they (the US) is going to include the Antiguan licensed industry in the their master plan. And IMHO....I don't think so.

And BTW....it is not a repeal bill......it is new legislation to allow online gaming in the US utilizing US based operators.

 

[JeffR]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

While I haven't had a chance to wade through the thicket of exemptions, regulations, and legalese in the bill, what Frank seems to be doing is setting up a framework for developing a domestic (as opposed to offshore) internet gambling industry. It's a bit of a curveball tossed in, because most of us would simply be happy to have unfettered access to our favorite offshore sportsbooks. Frank seems to be talking about a whole new industry, with all the bureaucracy and "big-brotherism" that that implies.

While it's not what most of us had in mind, it's understandable that a congressman would want to cover his derriere on all sides, and craft the bill to make it look as "patriotic" as possible, playing up the tax revenue and money laundering supervision angles, and making concessions to Indian tribes, state laws, and sports leagues.

But if a domestic industry ever did/does develop, the US would have to allow access to offshore companies as well, unless they wanted to run afoul of the WTO again. On balance it seems better than nothing, and may produce some constructive debate. And even if the bill seems heavily weighted toward the upscale poker playing lobby, it's still a foot in the door. I'll happily set up a "dummy" poker account at Pinny, before shifting the funds into my real area of interest. At best it's a tentative starting point.... :+clueless

 

[jimmycrackcorn]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

I am certainly not a politician, but it does seem as though what he has submitted would gain at least an "open minded" listen from a greater majority than possibly other versions. At least once he had everyones attention with an open mind, then maybe "tweeks" could be made by others in the future???? JCC

 

[The Judge]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

The federal government can not dictate that the individual States must allow Internet or any other form of gambling. A handfull of states have passed legislation that in fact make online gambling illegal and Frank has recognized this in his bill.

Based on the following excerpt, it appears that the bill does allow for foreign based operators provided that they are licensed in the countries in which they are located.

REVOCATION OF LICENSE.?<O</O
(1) IN GENERAL.?Any license granted under this subchapter shall be terminated or revoked by the Director if?<O</O
??(A) the licensee fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter; or<O</O
??(B) the licensee, or in any case in which the licensee the licensee is a corporation, partnership, or other business entity, any officer, partner, or director of that corporation, partnership, or other entity, is convicted of a crime involving the payments system, financial markets, or Internet gambling laws of the United States or of the jurisdiction in which the licensee is located.<O</O

 

[The General]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

As I read this, current legit/ honest operators may have a chance, although slim also IMO. Other thing is how do you ever have a chance to win with vig and then everything taxed in the sports betting arena? Just soon see a tax hike starting today and let me wager offshore forever.

 

[JC]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

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

 

[ASKMEA?]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

And this suprises anyone? The US simply coud give a shit about Antiqua and the WTO in this case.

 

[patswin]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Here is the part I didn't like
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.

Great, so the NFL says it will not allow bets on its games so we can't wager with a licensed opeator= wager with offshore books, same as we do today. If all the leagues are against it all of us sports bettors are SOL

 

[THE SHRINK]

Investors See through this Rhetoric too...

Investors See through this Rhetoric too...

UK gaming stocks down sharply after new US gaming legislation proposed

Partygaming PLC and other UK gaming stocks were down sharply in trading today after US Congressman Barney Frank introduced legislation that could benefit American gaming companies at the expense of overseas firms.

Frank, chairman of the US House of Representatives' Financial Services Committee, wants to introduce a Bill to lift the American ban on online gambling transactions. The legislation would allow licensed operators to apply for an exemption to the ban providing they have safeguards to stop underage gambling.

Partygaming was down 12.8 pct to 51 pence, while Sportingbet PLC was down 3.24 pct and Global Gaming Technologies PLC fell 5.6 pct. 888 Holdings PLC fell 2.3 pct to 118 pence.

The downturn in UK shares follows recent speculation that prohibitions on online gaming would be eased.

One trader noted that the selling of UK stocks was overdone, as the proposed legislation concerns security controls but does not constitute a comprehensive ban against British internet gaming firms.

 

[NickPappagiorgio]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Im not sure why people are having a problem with this. I have always believed that the government is not upset that people gamble, but instead that there are billions of revenues that they cannot tax. Ii would have no problem gambling online with companies based in The US. I believe casinos here would also alleviate some of the no-pay situations if these casinos became regulated.

Im sure I am missing the bigger picture of this though.

 

[Mr. Smith]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

they can tax it and stay the fuck out of peoples lives. they are just STUPID

 

[Dawg Pound]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

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.

Exactly as I stated above JC. By Frank even introducing the bill today he has added further insult to the WTO decision. Some people could even interpret this as a US response to the decision. I can't believe that Antigua feels upbeat about this in any shape or form. I think Antigua is playing a cat and mouse game right now with their response to the proposed legislation. "Oh....so you guys have us penciled in right?" He would have been better off introducing legislation to repeal the UIGA. It would have shed better light on the US with some intent to correct all of the wrong.

 

[sean1]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

So now the banks are going to have to figure out which books are licensed and which ones are not?? Ha ha ha.

The whole thing is a joke.

The UIGEA has done nothing to harm internet gambling.

The neteller arrest has changed things, but that was not based on the UIGEA.

It makes little difference what the government does. All we need is another neteller like service to spring up.

-Sean

 

[ASKMEA?]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

ON THE WAY AS WE SPEAK

 

[JTGAMBLE]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

does this mean mofome cant gamble online anymore

 

[Mr. Smith]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

England seems to have little trouble taxing and regulating on-line gambling. I realize the US government is nothing but a bunch of stupid corrupt fat cats, but send a committee over there and learn from them if the US govt thinks getting a grasp on this is so difficult

 

[sean1]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Yes, but England taxes books in England. The US wants to tax books in England.

-Sean


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 he's a moron.

I'm going with he is trying to make things sound good. There is a chance people will vote for regulated gambling. There is no chance people will vote for the wild west, but the effect will be 100% the same. If you make some books legal, in effect, all become legal. You have to think Barney knows this.

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 not 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?

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. Right now they are against gamblign cause it is "illegal" Make it legal and it is nice good money.

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.... Bill passes, new neteller opens, some books get licensed. Some books get licenses just to help move money to unlicensed ones... I'm sure a book like Pinnacle has enough money to keep getting subsidiaries licensed even if some are shut down.. EVerything is how it used to be... 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

 

[ASKMEA?]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

England seems to have little trouble taxing and regulating on-line gambling. I realize the US government is nothing but a bunch of stupid corrupt fat cats, but send a committee over there and learn from them if the US govt thinks getting a grasp on this is so difficult

From the BRITS, hah, US already has all the answers to the worlds problems, you should know that.

 

[Woody]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

There was a large international conference on online gambling in England last year, primarily for regulators and legislators. The US chose not to send any representatives or observers.

 

[patswin]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

So now the banks are going to have to figure out which books are licensed and which ones are not?? Ha ha ha.

The whole thing is a joke.

The UIGEA has done nothing to harm internet gambling.

The neteller arrest has changed things, but that was not based on the UIGEA.

It makes little difference what the government does. All we need is another neteller like service to spring up.

-Sean

Sean the UIGEA has done alot to harm internet gambling,who are you kidding.....no more pinnacle, no more neteller, many shops closed to US customers,hard to move money around fast, same day payouts now take 3-4 weeks. Its changed everything.

 

[sean1]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

The only change came with the Neteller arrest and that was based on money laundering, not the UIGEA.

I dont know anyone having trouble playing at Pinnacle...

Sean

 

[Mr. Smith]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

sean1, in order to gain access to the US market, I dont think paying some taxes will disuade any English books or ones from anywhere else for that matter.

there will be some who opt to go untaxed and "illegal" but the legal ones will be the ones cleaning up as every "regular Joe" idiot out there will opt for those places because they are safer. I mean if your worried about safety, and are just a regular guy with one account who wants to bet NFL parlays are you going to have an account at bowmans.com or jose'sillegalsportsbook.com

to get access to a great number of potential customers, all they have to do is pay some taxes. seems like a very fair trade off. many will jump at the offer.

 

[Mr Fury]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Sorry for the personal slant, but:
Would you expect anything any better from this dirtbag.
I am surprised that it doesn't have even more limitations
and restrictions in it.
Just another typical build a bigger big brother bill from a
limp wristed politician.
:+whipping

 

[JeffR]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

I'll split the difference between Sean and Patswin: I agree with Sean that technically, the UIGEA hasn't even gone into effect yet. No one has been charged with any crime based on the UIGEA, in fact no regs have even been drawn up for the UIGEA at this point. I agree with Patswin in this sense: The UIGEA was a symbol, a threat, a throwing down of the gauntlet, a statement that Bush and his lackey Gonzales mean business, a means of intimidating the Pinnacles of the world. And it did serve to scare the bejesus out of the offshore community. But no prosecution has taken place that involves the UIGEA. Every current prosecution is based on the archaic Wire Act, passed in 1961, during the JFK/Robert Kennedy crackdown on organized crime, when the mob was still a major presence in Vegas, when nobody could even conceive of an internet where mom and pop engaged in recreational gambling in the privacy of their own home....

 

[WildBill]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

When people in Antigua starting voting for the US President and Congress then you can expect favorable legislation for them. Until then, this is ALWAYS going to be the type of response we should expect. When the breaks Boeing was getting to compete with Airbus were called illegal by the WTO, did our Congress say oh well, time to change things for Airbus' benefit? Of course not! They just tricked up some new indirect subsidies and tax breaks which were different, but in spirit the same. This is why the WTO will never greatly succeed in the long run, its a unelected body trying to play judge with people who only care about themselves. As we speak we have Congress on the verge of starting a trade war with China, partly through the WTO for show, but mostly through just plain old tariffs that act as if the WTO isn't ever going to accomplish what they want. In light of that why should anyone expect a proposed Congressional action work in close concert with a WTO ruling?

 

[sean1]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

How is the common bettor gonna know which sportsbooks are legal? If 10 become legal 100 will advertise that they are legal and will put whatever seal/license of approval, whatever on their website.

Sean

 

[WildBill]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

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

This might be the opinion of attorneys, but it will never fly. This would require the US and a number of other countries to change their Constitutions and no one is going to change them because the WTO said so. Is a company really going to sue the US demanding gambling be legalized in Utah? This problem will exist elsewhere as well. If you live in Macau you can bet on sports and lottery games by phone or internet. Its not clear whether this is legal in Hong Kong, but supposedly many do it. However it is has been clearly deemed illegal in China, in fact Chinese law bans all gambling, but has conveniently legalized lottery games. Is the WTO really going to demand China allow it to be offered in the rest of the country by local and international operators? I think not.

The WTO is going to have a very hard time opening up laws that prohibit an activity. The point of the WTO is to make the playing field level in commerce. If a state or country has a law which is discriminatory in favor of a local business that should be fair game for the WTO. If it has a law which prohibits something, then it should pretty much be left alone. If the WTO were to choose to push aggressively in this it will face a massive problem and could jeopardize its existence.

Local legal choices are written into most democratic nations' constitutions, the WTO can't go about messing with that because it will never succeed. Further if the WTO makes it a mission to enact legal changes, not regulatory changes, they will become completely ignored in too many instances.

 

[Woody]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Is a company really going to sue the US demanding gambling be legalized in Utah?

I believe Utah is one of a handful of States in compliance with WTO regulations. There is no protectionism of local suppliers of gaming, it is simply banned completely.

WTO is all about "fair trade", whatever that means.

 

[tennisplayer]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

i used to be on pinnacle and would like to know how you can.

 

[Whoson1st]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

I believe Utah is one of a handful of States in compliance with WTO regulations. There is no protectionism of local suppliers of gaming, it is simply banned completely.

WTO is all about "fair trade", whatever that means.

Now this DEFINATELY makes sense. I hadn't really thought of it that way, but it is CLEAR that UTAH is in compliance with the WTO. Most states in the US are NOT in compliance.

 

[Bagiant]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Wasn't it Vegas that chased all the big boys offshore to start with? They didn't want their action, and conducted everything from cell phone bans to raids and not allowing runners and curbing bet sizes. I guess they could still put limits on bets to keep the sharps offshore while gathering up all the squares and recreational gamblers across the country that would feel "safe" placing a bet with Caesers Palace online book. Of course there would be no credit card bans or WU problems with money being sent inside the good old USA!

 

[sean1]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

For the person who asked about Pinnacle, you use a foreign bank account and IP address - both very legal.

Sean

 

[Dawg Pound]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

First off, Vegas had nothing to do with driving the big boys offshore. Credit operators at first went offshore for sanctuary from getting their doors knocked down by the local police on Sunday afternoons. Then you had the "Grey Area People" like the late Kenny Hense who believed that while we're out here, why not try to advertise and get some people to "post-up" funds to bet with us, thinking that if the money's here and the bets are offshore, then maybe the Wire Act of 1962 doesn't pertain to us. Hense, with all that he did for the industry as a gambling attorney, must be turning over in his grave about now. A true pioneer RIP.

Second off, I don't what all the fantasizing is about that is going on this thread. Barney Rubble sold the offshore industry out. All anyone heard previously was that how he was going to "repeal" the UIGA. The UIGA stays in place, and the crooks offshore can drown, while we open up regular shops on the mainland using credible companies. Who the heck would want to send money offshore via Western Union beyond any jurisdiction that the gov't controlled when they can be playing safely with MGM using their debit cards? Only those who seek to evade taxable income on winnings.....maybe.

Then you're really dreaming if you think any of this could happen legally in the US without squaring up first with Antigua. They would have to first opt out of the gaming sector of the WTO which would cost them millions. And who knows which country would be in line for reparations. The US is backed up into a corner right now, and they must settle the issue with Antigua first before they make any decisions to implement "any" new laws for gaming. And the US government will never allow any operator offshore out of their jurisdiction, Antigua included.

 

[sean1]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

The US can not settle with Antigua.

If they do, every other island nation will file a dispute.

Sean

 

[THE SHRINK]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

First off this new bill will NEVER be voted through and passed by the House and Senate so forget about it...

So how is this is progress?

A few salient points I agree with include:

Americans are already allowed to "lawfully bet online....to the extent permitted by individual states". This bill isn't "allowing" any new lawful bets.

A State's "properly licensed operator" is already exempted from "the ban".

It says along with your state regulation, you now get a new level of Federal regulation. Isn't that grand?

As for the WTO...

Well, the WTO or any other treaty organization can't trash the U.S. constitution which grants the states many rights, just because they don't like those rights.

If the federal government signs a treaty which contains provisions that they don't even have the power to enforce, then the signatory on the other side of the treaty needs to be aware of that before they sign on the dotted line.

THE SHRINK

 

[roach23]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

:gros3d8:

 

[Barrister]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Lads

I think it is a good development, even if the bill itself is, as John Turrturo would say, "laughable, man." From our perspective, it gives us something to negotiate over, a starting point from which to work. I am arranging a meeting with Frank's staff for the week after next.

I know many of you think that our case will end up nowhere, but after being in the thick of it now for more than four years I am still quite confident that Antigua is going to get some very real benefit out of the case. Keep in mind, our real goal is a negotiated settlement--we never expected them to simply repeal the Wire Act and swing the doors wide open.

I would like to address a couple of points that were in this thread. First, with respect to international and interstate commerce, the states themselves have no say unless the federal government expressly allows them to. So, an international treaty dealing with international commerce will trump any state law on the same topic, period. Utah, for example, has no right to prohibit international commerce from Antigua to be transacted within its borders if the federal government has decided otherwise.

Second, I don't see any other countries bringing a WTO action on this issue for some time. I think many are waiting to see how our case finally sorts out, many don't have the resources, political will or time to fight a protracted battle like Antigua has and many are too much on the renegade side to be able to argue effectively on the topic at the WTO. Further, Antigua believes in free trade as well, so we never expected that we were going to get some lifetime exemption from US gaming restrictions. But what we are looking for is some short-term advantage--where Antiguan firms can conduct their business without the shackles and nonsense that the Americans have imposed upon the industry for a good enough period of time that once the US decides to comprehensively open its doors to remote gaming, the Antiguan operators will have a decent chance at competing with the Harrah's and Bellagios of the Web that are bound to spring up.

All the best

 

[Whoson1st]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

Barrister's points also seem 100% correct...I don't know what to think anymore!

I know only that Antigua books seem a better place to play than Costa Rica; if you play at all. If the US authorities wanted to arrest WSEX and others operating LEGALLY from there --They don't seem to be in hiding.

 

[sean1]

Re: I am not happy with Barney Frank's Repeal Bill...

The US has never arrested any bookie in Antigua, the UK, Australia, Jamaica, Panama, Costa Rica, etc.

The only arrests have been in the US and Dominican Republic. Booking is illegal in the DR and the US gave them some nice perks to help with arrests.

As long as your bookie stays out of the above two places, he should be fine.

I probably wouldn't spend much time in Canada either if I was an offshore book owner.

Sean