论坛

 找回密码
 注册
                  
查看: 1264|回复: 1

Legal Expert Critical Of UIGEA Regulations

[复制链接]
发表于 2007-10-19 00:23 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Published: Thursday, October 18, 2007 mgowanbo.cc

"The most important thing for online poker players to know is that nothing has changed," says Professor Rose

The highly respected online gambling legal expert, Professor I. Nelson Rose has strongly criticised the recently published regulations supporting the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which seeks to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling companies.

Professor Rose, whose site Gambling and the Law.com is a popular venue for visitors seeking legal information and views, comments that the most important thing for online poker players to know is that nothing has changed. "And nothing will, for many, many months," he claims.

Tagging the unpopular law "Prohibition 2.0" Professor Rose recounts its highly contentious passage through the US Congress last year and the subsequent Bush Administration delays in producing regulations to give the law teeth - well over the 270 day deadline decided by Congress.

"Prohibition 2.0 is often characterized as outlawing Internet gambling in the U.S.," writes Professor Rose. "Although it scared the bejesus out of publicly traded companies, it actually does only two things: It creates one new crime, being a gambling business that accepts money for unlawful Internet gambling transactions, and it calls for new regulations for banks and other payment processors.

"What it doesn’t do is make it a crime to play poker on the Internet. It doesn’t directly restrict players from sending or receiving money. It doesn’t spell out what forms of gambling are “unlawful.” Specifically, it does not do what the federal Department of Justice (“DOJ”) wanted, which was to “clarify” that the Wire Act covers Internet casinos, lotteries and poker."

The legal expert goes on to point out that only gambling businesses can be convicted, not players.

"Bizarrely, for a law designed to prevent money transfers, the financial institutions involved in those transfers, including banks, credit card companies and e-wallets, are expressly defined as not being gambling businesses and so cannot be convicted of this new crime," Professor Rose emphasises.

Turning to the newly published regulations, which are open for comment until December 12, following which any changes will be made and a further six months allowed for setting up procedures, Professor Rose asserts that this is not going to happen.

"It took ten months just to draw up the proposed regs," he points out. "In part, this is because the agencies given the job of writing the regs don’t agree on what should be done about Internet gambling. The DOJ wants all internet gambling outlawed; Treasury, including the IRS, does not really want it outlawed, it wants to tax it; and the Federal Reserve Board is expressly against any regulations on banks that would put them at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors."

The proposed regulations put the burden entirely on the payment processors to come up with procedures for identifying and blocking restricted money transfers, but Rose does not believe this can be done in six months - in fact, he doesn't believe it is achievable at all.

"The problem is defining “unlawful Internet gambling,” he says. "Even the DOJ admits that some forms of online wagers are perfectly legal. For example, I can sit in my home in Encino, and, using my credit card, make bets by computer with a California licensed racebook. The system is called Advanced Deposit Wagering (“ADW”), since I have to fund my legal bookie account in advance.
"Congress, in December 2000, amended the Interstate Horseracing Act (“IHA”) to make it legal for ADW on horse races, so long as the bets and races were legal under state laws.

"And here’s an example of why it is impossible to know what is an unlawful gambling transaction. The DOJ agrees that I can make ADW bets with a California licensed bookie on races held here or in any of the 20 other states that have legalized ADW. But everyone else who has read the IHA, including state racing commissions, believes it is perfectly legal for me to set up my ADW with a licensed bookie in another state. So, how is a credit card processor supposed to handle my request to fund an ADW in Oregon ?

"Everyone agrees that I could not make online bets on horseraces if I were in Utah . So payment processors would have to have cyber-border software to ensure that I don’t try to make a bet with my laptop from Salt Lake City . How else will a credit card company or my California bank know not to transfer the money even to a California licensed horsebook?"

Professor Rose has also considered the popular pastime of online poker in his study, and writes that California has had legal cardrooms since the Gold Rush.

"But 157 years of bad cases and obscure statutes make it a crime to participate, as a player, in any poker game where the pot is raked more than four times. If the state’s laws apply to online poker – a big if – how many payment processors even know what it means to rake a pot four times?" he asks.

He goes on to opine that the new UIGEA regulations have so many exceptions that, when they do finally get officially promulgated, Americans will still be able to play poker online for money. "For example, the federal agencies understood that banks do not, and cannot, read paper checks. So in the worst case, players can always reload or receive their winnings by snailmail!"

Other loopholes underlined by the Professor are that all parts of all payment processing systems are exempt, except the financial institution that deals directly with the gambling operation. And the regulations clearly do not directly cover financial institutions in other countries. Therefore, anyone who uses a credit card issued by a foreign bank should encounter no trouble.

"If I send a check from Bank of America to pay off my Hong Kong issued Visa, neither the B of A nor the Hong Kong bank are required to ask whether I’m using the card for gambling," Professor Rose postulates.

American payment processors are required by the UGIEA regulations to check payments going in and out of the United States, implying that a clearing house is supposed to have procedures in place to check that the money it is forwarding is not used for unlawful gambling. This might be possible if the funds went directly to an online operator or even the operator’s bank. But what if the money went to a foreign clearing house, that cannot possibly know what the funds are used for?

Professor Rose says that whilst all of this may be good news for the American player community, the bad news is that US banks and other financial institutions are basically conservative. And in addition, the DOJ has been waging a war of intimidation on both operators and payment processors – he uses Neteller, PayPal and credit card companies who have voluntarily barred all gaming transactions as an example.

"The proposed regs make it clear that payment processors should not block money transfers for legal gambling. They specifically note that some Internet wagers have been declared legal under "Prohibition 2.0" and these include not only interstate horseracing, but all forms of gambling, including poker, if done correctly and conducted entirely within a single state or on tribal land," Professor Rose notes.

"But there is no real downside in telling bank customers and credit card holders that they cannot send any funds to any gambling site. The only thing the banks lose are possibly some customers. But allowing patrons to send funds to a gaming site that turns out to involve an unlawful transaction opens the banks to fines and other government punishments."

The Professor claims that US financial institutions wanted US federal authorities to give them a blacklist of who they should not send funds to. But the agencies refused, saying that such a list would be too difficult to create; plus, some operators may handle legal as well as illegal transactions.

"So, all large payment processors are going to take the least risky path and block all gambling transactions, even ones that are indisputably legal. There is no law forcing them to transmit funds for legal gambling," he concludes will be the likely outcome of this confusing situation.

"But, in the end, Prohibition 2.0 and its regulations will be as successful in preventing people from gambling and playing poker online as the first Prohibition was in preventing people from drinking," Professor Rose concludes.
 楼主| 发表于 2007-10-26 10:50 | 显示全部楼层
法律专家批评uigea法规

出版:周四, 2007年10月18日mgowanbo.cc

"最重要的事,在线扑克游戏所知道的是,没有任何改变, "教授说,玫瑰

高度尊重网上赌博的法律专家,教授一纳尔逊罗斯已强烈批评最近公布的规章,支持美国的非法互联网赌博活动的执法行为,是旨在破坏金融交易与网上赌博公司。

教授上涨,其网站赌博及law.com是一个热门地点,供游人寻求法律信息和意见,评论说,最重要的是要把网上扑克玩家知道的是,没有发生任何改变。 " ,并不会出现,对很多人来说,许多个月, "他声称。

标注这些不受欢迎法" ,禁止2.0 "教授玫瑰重新计其具争议性能够顺利通过,美国国会去年和随后,布什政府迟迟生产规章,使法律的牙齿-大大超过了2 70天的期限内,决定由国会批准。

"禁止2.0特点往往是作为取缔互联网赌博在美国, "中写道教授上升。 "虽然害怕,该bejesus出的公开交易的公司,它实际上只有两件事:它创造了一个新的犯罪,作为一个博彩业接受金钱为非法互联网赌博交易的,它呼唤新的法规,为银行和其他款项处理器。

"什么也不做的是使之成为一个犯罪发挥扑克在互联网上。它没有直接限制玩家从发送或接收款项。它没有说明是什么形式的赌博都是"非法"具体来说,它不这样做有什么联邦司法部( "司法部" )的要求,这就是要"澄清"说,丝法涉及网上赌场,彩票和扑克。 "

法律专家接着指出,只有赌博业务,可以被定罪,而不是球员。

"怪异的是,对于一项法律,目的在于防止资金转移,各金融机构参与这些转让,包括银行,信用卡公司和电子钱包,明确界定为不赌博业务,所以不能定罪,这一新的犯罪, "教授玫瑰调了。

谈到新公布的规章,这是公开征求意见,直至12月12日之后,任何改革都必须和再延长6个月获准设立的程序,教授玫瑰声称,这是不会发生的。

"我们花了10个月,只是制定了拟议的规则, "他指出。 "中的一部分,这是因为考虑到机构的工作,写作新华社北京6月28不同意就应做什么对互联网进行赌博。司法部要求所有的互联网上的赌博取缔;财政部,包括国税局,并非真想它取缔,要税;和联邦储备委员会是明确反对任何法规对银行,这将使他们处于不利的竞争地位与外国竞争对手。 "

建议中的规例,把包袱完全支付的处理器来与程序,确定并阻断限制资金转移,但上涨不相信这是可以做到的,在6个月内-事实上,他并不认为这是可以实现的,在所有。

"问题是,在界定"非法互联网赌博的, "他说, "即使是美国司法部承认,某些形式的网上投注,是完全合法的。举例来说,我可以坐在我的家在encino ,并用我的信用卡,使投注用电脑与加州一间持牌racebook 。该系统被称为先进存款下注( " adw " ),因为我已经向基金,我的合法赌博帐户,具有超前性。
"代表大会, 2000年12月修改了州际赛马法(下称"医院管理局" ) ,使法律为adw赌马,只要投注和种族人的法律根据国家的法律规定。

"这里的一个例子,所以这是不可能知道什么是非法赌博交易。司法部同意,我可以作出adw投注与加州一间持牌赌博赛事在这里举行,或在任何的其他20个国家已合法化adw 。但天下之人,有看过间接血凝,包括国家赛车委员会认为,这是完全合法的,我订了我的adw与持牌赌博,在另一个国家。因此,如何是一个信用卡处理器来处理我的请求下,以基金的一个adw在俄勒冈州呢?

"每个人都认为我不能做网上投注horseraces如果我是在犹他州。所以付款处理器会确保有足够的网络边界软件,以确保我不设法使打赌与我的笔记本电脑,从盐湖城。如何否则,将信用卡公司或我的加州银行知道,不把这笔钱甚至达到了加州持牌horsebook ? "

教授玫瑰也考虑到大众消遣的在线扑克在他的研究报告,并写道:加州有了法律cardrooms自从淘金潮。

"但一百五十七年的恶劣情况下,模糊章程,使之成为犯罪的参与,作为一个球员,在任何扑克游戏壶是秋后算帐的4倍多。如果该国的法律适用于网上扑克-一个大如-有多少金额的处理器即使知道这意味着什么,以攫取了一盆4倍? "他问。

他继续认为新uigea规定,有这么多的例外是,当他们终于得到正式颁布,美国人仍然能够发挥网上扑克为金钱。 "举例来说,联邦机构认识到,银行没有,也不能阅读文件检查。因此,在最坏的情况下,球员可以随时刷新或领取奖金由snailmail ! "

其他漏洞强调,由教授,是各部分的所有付款处理系统的豁免,除非该金融机构处理直接与赌博行动。和议事规则,显然不直接涉及金融机构在其他国家。因此,任何人使用信用卡发行由一家外国银行应该遇到任何麻烦。

"如果我派遣一个检查,由美国银行支付了我的香港签发签证,但无论是乙a也未香港汇丰银行须请问我用卡作赌注, "教授玫瑰假设。

美国付款处理器都需要按ugiea法规,检查费去和带出美国,言下之意是一个信息交换是有程序,以检查这些钱是转发,是不会被用来进行非法赌博活动。这也许有可能,如果资金则直接到网上经营者,甚至是经营者的银行。但如果把这笔钱到国外交换,那是不可能知道什么对资金使用情况呢?

玫瑰教授说,虽然这一切可能是个好消息,为美国选手社区,坏消息是,美国的银行和其他金融机构基本上是保守的。并此外,美国司法部已发动战争的恐吓对运营商和付款处理器-他利用n eteller, p aypal及信用卡公司的人已自愿禁止所有游戏交易作为例子。

"拟议新华社北京6月28要说清楚,付款处理器应该不会阻止资金转移为合法赌博。他们特别注意到,一些互联网投注已宣布的法律根据"禁止2.0 " ,这些因素不仅包括州际赛马,但任何形式的赌博,其中包括扑克,如果做得正确,并进行完全单独一个国家或部落土地, "教授玫瑰纸币。

"但有一点是没有真正的坏处告诉银行客户及信用卡持有人,他们不能派任何资金,以任何赌博网站。唯一的事,银行失去了可能是有些顾客。但是如果允许顾客送资金,以一台游戏机现场看到,原来以涉及非法交易打开了银行罚款和其他政府的惩罚。 "

这位教授声称,美国金融机构通缉的美国联邦当局给他们一个黑名单的人,他们不应该送资金。但该机构拒绝,说这样一份名单,将太难以形成;另外,一些运营商可能会妥善处理有关法律以及非法交易。

"所以,所有大型付款处理器均会采取最不冒险的道路,并阻止一切赌博交易,即便是这是无可争议的法律。有没有法律迫使他们将资金用于为合法赌博" ,他说会的可能结果这一团乱麻。

"但是,在年底前,禁止2.0及有关规例将于由于成功地防止人们从赌博和玩扑克牌在线作为第一个禁止在阻止人们饮用的, "教授玫瑰闭幕。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则



小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|论坛

GMT+8, 2024-11-1 11:47 , Processed in 0.061858 second(s), 22 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表