European Commission Has Pending Investigation of U.S. Online Gambling Policies

Written by oscar on . Posted in Gambling News

Hillary Laclair, CasinoIntensity Senior Editor

The European Commission has joined Costa Rica and Antigua with a separate dispute over the internet gambling policies of the United States. The U.S. is said to have withdrawn from its commitment to allow its gambling market overseas in yet another instance where the WTO (World Trade Organization) may be asked to arbitrate. The Commission has submitted a number of inquires to U.S. officials in an attempt to come to an agreement before legal action is taken.

Authorities state that the United States has granted trade concessions and then discriminated against foreign gaming websites. Settlements had already been agreed to with four of eight nations who filed for compensation, including the European Commission. It is rather hypocritical for the U.S. is to continue to pursue criminal investigations on those who have utilized top online casinos, poker rooms and sports books based out of overseas nations. The Remote Gambling Association claims that the United States violates international trade law by making arrests on foreign internet gambling operators, while allowing the usage of domestic gaming websites. The country has turned its eye to the domestic violations of the UIGEA, and then made unlawful arrests in areas where internet gambling is permitted.

 Senior Advisor to Alston & Bird, LLP suggests that the United States Trade Representative should adopt an Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act proposed by Congressman Barney Frank. The bill would resolve the trade debate, officials say, and bring the U.S. in compliance with the WTO. This development could have an enormous impact on the next ruling in the case of iMEGA vs. the UIGEA.

The terms of the bill when it was introduced to amend title 31, are that it would amend federal law governing financial transactions to establish an internet gambling licensing program. It would prescribe regulation and certain requirements of internet betting or wagering. It would ensure that parties involved in investment banking, payment and transaction processing are not liable if they are in compliance with the Act. States, Indian trives and sporting leagues would be authorized to prohibit online gambling licenses. Additionally, the operator of any such institution would be subject to an annual review of licensing and regulation policies

To those who take advantage of top online casinos, this is a big step. If the United States continues to put its judicial foot in its mouth, we could see the UIGEA lifted in the near future. The reality of the situation is that the presidential administration is digging itself a deeper hole, financially speaking. The nation seems to be concerned with the monetary well-being of those who engage in internet gambling, when the administration itself is adding to the debt. On top of the trillion dollar deficit that we already face, disallowing internet gambling is proving to be costly in that the various countries seeking arbitration are demanding monetary restitution.

 In short, those those of you who enjoy Black Jack, Bingo, cash bonuses, and all the other pleasures you’ll find in top online casinos such as VIP Slots, keep your eye on the European Commission’s investigation and H.R. 2046.

Oxley to Piggyback Funding Prohibition Bill on Anti-Terrorism Legislation

Written by oscar on . Posted in Gambling News

Oxley to Piggyback Funding Prohibition Bill on Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Kevin Smith, CongressDaily – 01/15/06

An ongoing concern among those who oppose legislation to prohibit Internet gambling in the United States is the passage of such policy as a measure attached to a larger, unrelated bill. That fear could be realized if Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, has his way.

Oxley, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services and a longtime advocate of Internet gambling prohibition, plans to add H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, to an anti-terrorism bill currently in committee.

A federal law passed in 2002 created a commission to study the intelligence and law enforcement failures that made the U.S. susceptible to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The commission released its final report in July 2004, and one of the recommendations was to increase the scrutiny of financial transactions originating offshore.

Based on this finding, Oxley wants to attach H.R. 2143 to a working bill aimed at putting some of the commission’s recommendations into law.

Introduced by Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. and passed in the House as a standalone bill in 2003, H.R. 2143 would ban the use of credit cards, wire transfers, e-cash and other forms of payment for funding Internet gambling activities.

The 9/11 bill is scheduled for its second hearing in the Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, and CongressDaily reported Monday that Oxley will seek to a add the funding prohibition measure.

As chairman of the committee , Oxley is in a good position to do so, but that’s not to say the strategy wouldn’t be met with resistance.

"The leadership wants the 9/11 bill focused," one Washington insider told IGN. "If they add this provision (H.R. 2143) onto it, then anyone can add anything they want down the road, and they don’t want to open up that box."

The gaming provision will likely see some daylight, he added, "but I doubt it will win."

The 9/11 bill is scheduled for markup on Sept. 29, and Congress is scheduled to recess on Oct. 8 to give members time to campaign and gear up for the election on Nov. 2. That means time is of the essence, and heavily debated provisions like H.R. 2143 could slow the process of moving the full 9/11 bill.

Wednesday’s hearing was called to discuss proposed modifications to the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act. Part of the act covers anti-money laundering, and the 9/11 Commission felt the law should be modified with some "purely technical" additions.

A spokesperson for Oxley’s office told CongressDaily that the changes would give more authority to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and include language to address both Internet gambling and anti-counterfeiting technology.

Oxley made a similar move during the PATRIOT Act markup in 2001, when he attempted to add the same prohibition language to the bill’s money laundering provisions. The bill was ultimately stripped of the Internet gambling funding prohibition amendment before passing.