Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,578
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 900 Posts

    Default Congressmen ask for more clarity on definition of "unlawful Internet gambling"

    Four Republican Congressmen have sent an open letter to the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board asking for a definition of Unlawful Internet Gambling before regulations before the UIGEA starts being enforced.

    The Congressmen say they support the law, but also say that the bill's language is vague and that it will put an undue burden on financial institutions.

    Full text of the letter follows below.

    Dear Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke,

    We are writing to request that you bring clarity to the Federal Reserve Board's (Board) and U.S. Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) proposed regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

    As proposed, these regulations do not provide clear guidance to the public, in particular those that engage in online skill games, or regulated industries regarding what constitutes "unlawful internet gambling." We believe that implementing such vague law and regulations, while holding the public and regulated industries liable for noncompliance, is an abdication of the federal government's responsibility to both the public and unregulated industries. In addition, vague UIGEA law and regulations could be unnecessarily burdensome and costly to the public and particularly small businesses.

    Therefore, we urge the Board and Treasury to, before finalizing UIGEA regulations, clarify the specific activity that constitutes "unlawful internet gambling," providing guidance to both the public and the regulated industries that are tasked with blocking financial transactions related to "unlawful internet gambling." It is our understanding that the UIGEA intended to uphold state and federal laws regarding "unlawful internet gambling" that existed prior to UIGEA's date of enactment. Nevertheless, we encourage the Board and Treasury to confirm our understanding in its UIGEA regulations. To accomplish this, we request that you take the following actions.

    First, transition the current rulemaking process to a formal rulemaking process involving an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or a similar official who can provide legal advice. This official should examine the various federal and state laws and determine precisely what constitutes "unlawful internet gambling" as well as which financial institutions a regulated industry is required to block under UIGEA law and regulations.

    Second, we request that undertake Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to clearly evaluate the regulatory burden that would be imposed on businesses of all sizes but especially small businesses.

    Simply put, we believe that it is possible that if UIGEA law and regulations are implemented with the vague language we described above, a judge may be eventually required to answer the question of "what is unlawful internet gambling." It makes fiscal sense to resolve this question before saddling the public, regulated industries, small businesses, and courts with uncertain UIGEA law and regulation.

    We voted for UIGEA and support it now. As such, we have resisted legislative efforts which may have the effect of delaying interminably the implementation of UIGEA and its regulations. However, we are concerned about the legal and operational viability of a rule that leaves so much to interpretation and, accordingly, urge the Board and Treasury to take a more deliberative path to a workable rule as we have outlined in this letter.

    Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to your response.

    Sincerely,

    Judy Biggert
    Jim Gerlach
    Christopher Shays
    Kevin McCarthy

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to The Buzz For This Useful Post:

    pgaming (31 July 2008)

  3. #2
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    My point from the beginning, define internet? IMO it would quite the legal challenge.

    Good one Buzz!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •