Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,581
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,492 Times in 902 Posts

    Default Yet another anti-UIGEA bill introduced

    Another US Congressman has introduced a bill to limit the effect of the UIGEA. Buzzy thinks this one is pretty smart.

    Called the UIGEA Clarification Act, it would protect companies such as PartyGaming, 888.com and BetFred, which offered their services to US customers prior to the passage of the UIGEA, but decided to withdraw their services from US customers once the bill became law.

    Text of the bill is pretty short, so it's quoted below ...

    Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)


    HR 6663 IH
    110th CONGRESS
    2d Session
    H. R. 6663
    To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide additional clarification with regard to the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    July 30, 2008


    Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. BERRY, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, and Mr. DELAHUNT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
    A BILL
    To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide additional clarification with regard to the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, and for other purposes.
    • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


    • This Act may be cited as the `Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008'.

    SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.


    • (a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

      • (1) Prior to the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (hereafter in this section referred to as the `UIGEA'), Public Law 109-347, on October 13, 2006, Federal law was both vague and outdated regarding Internet gambling activities, as Federal criminal gambling statutes were passed decades before the commercial use of the Internet.

      • (2) To date, all Federal Internet gambling prosecutions have involved sports betting, creating a lack of authoritative court decisions on the applicability of other federal criminal statutes to Internet poker and casino-style gambling.

      • (3) Sports betting, which is illegal in 49 of the 50 States, is viewed as particularly harmful because its potential adverse impact on the integrity of professional and amateur sports, and is the one form of gambling where there is settled Federal case law clarifying it as illegal on the Internet.

      • (4) Many European Internet gambling companies offering services not including sports betting to persons in the United States were fully listed on the London Stock Exchange, and thereby subject to high standards of transparency and scrutiny, but upon receiving clarification of United States law regarding Internet gaming through the enactment of the UIGEA, these companies closed their sites to persons in the United States.

      • (5) Continued legal jeopardy for companies that made a good faith effort to comply voluntarily with clarified United States law following the passage of the UIGEA punishes behavior that the law intended to foster and inadvertently rewards continued noncompliance by other foreign entities.

      • (6) In light of the foregoing and in deference to long-standing constitutional requirements of fair notice and transparency in the criminal law, the Congress finds it necessary to clarify that criminal statutes applicable to gambling do not apply to any person who offered Internet gambling services that did not include sports betting prior to October 13, 2006, and who ceased offering Internet gambling services to persons in the United States upon passage of the UIGEA.

      • (7) To effect the purposes and intent of the UIGEA, it is the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should focus any prosecutorial efforts on those persons who--

        • (A) offer Internet sports betting in the United States; or

        • (B) process payments for illegal Internet sports betting in the United States.

    SEC. 3. UIGEA CLARIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION.


    • (a) In General- Subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

    `Sec. 5368. Voluntary compliance


    • `(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law--

      • `(1) except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), no person shall be subject to criminal liability arising out of--

        • `(A) the offering, receipt or facilitation of bets or wagers by means of the Internet;

        • `(B) financial transactions in connection with or involving the consideration for, or proceeds of, bets or wagers by means of the Internet;

        • `(C) the administration, advising, audit, direction, operation, lending, management, marketing or supplying of a business or services involving activities or transactions referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B); or

        • `(D) the banking, brokerage, custody, issuance, placement, promotion, sale or transfer of shares or proceeds from a business involving activities or transactions referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C);

      • `(2) paragraph (1) shall not apply to any person who knowingly--

        • `(A) offered illegal bets or wagers to, or received bets or wagers from, any person within the United States by means of the Internet after October 13, 2006;

        • `(B) in violation of section 1084 of title 18, United States Code, used the Internet for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers on any sporting event or sporting contest, or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, by any person within the United States; or

        • `(C) processed or facilitated financial transactions in connection with or involving the consideration for, or proceeds of, involving activities or transactions referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B); and

      • `(3) paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct that violated sections 1956 or 1957 of title 18, United States Code, by a financial or monetary transaction, or the transfer or transportation of funds, with the intent to promote unlawful activity other than the offering, receipt, or facilitation of bets or wagers by means of the Internet, or to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of unlawful activity other than the offering, receipt, or facilitation of bets or wagers by means of the Internet.

    • `(b) Criminal Liability Defined- For purposes of subsection (a), the term `criminal liability' includes actions against real or personal property that arise from or depend upon the allegedly criminal nature of the bet or wager or of the transmission or receipt of funds in connection with that bet or wager.'.

    • (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5367 the following new item:

      • `5368. Voluntary compliance.'.

    SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.


    • No provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as clarifying or implying that Internet bets or wagers, other than sports bets or wagers, which were accepted subsequent to October 13, 2006, are in violation of Federal law.

  2. #2
    slotplayer is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Posts
    1,040
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 323 Times in 252 Posts

    Default

    Well the hard working (ah hem) congress is off for 5 weeks.

  3. #3
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,581
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,492 Times in 902 Posts

    Default Sports betting companies, PPA not on board with this one

    Gambling911.com has posted a story declaring that the industry support for HR 6663 is pretty feeble. Sports betting companies don't like it because it affirms the governments contention that Internet wagering on sports is illegal, the PPA doesn't like it because while it says that the pre-UIGEA climate was uncertain, it says that the UIGEA made Internet poker illegal.

    Full story here ... http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-...ty-080308.html

Posting Permissions

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