Here are a few thoughts, and questions on the subject.
The United States recently passed a new law relating to online Gambling. While this law does not specifically clarify , or state that Online Gambling is illegal, it does put new responsibilities on U.S. banks, and financial institutions to block transactions if they know a funds transfer is going to an illegal online gambling entity.
The question still remains. If online casinos and poker rooms operating in foreign jurisdictions, and legally licensed by those jurisdictions are actually illegal in the U.S., and are even subject to these new restrictions.
While some people in government will say all online gambling is illegal, others adamently dispute that when looking at the larger international picture, and current laws.
There is not much exsisting case law regarding Poker Rooms, and Online Casinos, however, there was a Federal Court opinion a few years ago that decided that the Wire Act only applied to Sports related wagers, and not to other forms of online gambling.
Confused yet? You should be, because it truly is confusing.
Offshore entities have always maintained that the monetary transactions occur in the country they are licensed in, not in the United States.
In essence, they feel that it is the free choice of the U.S. Players to access their websites, and gambling houses via the internationally free internet, deposit, and wager legally within their jurisdiction.
Pretty simple, and it certainly makes a good argument.
Barring an agreement, or treaty between the U.S. and the licensing Country that would prohibit this , they feel that the U.S. are the ones violating assorted international trade laws, and perhaps even the rights of their own citizens by trying to control how they spend their money.
Also a damn good argument.
The argument for “Protectionism” is pretty strong as well.
Protectionism in this case means that some foreign countries feel that the U.S. is trying to prevent other countries from conducting business in the U.S. to give U.S. companies a financial advantage.
While it would seem like something every country would do, {IE: protect their own}, mature countries recognize the importance of trading all kinds of goods and services with each other FAIRLY.
So the question becomes, is the U.S. acting in good faith, and fairly allowing other countries to access the U.S. market as it pertains to online gambling?
The World Trade Organization doesn’t seem to think the U.S. is, and numerous other countries agree.
Is the U.S. violating the rights of Americans that want to play Poker with some folks over in England?
Where does the money really exchange hands for the purposes of jurisdiction, and legalities?
At this time, one has to ask…… If Poker Rooms, and Casinos are not specifically illegal under any U.S. law, then the banks, and financial institutions would not, and should not be allowed to block those transactions.
Since the exchange of money, {for the actual wagering}, takes place in a legal jurisdiction, does the U.S. have any legal right to prohibit, or prevent American adults from chosing to do some business with a company legally licensed in another country?
Is that a restraint of trade with foreign countries?
Does the U.S. have the right to tell us we can’t spend money in other countries if we chose too?
And finally, how far underground do you think offshore Sportsbooks, Casinos, and Poker Rooms will go to ensure they can move money?
My guess is that they will go to whatever level the U.S. government forces them to go.
The government’s own study showed that Money Laundering was not significant within the industry, yet the Congressional Mouth Pieces deliberately deceive people on this issue.
So, this bill will do nothing except create new generations of organized crime, and money laundering where there is none now.
It may bottleneck things initially, but ultimately it will not stop the flow of money, just motivate people to find new channels for it to flow thru.
Do I need to tell you that is not going to be a good thing for ANYONE?
The Pres needs to reject it as an underdeveloped plan, and send it back for a full blown study.
That of course is the right thing to do, but this clearly isn’t about making good decisions, is it?