Reply To: Nelson I Rose – Final UIEGA Regs

#786928
Anonymous
Inactive

Actually, the way I read this, it’s very good.

As already known:

Financial institutions are affected by the UIGEA. Operators and players aren’t.

Under the proposal:

* Credit card companies need to create a new code to replace 7995
* Banks are NOT required or asked to scrutinize individual transactions
* If Professor Rose, or any other legal entity deemed “reputable” says it isn’t gambling, then it isn’t gambling… LOL… and Professor Rose has already given a number of opinions stating that poker is not gambling.
* If a player uses an overseas credit card, there isn’t much they can do about it.
* If a player uses an overseas bank, there isn’t much they can do about it.
* If the funds pass through a correspondent bank, there isn’t much they can do about it.
* Checks, wire transfers, overseas financial processors (ie. Neteller) are okay.

In other words, the Treasury Department had been asked to create impossible regulations – and they’ve not been able to do anything but say the above, which is practically no different from the status quo pre-UIGEA with the exception of a new CC transaction code.

I predict that if this is passed, it will be scrutinized VERY carefully by the software providers – because it in fact may give them enough confidence to RE-ENTER the US market.

The only better thing that could possibly happen would be for some law to strike down the UIGEA – but that would have minimal effect.

Of course I am not a lawyer and thus what I have posted above should be taken with a grain of salt and is in no way authoritative. And I haven’t read the actual proposed regulations, nor have I double-checked what Professor Rose said in his article. But I doubt I’ve missed too much.