New York prosecutors say they’ve issued restraining orders against more than 75 bank accounts in 14 countries used by the poker companies, which they say will interrupt the illegal flow of billions of dollars, according to The Associated Press.

Eleven individuals were charged over their involvement running PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker for violating the 2006 Unlawful  Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

The Justice Department has filed a civil complaint for money laundering that seeks $3 billion being held by the companies.

According to a federal indictment, the owners of the companies sought ways to get around restrictions placed on U.S. banks that prohibited them from handling financial transactions connected to online gambling.

“Some of the defendants found banks willing to flout the law for a fee,” Janice Fedarcyk, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office, said in a prepared statement. “The defendants bet the house that they could continue their scheme, and they lost.”

Federal prosecutors and FBI agents also have obtained a district court order to block 76 bank accounts and five Internet domain names associated with the poker websites.

“This is a potentially game-changing moment for the online poker industry, as PokerStars and Full Tilt are, by quite some distance, the two largest operators not just in the U.S., but globally,” James Kilsby, Americas editor with the business intelligence service GamblingCompliance, told ABC News.

“Previous DOJ enforcement efforts have honed in on sports betting operators and payment companies,” Kilsby said. “Meanwhile, some of the poker operators themselves have claimed that U.S. gambling laws do not apply to poker. It seems clear from today’s action that the Justice Department doesn’t agree.”

More/Source

Similar legislation failed in the last Congress. Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, has support for the bill from such companies as Youbet.com Inc., and Harrah’s Entertainment Inc., in addition to the Poker Players Alliance, formed to overturn a 2006 ban on Internet poker.

Supporters “have been mobilizing,” Frank said last week. “This is a grass-roots thing.”

The legislation would allow licensed gambling operators to accept online wagers from people in the United States. The bill would revise the 2006 law, which made it a crime for banks to process financial transactions used to place illegal bets online.

Harrah’s vice president Jan Jones said regulating and taxing online gambling might swell government coffers by $2 billion to $6 billion annually. “At a time where there is no money, that can be going to healthcare or S-CHIP,” the children’s insurance program, Jones said.

The sat particularly badly with the island nation of Antigua, which complained to the WTO over what it saw as discriminatory trade practices. The WTO agreed and ruled against the United States back in April of 2007—a fact the US has more-or-less ignored. Gambling laws have always been a patchwork of contradictions; the federal government prohibits gambling across state lines but allows states to set their own laws when it comes to intra-state betting. Many states have laws that favor particular types of gaming over others; Kentucky has gone so far as to try to seize control of online gambling sites and makes no secret of its stance on horse racing. Taken as a whole, the US policy of simultaneously condemning and supporting gambling is uglier than the hypothetical love child of Janet Reno and Alan Greenspan.

The Bush Administration settled the initial Antigua complaint by offering the country concessions in other trade-related areas, but multiple European countries remain angry; the UK-based Remote Gambling Association has claimed that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has discriminantly targeted certain websites while ignoring the operations of others. The European Commission reportedly plans to file its own complaint with the WTO. In the face of international bad feeling and an uncertain positive impact at home, it may be time for the UIGEA to fold its hand.

Source: http://arstechnica.com

“The bill introduction should happen in the next month,” a spokesman for House of Representatives Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

On Thursday, Reuters reported the EU could file a complaint about U.S. enforcement of the gambling ban at the World Trade Organization.

“Mr. Frank will bring back legislation to repeal the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act),” the spokesman said, referring to a Republican-crafted bill passed in 2006 when the party controlled Congress and the White House.

Supporters of the ban argued offshore Internet gambling websites take billions of dollars out the U.S. economy, damage families and serve as vehicles for money laundering.

The law cost Europe’s online gambling companies billions in lost market value as they were forced to retreat from one of their most lucrative markets. It barred businesses from knowingly accepting payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling, including payments made through credit cards, electronic fund transfers and checks.

Against Frank’s advice, the Bush administration finalized regulations late last year to implement the ban and gave companies until December 1 to comply.

Frank said the rules would burden the financial service industry at a time of economic crisis.

Many publicly traded European companies, including PartyGaming and 888.com, withdrew from the United States after Congress passed the ban, but they face possible criminal prosecution for activities before then.

Anurag Dikshit, a founder of PartyGaming, pleaded guilty in December to Internet gambling charges and agreed to pay $300 million in fines. He still faces possible jail time under a deferred sentencing arrangement. Other PartyGaming founders have not settled with the U.S. Justice Department.

EU industry officials said the pressure on Dikshit to make a deal showed the Justice Department had crossed a major line in its prosecution of cases.

The European Commission, acting on industry petition, began a formal investigation in March into whether Washington was singling out EU companies for enforcement actions while allowing U.S. online firms to operate freely.

Sources familiar with that investigation told Reuters in Brussels on Thursday they expect the investigators’ report, initially due last year, to recommend action at the WTO when it is released next month.

Rather than move immediately to litigation, EU officials would use the report as leverage to seek a negotiated solution with the United States, they said.

U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu complained a year ago that the law was ambiguous and was grabbing legitimate enterprises in its net. He warned that “risk-averse financial institutions will simply choose to block every transaction that may be interpreted or could resemble gambling, whether legal or not.”

Lottery Executive Director Rick Wisler said the problem is definitely affecting lottery sales here, which are down significantly. He said his concerns have been made known to Visa and MasterCard and that those companies say they will review them.

The problem seems to have spread beyond Internet lottery sales. We have been told that even employees at state liquor stores have declined to allow lottery ticket purchases using a bank-issued debit card.

Gambling proponents often cite the New Hampshire Lottery as a viable and reliable generator of public revenues and an example of why it should expand. But if even the sale of a scratch ticket is going to be thwarted by the feds, how do they expect bigger gambling to succeed?

The Board and the Treasury are required by the Act to develop a joint rule in consultation with the Department of Justice. The final rule requires U.S. financial firms that participate in designated payment systems to establish and implement policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent payments to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. The rule provides non-exclusive examples of such policies and procedures and sets out the regulatory enforcement framework. For purposes of the rule, unlawful Internet gambling generally would cover the making of a bet or wager that involves use of the Internet and that is unlawful under any applicable federal or state law in the jurisdiction where the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

Compliance with the rule is required by December 1, 2009. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has said he will seek to overturn the law, pointing out that even the most ardent fans of the regulations have said they will be difficult to interpret and enforce.

Part of the problem is to define “unlawful Internet gambling.” For instance, the National Football League’s “Fantasy Football” is exempted from the legislation, because the NFL claims the game is skill-based and not a game of chance and, thus, not gambling.

Opponents of the legislation complained earlier this week before the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank issued new regulations describing the legislation. The opponents argued that a former NFL lobbyist was working in the White House and represented a conflict of interest. A White House spokesperson said the lobbyist, William Wichterman, was in compliance with ethics rules.

The legislation, HR 4411, was originally sponsored by Republican Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, and it had the strong and influential backing of then-Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. After 30 years in the House, Leach was narrowly defeated in the 2006 election. This summer Leach threw his support to Barack Obama to the consternation of many Republicans, and this week Obama named Leach and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as his representatives to an international economic summit in Washington.

“I am deeply disappointed to hear that your agency is proceeding with what I consider to be unseemly haste in issuing regulations implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” House Financial Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

“This midnight rulemaking will tie the hands of the new Administration, burden the financial services industry at a time of economic crisis, and contradict the stated intent of the Financial Services Committee,” Frank said.

The U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are required to issue new rules on Internet gambling under a bill Congress passed 2006, when Republicans were still in control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

That bill, which cost EU Internet gambling companies billions of euro in lost market value, prohibited companies from accepting payments in connection with “unlawful Internet gambling.”

But rather than define what types of gambling are illegal online, the bill relied on existing Federal and state laws to answer that question. It also still allowed any online horserace betting permissible under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.

That has caused confusion and at a hearing in April both Treasury and Federal Reserve officials told Frank’s committee they were “struggling” to determine what type of online gambling was illegal under the bill.

“The challenge we have is interpreting … federal laws that Congress itself isn’t sure what they mean,” said Louise Roseman, the Fed’s director of reserve bank operations and payment systems.

The House Financial Services Committee passed legislation in September that would block implementation of the new regulations, but neither the full House or the Senate has followed up with a vote on the measure.

In response to Frank’s letter to Paulson, a Treasury spokeswoman said the Treasury and the Fed were working together “to gather considerable public comment and complete these regulations as directed by Congress.”

Meanwhile, the European Commission has been investigating whether the U.S. Justice Department was unfairly singling out EU Internet gambling companies for enforcement in response to the 2006 law.

An EU team who visited Washington in September to investigate the issue, is expected to release its report by the end of the November. Depending on what it says, that could set the stage for the European Commission to bring action against the United States at the World Trade Organization

While most of us are distracted watching the presidential election, the U.S. Treasury Department is quietly pushing through new rules that potentially will have devastating consequences for privacy and e-commerce.

It’s an understatement to say the Internet has done more to shape society over the last 10 years than any other technological innovation, transforming communications, business, and entertainment. The benefits generated by the technological revolution easily parallel those of the earlier industrial revolution. What’s important is that this explosion in growth occurred in an era relatively free of government interference. Unfortunately, that may not remain the case.

Regulatory incursions onto the Internet are becoming more frequent, threatening the open dynamic that has generated so much for consumers. Without vigilance, we face the prospect of turning the Internet into something akin to an electronic version of the Post Office rather than the engine of growth it has become.

This can be seen in Congress’ attempt to eliminate unlawful Internet gambling. Not only does the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 raise serious questions about privacy, but its vague definitions and poorly defined goals force banks and payment centers into a tight position.

They’re now required to serve as an arm of the government, monitoring private Internet transactions, and blocking those that are “illegal.” The problem is that the legislation never defined “unlawful Internet gambling,” leaving banks and payment centers to sort out that thorny issue for themselves. This generates a great deal of confusion, leaving consumers and Internet users facing the real prospect of perfectly legal activities being blocked simply due to uncertainty and caution on the part of banks and payment centers. For those processing these transactions, the ambiguity is compounded by compliance costs and the paperwork burden.

Despite the confusion surrounding the legislation, the Treasury Department is drafting a final rule it hopes to release in November to put the program in motion. But some in Congress are well aware of the burdens and complexities associated with this vague rule. Just last month, the House Financial Services Committee passed legislation introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) that offers a simple solution.

The Payments System Protection Act makes clear that the law can be enforced against sports betting, which the courts already have said is illegal. But it also requires regulators to define exactly what “unlawful Internet gambling” is prior to issuing broader regulations. This would substantially reduce the uncertainty and compliance costs for banks and payment centers. The Senate recently followed suit with its own attempt to clarify the ambiguities in the 2006 Act.

Beyond correcting the economic burdens of the law, however, Americans ought to be concerned about the larger questions of the law’s impact on privacy and Internet freedom for the future. Once the federal government begins implementing guidelines for various types of online transactions, what is to prevent it from becoming more involved in every activity on the Internet? The Founding Fathers took great care constructing a government that would protect our endowed rights and liberties, not restrict and monitor them. Americans don’t want the government monitoring their private transactions, online or offline.

The Internet has proved to be a powerful and valuable force in our economy. Annual e-commerce retail sales in the United States reached $107 billion in 2006, a 22 percent jump over the previous year. Restrictive government mandates would only restrain such growth, not encourage it. Each new mandate also brings further government encroachment upon the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. It is precisely because it developed relatively free from government oversight that the Internet has become such a dynamic part of our economy.

Congress has acknowledged the potential downside of its foray onto the Internet with the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, and is working to correct its overreach. The Treasury Department should follow this lead, and not rush forward with sweeping government mandates that threaten the future growth and innovation on the Internet.

The ministry has made a list of 30-50 Internet gamers and has asked banks to stop services to these companies.
In the Netherlands only the Dutch state lottery De Lotto has a permit to offer online gambling, and last month the Dutch upper house defeated a bill that would have allowed Holland Casino to open a gambling website on a trial basis.

The Dutch approach to online gaming has put it on a collision course with the European Union, which is pushing for member states to open up their markets to competition. In February the EU gave Greece and the Netherlands a final warning before it initiates court action over restrictions in their gaming markets.

“This is a Dutch issue, so we have only asked banks operating in the Netherlands to participate,” the spokeswoman said.

With all the UIGEA issues that have come up in the US, including banks speaking out against trying to enforce the rules and the Congress holding hearings on the ineffectiveness of the UIGEA, its surprising that the Netherlands would attempt the same path to controlling internet gambling.

“The Frank-Paul bill would stop the U.S. government from taking any further steps on regulations that would require all of the country’s financial institutions to block Internet Gambling payments,” said SSIGI spokesman Jeff Sandman. “It’s a bold move, but a necessary one, in light of the warnings from the Treasury and Federal Reserve that they did not know how to write regulations to solve the problems created by UIGEA. Further, witnesses representing a broad spectrum of the financial services community unanimously stated that the current ban on Internet gambling is dangerous to the payments system and ineffective in stopping people from using the Internet to play poker, make bets on horses, or engage in other types of wagering.”

The current Internet gambling ban creates significant additional burdens for U.S. financial institutions, which say that it is unfair to turn them into the Internet gambling police at a time when their undivided attention ought to be on the economy.

Testimony before Congress last week offered proof that financial services institutions would face serious regulatory burdens in attempting to enforce UIGEA and related regulations, which is unlikely to stop millions of Americans from gambling online.

Representatives from the Credit Union National Association, Financial Services Roundtable, American Bankers Association and Wells Fargo & Co. testified about the burden they would unnecessarily face before the House Committee on Financial Service’s Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology on April 2. The current UIGEA law is ambiguous and allows for multiple interpretations of what may or may not be illegal activities.

Their comments reflect the concerns echoed in the more than 200 comments submitted to the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System.

Frank introduced legislation last year, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), that would regulate Internet gambling. The bill would require licensed Internet gambling operators to put in place safeguards to protect against underage and compulsive gambling and ensure the integrity of financial transactions.

A companion piece of legislation to the Frank bill introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2008 (H.R. 5523), would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities. According to a tax revenue analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, taxation of regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate between $8.7 billion to $42.8 billion in federal revenues over its first 10 years.