gamblinggrandma wrote:
> Anyone have any idea about this 60 minute story or what the intent on
> it is. I doubt it will be to favor the people that want to play.
> The government has made it clear they are not going to allow us to
> play on line and Europeans are amazed that the "Us - a free country"
> doesn't allow it. So I would be very interested in the 60 minute,
> dateline or any other report about it.
The gist is that complaints by UltimateBet.com players about
suspicious wagering/wins ultimately led to an investigation by UB
which revealed that former employees (who left the firm prior to a
2006 buyout with new management) took advantage of a software
vulnerability to hack into the system, revealing other players' hole
cards. They set up a number of rogue player identities and wagered
heavily in high stakes games.
------
The reticence of UB to investigate the complaints led to outrage among
players. That outrage has swelled the ranks of the Poker Players
Alliance (PPA), and grass roots organization seeking the establishment
of effective laws regulating play to provide a secure gaming environment.
Potentially, efforts by such a group could backfire. The Internet
Gambling Funding Ban left online poker in a gray zone, explicitly
forbidding wire transactions for "games of chance", without firmly
establishing whether table poker met that definition, or had a
sufficient skill component to avoid that classification. This led
most US financial institutions to ultimately act conservatively and
restrict any direct funding of online sites, even if they didn't
engage in any other form of casino gambling.
A concerted effort toward government intervention could result in a
move to clearly define the Ban as applying to poker. However, the
more likely outcome is to put some fire beneath a bill sponsored by
Barney Frank, et al, that would provide for the permitted, firm
regulation of funding transactions associated with online poker
(though not of the poker websites themselves -- who operate outside
the US and are exempt from oversight). This bill has largely sat
dormant in committee since introduced in Apr 2007.
------
The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act would provide for
the licensing of internet betting and wagering. As one would expect,
it would leave it to the states and Indian tribes to ban such licenses
within their jurisdictions. Financial institutions would be permitted
to handling related transactions, so long as they adhere to the law.
The PPA may be biting into more of the apple than most players
anticipate. It would be expected that the ability of players in
states who reject such licensing to continue to wager to be harshly
curtailed. Banking addresses would be confirmed.
Those states who haven't previously opened themselves up to in-state
wagering (outside of Indian casinos) should be expected to be hesitant
to open the doors under these provisions. And where states are
willing to license, look for them to demand heady license fees/taxes
(akin to their treatment of other gambling entities). One likely
impact: say goodbye to large signup/deposit bonuses.
And where regulation leads, taxes follow. Shortly after the Barney
bill was introduced, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax
Enforcement Act was separately introduced. There are two versions of
this Act.
The first would introduce a 2% license fee, and provide oversight to
ensure that appropriate federal and state license fees and taxes are
collected. The second adds informational reporting on players and
mandatory withholding on annual winnings of $5000+ (that's not stated
as individual wins of $5000+)
- Harry (compiled from various internet sources)