Proposed modifications to the Patriot Act might effect i-gaming...

[Cubswin]

Link

Oxley to Piggyback Funding Prohibition Bill on Anti-Terrorism Legislation

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

by Kevin Smith

An ongoing concern among those who oppose legislation to prohibit Internet gambling in the United States is the passage of such policy as a measure attached to a larger, unrelated bill. That fear could be realized if Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, has his way.

Oxley, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services and a longtime advocate of Internet gambling prohibition, plans to add H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, to an anti-terrorism bill currently in committee.

A federal law passed in 2002 created a commission to study the intelligence and law enforcement failures that made the U.S. susceptible to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The commission released its final report in July 2004, and one of the recommendations was to increase the scrutiny of financial transactions originating offshore.

Based on this finding, Oxley wants to attach H.R. 2143 to a working bill aimed at putting some of the commission's recommendations into law.

Introduced by Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. and passed in the House as a standalone bill in 2003, H.R. 2143 would ban the use of credit cards, wire transfers, e-cash and other forms of payment for funding Internet gambling activities.

The 9/11 bill is scheduled for its second hearing in the Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, and CongressDaily reported Monday that Oxley will seek to a add the funding prohibition measure.

As chairman of the committee , Oxley is in a good position to do so, but that's not to say the strategy wouldn't be met with resistance.

"The leadership wants the 9/11 bill focused," one Washington insider told IGN. "If they add this provision (H.R. 2143) onto it, then anyone can add anything they want down the road, and they don't want to open up that box."

The gaming provision will likely see some daylight, he added, "but I doubt it will win."

The 9/11 bill is scheduled for markup on Sept. 29, and Congress is scheduled to recess on Oct. 8 to give members time to campaign and gear up for the election on Nov. 2. That means time is of the essence, and heavily debated provisions like H.R. 2143 could slow the process of moving the full 9/11 bill.

Wednesday's hearing was called to discuss proposed modifications to the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act. Part of the act covers anti-money laundering, and the 9/11 Commission felt the law should be modified with some "purely technical" additions.

A spokesperson for Oxley's office told CongressDaily that the changes would give more authority to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and include language to address both Internet gambling and anti-counterfeiting technology.

Oxley made a similar move during the PATRIOT Act markup in 2001, when he attempted to add the same prohibition language to the bill's money laundering provisions. The bill was ultimately stripped of the Internet gambling funding prohibition amendment before passing.

[OrangeHeat]

Ummm...yeah...this would be bad.

Stupid government - let me spend my money where I want.

Orange

[golFUR]

Maybe this is a bit naive on my part but, would it matter?

Many of us are already gambling illegaly by the laws of our specific state. Further, there is an impressive number of other crimes committed over the internet every day, 99% of which go completely unpunished (harrassment and the like, underage people looking at pornography etc., identity fraud, piracy of music/software/literature/"ideas", people skipping relevant taxes). So they make one more thing illegal? Nobody is enforcing any of those laws and for the forseeable future I don't think any of them can be enforced. There is no good way to police the internet yet.

[OrangeHeat]

They pass this.. Joe Blows bank says no more transfers to neteller and the money online slowly dries up.

Orange

[golFUR]

But Neteller is for all sorts of online purchases, not just gaming. And even if Neteller stopped transfering to gaming sites some other business would incorporate in a country where it is still legal to pick up the slack.

[AustinDoug]

The harder you make it for fish to get their money online, the less inclined they're going to be to play. Also, we would see less spontaneous wagering.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
some other business would incorporate in a country where it is still legal to pick up the slack.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get it. This will make it illegal for your bank to transfer funds to any entity doing business in online gambling - incorporated here or in east bumble tooley.

Couple this with the fact that the average Joe does not want to dabble in anything expressly illegal. Right now it is a gray area.

Defining it will make it black and white.

Orange

[J.R.]

But Neteller is for all sorts of online purchases, not just gaming

I keep hearing this, but wonder about it. Maybe I'm a bad detective but what else do people use neteller for, and I'm talking about significant uses, not something like money transfers to ptrack pat for PT?

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
Couple this with the fact that the average Joe does not want to dabble in anything expressly illegal. Right now it is a gray area.

Defining it will make it black and white.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clear this point up... this bill would not make it illegal to gamble online. This bill would also not make remove internet gambling from its legal 'grey' area. Defining the legality of online gambling is the duty of each individual state and the federal government will only step in if the states can not effectively enforce their own laws. This amendment to the patriot act would only make it more difficult to fund online accounts which means less fish.... though the article says that passage of this amendment is not likely.

cub

[J.R.]

"Defining the legality of online gambling is the duty of each individual state and the federal government will only step in if the states can not effectively enforce their own laws."

Umm, to get nit picky:

1) states have no duty to define the legality of online gambling, or any gambling for that matter, although they may chose to attempt to do so,

2) the federal government's potential legislation regarding the legality of online gambling, while perhaps motivated by existing state law, is not necessarily a reaction to the shortcommings of state laws in this area nor is it necessarily predicated on anything the state's may or may not do,

3) its not entirely clear whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to legislate the legality of online gambling (although its extremely probable Congress does have such consitutional authority).