August 31 2009, Matthew Kredell

Notes sent out by banks in August serve as a warning about the overblocking that could be coming in December when the penalties established by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act go into effect in the United States.
Nevada State Bank, in a small note mailed to customers, wrote: "In compliance with the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, we are required to notify you that you are prohibited from processing transactions derived from Internet bets or wagers where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law."
That it is highly debatable as to whether any federal law makes the playing of Internet poker illegal doesn't matter to the bank. Neither, apparently, does the fact that this act (UIGEA) applies only to deposits sent to Internet gambling sites, not to withdrawals made from the site to a bank.
California Bank & Trust sent out a similar note stating that it "will not process transactions derived from Internet bets or wagers."
Neither note distinguishes between outgoing and incoming transactions. The Nevada State Bank and California Bank & Trust are part of the Zions Bancorporation, a holding company based in Salt Lake City that oversees eight banks in eight states: Nevada, California, Arizona, Texas, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Utah.
Whether these notes are mere paper threats remains to be seen. As damaging as the UIGEA is to the industry, blocking withdrawals would be much worse. There are ways to play online poker without making a deposit but no reason to play if there isn't the incentive of taking one's winnings.
The problem is that banks will have every right to overblock to make sure they comply with the UIGEA.
The Poker Players Alliance is still trying to fight full implementation of the UIGEA. One hope is the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act introduced by Barney Frank (D-Mass.), which would delay the date of compliance for the UIGEA by one year. However, the bill is only in the first stage of the legislative process. It needs to pass through the House Committee of Financial Services before being discussed in the full House. The Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act has 34 co-sponsors.
- - - - - - - - -
The case to recover some of the $31 million seized by federal investigators from companies trying to process the money from Internet poker sites to the American public will not be heard. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller in San Diego granted the motion filed by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York to give jurisdiction of the case over to that court.
The New York court indicted Douglas Rennick, the owner of the companies, in August for charges of bank fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to operate an illegal gambling business. The case to recover the money now won't be heard until after the criminal case against Rennick, which may never happen because the Canadian citizen has not returned to the U.S. to face the charges.
It's a little early in the day for spreading hysteria isn't it?
Penalties established by UIGEA?
There aren't any. Banks are expected to comply and compliance will be reviewed and enforced by their regulatory agencies.
It's debatable whether Internet poker is illegal?
Only for those who think denial is a river in Egypt. Recently, the DOJ grabbed more than $30 million in consumer funds derived from Internet poker. For the banks caught in the middle of an issue they care nothing about, the DOJ's opinion is the only one that matters. Any real debate is about whether Internet poker should be illegal, not about whether it is.
The "notes" are "threats?"
Banks are required to send notification of the UIEGEA requirements to their commercial customers. None of the language quoted here threatened anything, particularly blocking withdrawals. Actually, the regulation implementing UIEGEA specifically indicates that banks cannot block transactions other than those prohibited by UIEGEA; e.g. deposits to commercial accounts.
You may believe that Barney Frank is the Messiah, but he's got clout because he is Chairman of the House Banking Committee. By attempting to delay the required compliance date, he is simultaneously currying favor with the banks too. Banks think this is a ridiculous waste of time - they don't like it any more than you do. Nevertheless, they cannot simply blow it off. They have on-site examinations from federal regulatory agencies that are intended to assure their compliance with any law, no matter how asinine.
Fanny pieces like this cater to the reader's preconceived notions, they do not inform them.
| News | Videos | Learn Poker | Play Poker | Live Reporting | Freerolls & Tournaments | Forum | Quick Room Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PokerNews.com is the world's leading poker website. Among other things, visitors will find a daily dose of articles with the latest poker news, live reporting from tournaments, exclusive videos and so much more.
At PokerStars, players can not only play with the pros, but take part in a variety of different poker games and variations, like Texas hold'em. New players can brush up on the poker rules, and learn poker strategy from the pros. Sign up for a PokerStars account today.
© 2003-2012 PokerNews.com All rights reserved
Read 1 comment(s) on this article