Gambling News by House of Odds

As widely anticipated, President Bush this morning signed a bill whose
principal purpose is to tighten security measures for the nation's sea
ports. But attached to that bill at the very last minute -- in order to
prevent Democrats running for re-election next month from stopping it -- was
a federal ban on banking institutions knowingly transferring funds to
businesses or individuals that may conduct gambling operations in states and
areas where gambling is prohibited. It isn't an outright gambling ban, or
"prohibition," but for several of the world's online gambling casino
operators -- most of whom, curiously, reside outside the US -- it may as
well have been. One key reason is that the law now mandates that banks work
out some type of transaction security system within the next nine months,
that can electronically block funds transfers to institutions on a
blacklist. Even though this list may include certain online casino operators
in this specific case, the technology could very well be extended in the
future to apply to any kind of suspect organization, including potential
organized crime or terrorist sources. During this week alone, five more
British-based firms -- Leisure & Gaming plc., FireOne, Fairground Gaming
Holdings, Sporting Bet, and BetCorp -- announced their exit from the US
gaming market. Previously, the transaction ban was a bill unto itself,
though it had been held up by significant opposition. A successful strategy
late last month by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist succeeded in getting
the bill attached to a terrorism security bill that no one wants to be seen
as openly opposing, at least this close to an election. Ironically
yesterday, in a clear indication that, these days in the gaming business,
you can't win for losing, the European Commission announced it is opening an
inquiry into whether member nations are restricting access to their Internet
gaming markets. Under EU law, it is actually illegal for a licensed business
based in one nation not to conduct operations openly and fairly with other
nations, even if that business is gambling.

Some of these European operations are state-owned, such as national
lotteries, some of whose business is conducted online. If a European-based
gambling firm or agency wanted to conduct online business legally under the
new US law, it would need to implement the electronic protections yet to be
devised, which would protect them from transacting with someone within a US
state or territory where gambling is prohibited.

Under EU law, a member nation cannot prohibit or restrict citizens' access
to any form of gambling, if at the same time that nation runs or sponsors
its own lottery. France is one such state, and is one of the major centers
for Internet-based gambling in Europe. Yet French authorities recently
arrested executives of a Monaco-based gambling firm after they set foot in
French territory, ostensibly for "violation of French gambling laws."

In the name of eradicating state-held gambling monopolies, such as those
that EU commissioners claim exist in France and six other nations, lawmakers
are pushing for new regulations which would mandate that state-owned and
private gambling firms (those that remain) cannot withhold service to their
customers based on where they're located.