IN THIS SECTION
What's New!
Welcome back! We've been on a bit of an extended vacation since our original launch back in 2006. There have been quite a few developments within the online gambling industry since then and now is as good a time as any for us to pick up where we left off. Stay tuned, we are working as fast as we can to keep you as informed as possible.
by: InfoPowa
Bankers again stress thatanti-online gambling moves will over-burden their operations
News agencies in the USA report that the Independent Community Bankers of America(ICBA) has again called on Congress to re-examine provisions in the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act(H.R. 4411) recently passed by the House of Representatives that require banksand other financial institutions to assist in halting the flow of gamblingdeposits to online gambling venues.
ICBA spokesmen said that the measure could greatly over-burden thenation's payment system....and monitoring the payments made to gamblinginterests may be impossible.
"ICBA recognizes the concerns that some of your colleagues haveraised about Internet gambling," ICBA wrote in a letter to Senate BankingCommittee Chairman Richard Shelbyand Senate Judiciary Chairman ArlenSpecter. "We urge Congress to recognize that thenation's banks have already taken on major responsibilities to help detect andprevent terrorist financing and illegal money laundering. Attempting to monitorand block gambling transactions, particularly given the limits of the currentpayment technology, could detract from those efforts."
The letter, which is available to the public at www.icba.org, goes on to protest that theproposed law creates an impossible compliance burden for "uncoded"transactions. Unlike credit card transactions, which include a code thatidentifies the type of business receiving payment, uncoded transactions(electronic payments and personal checks) don't provide this information. Whileit's possible to monitor and block certain types of credit card transactions, abank cannot do so with uncoded transactions.
ICBA is also concerned that the law appears to threaten to subjectbanks and electronic processors to potential criminal liability for routineprocessing of financial transactions - their core business operation, and thatit could subject banks to inconsistent state and national standards.
Through the USA Patriot Act and Bank Secrecy Act ICBA has cooperated inconfirming the identity of bank customers while documenting and reportingsuspicious transactions, and the banks prefer to continue to focus resourceswhere risks to national safety and financial soundness are greatest.
The communication concludes by pointing out that the burden ofregulation and compliance created by H.R. 4411 is substantial, and if enacted,would require banks to identify and block transactions between bank customersand Internet gaming companies on a system not designed for this purpose.
ICBA spokesmen said that the measure could greatly over-burden thenation's payment system....and monitoring the payments made to gamblinginterests may be impossible.
"ICBA recognizes the concerns that some of your colleagues haveraised about Internet gambling," ICBA wrote in a letter to Senate BankingCommittee Chairman Richard Shelbyand Senate Judiciary Chairman ArlenSpecter. "We urge Congress to recognize that thenation's banks have already taken on major responsibilities to help detect andprevent terrorist financing and illegal money laundering. Attempting to monitorand block gambling transactions, particularly given the limits of the currentpayment technology, could detract from those efforts."
The letter, which is available to the public at www.icba.org, goes on to protest that theproposed law creates an impossible compliance burden for "uncoded"transactions. Unlike credit card transactions, which include a code thatidentifies the type of business receiving payment, uncoded transactions(electronic payments and personal checks) don't provide this information. Whileit's possible to monitor and block certain types of credit card transactions, abank cannot do so with uncoded transactions.
ICBA is also concerned that the law appears to threaten to subjectbanks and electronic processors to potential criminal liability for routineprocessing of financial transactions - their core business operation, and thatit could subject banks to inconsistent state and national standards.
Through the USA Patriot Act and Bank Secrecy Act ICBA has cooperated inconfirming the identity of bank customers while documenting and reportingsuspicious transactions, and the banks prefer to continue to focus resourceswhere risks to national safety and financial soundness are greatest.
The communication concludes by pointing out that the burden ofregulation and compliance created by H.R. 4411 is substantial, and if enacted,would require banks to identify and block transactions between bank customersand Internet gaming companies on a system not designed for this purpose.
