Dante,
Don't get your panties all up in a bunch yet buddy
there's still a lot to be done for that shit to actually become law !
Anyway with that being said online gambling ain't going nowhere and the bookies WILL find a way for people to get their $ to them
Anyway it must be nice to live in a country where your government can tell you what you CAN and CANNOT do with YOUR hard earned cash ain't it ?
FIGHT THE POWER
Don't get your panties all up in a bunch yet buddy
there's still a lot to be done for that shit to actually become law !
Anyway with that being said online gambling ain't going nowhere and the bookies WILL find a way for people to get their $ to them
Anyway it must be nice to live in a country where your government can tell you what you CAN and CANNOT do with YOUR hard earned cash ain't it ?
FIGHT THE POWER
I think they got 2/3
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 255
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 2143 YEA-AND-NAY 10-JUN-2003 7:06 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
YEAS
NAYS
PRES
NV
REPUBLICAN
206
17
5
DEMOCRATIC
112
87
6
INDEPENDENT
1
TOTALS
319
104
11
--- YEAS 319 ---
Aderholt
Gillmor
Neugebauer
Akin
Gingrey
Northup
Alexander
Gonzalez
Norwood
Allen
Goode
Nunes
Bachus
Goodlatte
Nussle
Baird
Gordon
Obey
Baker
Goss
Ortiz
Ballenger
Granger
Osborne
Barrett (SC)
Graves
Ose
Bartlett (MD)
Green (TX)
Otter
Barton (TX)
Green (WI)
Oxley
Bass
Greenwood
Pascrell
Beauprez
Gutknecht
Pearce
Bell
Hall
Pence
Bereuter
Harman
Peterson (PA)
Berry
Harris
Petri
Biggert
Hart
Pickering
Bilirakis
Hastings (WA)
Pitts
Bishop (GA)
Hayes
Platts
Bishop (NY)
Hefley
Portman
Blackburn
Hensarling
Price (NC)
Blunt
Herger
Pryce (OH)
Boehlert
Hill
Putnam
Boehner
Hinojosa
Quinn
Bonilla
Hobson
Radanovich
Bonner
Hoeffel
Rahall
Boozman
Hoekstra
Ramstad
Boswell
Holden
Regula
Boucher
Hooley (OR)
Rehberg
Boyd
Hostettler
Renzi
Bradley (NH)
Hoyer
Reynolds
Brady (PA)
Hulshof
Rogers (AL)
Brady (TX)
Hunter
Rogers (KY)
Brown (OH)
Hyde
Rogers (MI)
Brown (SC)
Isakson
Ros-Lehtinen
Brown, Corrine
Israel
Ross
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Issa
Rothman
Burgess
Istook
Royce
Burns
Jackson (IL)
Ruppersberger
Burr
Janklow
Rush
Burton (IN)
Jenkins
Ryan (OH)
Calvert
John
Ryan (WI)
Camp
Johnson (CT)
Ryun (KS)
Cantor
Johnson (IL)
Sabo
Capito
Johnson, Sam
Sanders
Cardin
Jones (NC)
Sandlin
Cardoza
Kanjorski
Saxton
Carson (IN)
Kaptur
Schiff
Carter
Keller
Schrock
Case
Kelly
Scott (GA)
Castle
Kennedy (MN)
Serrano
Chabot
King (IA)
Sessions
Chocola
King (NY)
Shadegg
Coble
Kingston
Shaw
Cole
Kirk
Shays
Collins
Kline
Sherman
Cooper
Knollenberg
Sherwood
Costello
Kolbe
Shimkus
Cox
LaHood
Shuster
Cramer
Lampson
Simmons
Crane
Langevin
Simpson
Crenshaw
Latham
Skelton
Crowley
LaTourette
Slaughter
Culberson
Leach
Smith (MI)
Cunningham
Levin
Smith (NJ)
Davis (AL)
Lewis (CA)
Smith (TX)
Davis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Snyder
Davis (IL)
Linder
Souder
Davis (TN)
Lipinski
Spratt
Davis, Jo Ann
LoBiondo
Stearns
Davis, Tom
Lowey
Stenholm
Deal (GA)
Lucas (KY)
Strickland
DeGette
Lucas (OK)
Sullivan
DeLauro
Lynch
Sweeney
DeLay
Majette
Tancredo
DeMint
Maloney
Tanner
Deutsch
Manzullo
Tauzin
Diaz-Balart, L.
Marshall
Taylor (MS)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Matheson
Taylor (NC)
Dingell
McCarthy (MO)
Terry
Doggett
McCarthy (NY)
Thomas
Dooley (CA)
McCotter
Thompson (CA)
Doolittle
McCrery
Thornberry
Doyle
McHugh
Tiahrt
Duncan
McInnis
Turner (OH)
Dunn
McIntyre
Turner (TX)
Edwards
McKeon
Upton
Ehlers
McNulty
Van Hollen
Emanuel
Meek (FL)
Vitter
Emerson
Meeks (NY)
Walden (OR)
English
Mica
Walsh
Etheridge
Michaud
Wamp
Everett
Millender-McDonald
Waters
Fattah
Miller (FL)
Waxman
Feeney
Miller (MI)
Weldon (FL)
Ferguson
Miller (NC)
Weldon (PA)
Filner
Miller, Gary
Wexler
Foley
Mollohan
Whitfield
Forbes
Moore
Wicker
Ford
Moran (KS)
Wilson (NM)
Franks (AZ)
Moran (VA)
Wilson (SC)
Frelinghuysen
Murphy
Wolf
Gallegly
Murtha
Wu
Garrett (NJ)
Musgrave
Wynn
Gerlach
Myrick
Young (FL)
Gibbons
Nadler
Gilchrest
Napolitano
--- NAYS 104 ---
Abercrombie
Hayworth
Paul
Ackerman
Hinchey
Payne
Andrews
Holt
Pelosi
Baca
Honda
Peterson (MN)
Baldwin
Inslee
Pombo
Ballance
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Pomeroy
Becerra
Jefferson
Porter
Berkley
Johnson, E. B.
Rangel
Berman
Jones (OH)
Reyes
Bishop (UT)
Kennedy (RI)
Rodriguez
Blumenauer
Kildee
Rohrabacher
Bono
Kilpatrick
Roybal-Allard
Cannon
Kind
Sanchez, Linda T.
Capps
Kleczka
Sanchez, Loretta
Capuano
Kucinich
Schakowsky
Carson (OK)
Larsen (WA)
Scott (VA)
Clay
Lee
Sensenbrenner
Clyburn
Lewis (GA)
Solis
Conyers
Lofgren
Stark
Cummings
Markey
Stupak
Davis (CA)
Matsui
Tauscher
DeFazio
McCollum
Thompson (MS)
Delahunt
McDermott
Tiberi
Dicks
McGovern
Towns
Dreier
Meehan
Udall (CO)
Engel
Menendez
Udall (NM)
Evans
Miller, George
Velazquez
Farr
Neal (MA)
Visclosky
Flake
Nethercutt
Watson
Fossella
Ney
Watt
Frank (MA)
Oberstar
Weiner
Frost
Olver
Weller
Grijalva
Owens
Woolsey
Gutierrez
Pallone
Young (AK)
Hastings (FL)
Pastor
--- NOT VOTING 11 ---
Buyer
Gephardt
Smith (WA)
Cubin
Houghton
Tierney
Eshoo
Lantos
Toomey
Fletcher
Larson (CT)
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 255
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 2143 YEA-AND-NAY 10-JUN-2003 7:06 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
YEAS
NAYS
PRES
NV
REPUBLICAN
206
17
5
DEMOCRATIC
112
87
6
INDEPENDENT
1
TOTALS
319
104
11
--- YEAS 319 ---
Aderholt
Gillmor
Neugebauer
Akin
Gingrey
Northup
Alexander
Gonzalez
Norwood
Allen
Goode
Nunes
Bachus
Goodlatte
Nussle
Baird
Gordon
Obey
Baker
Goss
Ortiz
Ballenger
Granger
Osborne
Barrett (SC)
Graves
Ose
Bartlett (MD)
Green (TX)
Otter
Barton (TX)
Green (WI)
Oxley
Bass
Greenwood
Pascrell
Beauprez
Gutknecht
Pearce
Bell
Hall
Pence
Bereuter
Harman
Peterson (PA)
Berry
Harris
Petri
Biggert
Hart
Pickering
Bilirakis
Hastings (WA)
Pitts
Bishop (GA)
Hayes
Platts
Bishop (NY)
Hefley
Portman
Blackburn
Hensarling
Price (NC)
Blunt
Herger
Pryce (OH)
Boehlert
Hill
Putnam
Boehner
Hinojosa
Quinn
Bonilla
Hobson
Radanovich
Bonner
Hoeffel
Rahall
Boozman
Hoekstra
Ramstad
Boswell
Holden
Regula
Boucher
Hooley (OR)
Rehberg
Boyd
Hostettler
Renzi
Bradley (NH)
Hoyer
Reynolds
Brady (PA)
Hulshof
Rogers (AL)
Brady (TX)
Hunter
Rogers (KY)
Brown (OH)
Hyde
Rogers (MI)
Brown (SC)
Isakson
Ros-Lehtinen
Brown, Corrine
Israel
Ross
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Issa
Rothman
Burgess
Istook
Royce
Burns
Jackson (IL)
Ruppersberger
Burr
Janklow
Rush
Burton (IN)
Jenkins
Ryan (OH)
Calvert
John
Ryan (WI)
Camp
Johnson (CT)
Ryun (KS)
Cantor
Johnson (IL)
Sabo
Capito
Johnson, Sam
Sanders
Cardin
Jones (NC)
Sandlin
Cardoza
Kanjorski
Saxton
Carson (IN)
Kaptur
Schiff
Carter
Keller
Schrock
Case
Kelly
Scott (GA)
Castle
Kennedy (MN)
Serrano
Chabot
King (IA)
Sessions
Chocola
King (NY)
Shadegg
Coble
Kingston
Shaw
Cole
Kirk
Shays
Collins
Kline
Sherman
Cooper
Knollenberg
Sherwood
Costello
Kolbe
Shimkus
Cox
LaHood
Shuster
Cramer
Lampson
Simmons
Crane
Langevin
Simpson
Crenshaw
Latham
Skelton
Crowley
LaTourette
Slaughter
Culberson
Leach
Smith (MI)
Cunningham
Levin
Smith (NJ)
Davis (AL)
Lewis (CA)
Smith (TX)
Davis (FL)
Lewis (KY)
Snyder
Davis (IL)
Linder
Souder
Davis (TN)
Lipinski
Spratt
Davis, Jo Ann
LoBiondo
Stearns
Davis, Tom
Lowey
Stenholm
Deal (GA)
Lucas (KY)
Strickland
DeGette
Lucas (OK)
Sullivan
DeLauro
Lynch
Sweeney
DeLay
Majette
Tancredo
DeMint
Maloney
Tanner
Deutsch
Manzullo
Tauzin
Diaz-Balart, L.
Marshall
Taylor (MS)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Matheson
Taylor (NC)
Dingell
McCarthy (MO)
Terry
Doggett
McCarthy (NY)
Thomas
Dooley (CA)
McCotter
Thompson (CA)
Doolittle
McCrery
Thornberry
Doyle
McHugh
Tiahrt
Duncan
McInnis
Turner (OH)
Dunn
McIntyre
Turner (TX)
Edwards
McKeon
Upton
Ehlers
McNulty
Van Hollen
Emanuel
Meek (FL)
Vitter
Emerson
Meeks (NY)
Walden (OR)
English
Mica
Walsh
Etheridge
Michaud
Wamp
Everett
Millender-McDonald
Waters
Fattah
Miller (FL)
Waxman
Feeney
Miller (MI)
Weldon (FL)
Ferguson
Miller (NC)
Weldon (PA)
Filner
Miller, Gary
Wexler
Foley
Mollohan
Whitfield
Forbes
Moore
Wicker
Ford
Moran (KS)
Wilson (NM)
Franks (AZ)
Moran (VA)
Wilson (SC)
Frelinghuysen
Murphy
Wolf
Gallegly
Murtha
Wu
Garrett (NJ)
Musgrave
Wynn
Gerlach
Myrick
Young (FL)
Gibbons
Nadler
Gilchrest
Napolitano
--- NAYS 104 ---
Abercrombie
Hayworth
Paul
Ackerman
Hinchey
Payne
Andrews
Holt
Pelosi
Baca
Honda
Peterson (MN)
Baldwin
Inslee
Pombo
Ballance
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Pomeroy
Becerra
Jefferson
Porter
Berkley
Johnson, E. B.
Rangel
Berman
Jones (OH)
Reyes
Bishop (UT)
Kennedy (RI)
Rodriguez
Blumenauer
Kildee
Rohrabacher
Bono
Kilpatrick
Roybal-Allard
Cannon
Kind
Sanchez, Linda T.
Capps
Kleczka
Sanchez, Loretta
Capuano
Kucinich
Schakowsky
Carson (OK)
Larsen (WA)
Scott (VA)
Clay
Lee
Sensenbrenner
Clyburn
Lewis (GA)
Solis
Conyers
Lofgren
Stark
Cummings
Markey
Stupak
Davis (CA)
Matsui
Tauscher
DeFazio
McCollum
Thompson (MS)
Delahunt
McDermott
Tiberi
Dicks
McGovern
Towns
Dreier
Meehan
Udall (CO)
Engel
Menendez
Udall (NM)
Evans
Miller, George
Velazquez
Farr
Neal (MA)
Visclosky
Flake
Nethercutt
Watson
Fossella
Ney
Watt
Frank (MA)
Oberstar
Weiner
Frost
Olver
Weller
Grijalva
Owens
Woolsey
Gutierrez
Pallone
Young (AK)
Hastings (FL)
Pastor
--- NOT VOTING 11 ---
Buyer
Gephardt
Smith (WA)
Cubin
Houghton
Tierney
Eshoo
Lantos
Toomey
Fletcher
Larson (CT)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2909005
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to outlaw credit-card payments to Internet casinos, hoping to choke the offshore gambling sites that draw billions of dollars from U.S. customers.
The House passed the measure by a vote of 319 to 104, overriding the objections of lawmakers who said it could encourage online bets on horse racing, lotteries and other forms of state-approved gambling untouched by the measure.
The bill did not include criminal penalties but supporters hope to add them after the Senate passes its bill. The Senate Banking and Finance Committee has held hearings on a similar bill but has not yet scheduled a vote.
The lopsided House vote masked the controversial nature of the bill as lawmakers debated for hours the best way to block unregulated Web sites while not upsetting the thicket of state, local and tribal regulations that govern gambling in the United States.
Most Internet gambling is already illegal under U.S. and state laws, but those laws have little power over the 1,800 offshore gambling sites that are expected to take in $2 billion from U.S. residents this year.
Lawmakers instead sought to prevent credit-card payments and other money transfers to gambling sites, an approach already taken up voluntarily by many credit-card providers.
Some lawmakers said the bill could allow horse tracks to extend their remote-betting operations into states like Utah that allow no gambling whatsoever, or prohibit American Indian tribes from running their own operations.
"You might actually consider it an Internet gambling industrial policy bill because we're choosing a favored class" of gambling operations, said Utah Republican Rep. Chris Cannon.
An amendment to remove such protections failed by a vote of 186 to 237.
Bill sponsor Rep. Spencer Bachus said such efforts would gut the bill, and noted that the online gambling industry has grown exponentially over the years as Congress has failed to act.
"This Congress continues to take the occasion when this bill comes up to have a turf fight on gambling," the Alabama Republican said.
The bill survived a bruising jurisdictional battle at the committee level and was pulled off the House floor schedule last week after backers feared they did not have enough support.
Bachus' bill contained no criminal provisions, which allowed backers to bypass Cannon and other like-minded members of the Judiciary Committee whose support otherwise would have been necessary.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to outlaw credit-card payments to Internet casinos, hoping to choke the offshore gambling sites that draw billions of dollars from U.S. customers.
The House passed the measure by a vote of 319 to 104, overriding the objections of lawmakers who said it could encourage online bets on horse racing, lotteries and other forms of state-approved gambling untouched by the measure.
The bill did not include criminal penalties but supporters hope to add them after the Senate passes its bill. The Senate Banking and Finance Committee has held hearings on a similar bill but has not yet scheduled a vote.
The lopsided House vote masked the controversial nature of the bill as lawmakers debated for hours the best way to block unregulated Web sites while not upsetting the thicket of state, local and tribal regulations that govern gambling in the United States.
Most Internet gambling is already illegal under U.S. and state laws, but those laws have little power over the 1,800 offshore gambling sites that are expected to take in $2 billion from U.S. residents this year.
Lawmakers instead sought to prevent credit-card payments and other money transfers to gambling sites, an approach already taken up voluntarily by many credit-card providers.
Some lawmakers said the bill could allow horse tracks to extend their remote-betting operations into states like Utah that allow no gambling whatsoever, or prohibit American Indian tribes from running their own operations.
"You might actually consider it an Internet gambling industrial policy bill because we're choosing a favored class" of gambling operations, said Utah Republican Rep. Chris Cannon.
An amendment to remove such protections failed by a vote of 186 to 237.
Bill sponsor Rep. Spencer Bachus said such efforts would gut the bill, and noted that the online gambling industry has grown exponentially over the years as Congress has failed to act.
"This Congress continues to take the occasion when this bill comes up to have a turf fight on gambling," the Alabama Republican said.
The bill survived a bruising jurisdictional battle at the committee level and was pulled off the House floor schedule last week after backers feared they did not have enough support.
Bachus' bill contained no criminal provisions, which allowed backers to bypass Cannon and other like-minded members of the Judiciary Committee whose support otherwise would have been necessary.
Sorry got caught up in my job and didn't realize what happened until I checked my cell phone. In the end the House passed Oxley's bill because behind closed doors they convinced enough people that they can add a bunch of provisions in real backhanded ways. This news story pretty much says it all. They took the path of least resistance hoping to put up their fight later so its essentially round 2 starting when the Senate takes it up. The preliminary sense is of two things. First of all most in the Senate think they have better things to do than this. Second the zealousness of the issue is less noticeable. Kyl isn't really a huge backer of this, he just is going along for now because this is as good as they can do. He has been made quite aware of how weak the proposed changes are and even more importantly he apparently has some tribal interests since they are huge Arizona donors. What kind of criminal penalties might be added is completely unknown. One lobbyist thinks they must have had some strategy in mind, that someone on the committee in the Senate gave them some assurances.
In the end I have said it over and over, the bill AS IS, is a nothing piece of legislation. Its worthless and they can go ahead and pass it for all most involved could care. Even if they put penalties on them, its almost certain to be like the wire act, only affecting "businesses engaged in sports betting". So as long as people offshore just keep using fake names or putting a Tico name on the business as a managing partner, this won't do a thing that isn't already done. People offshore are assuredly smarter than these lawmakers think, they will create payment solutions that just run circles around this...
In the end I have said it over and over, the bill AS IS, is a nothing piece of legislation. Its worthless and they can go ahead and pass it for all most involved could care. Even if they put penalties on them, its almost certain to be like the wire act, only affecting "businesses engaged in sports betting". So as long as people offshore just keep using fake names or putting a Tico name on the business as a managing partner, this won't do a thing that isn't already done. People offshore are assuredly smarter than these lawmakers think, they will create payment solutions that just run circles around this...
Bill,
I'm concerned with this language, "Lawmakers instead sought to prevent credit-card payments and other money transfers to gambling sites, an approach already taken up voluntarily by many credit-card providers."
What are the "other money transfers"? Legally are they trying to say I can be tried for transfering my own money (not credit) via NETeller to an offshore book?
I'm concerned with this language, "Lawmakers instead sought to prevent credit-card payments and other money transfers to gambling sites, an approach already taken up voluntarily by many credit-card providers."
What are the "other money transfers"? Legally are they trying to say I can be tried for transfering my own money (not credit) via NETeller to an offshore book?
Actually the assertion that you can get in trouble is not realistic at all. Well first up they need to add some enforcement and penalties to it or it means nothing. The previous versions are very vague on this, to the point of being useless. The gist of it is just as I have said, that they are going to say its illegal and then leave it up to the offshore books to accept their jurisdiction over the matter. I think that part is quite clear. They might think they are getting the banks on their side, but they really are not. This will fall under the proper transaction structuring need more than ever. When you send a transaction, the books need to make sure there is a third party involved. A Neteller or even an agent of some sort that picks up Western Unions will be just fine. If you send money to someone other than the book before the last transaction from agent to book and they return your money in the same fashion, then the criminal link is broken unless the agent or bank resides or does business in the US. They might try to rattle their sabres just a bit, but the bottom line is that a transaction where you send money to someone that is out of the country and then they send the money to another entity that facilitates the betting and the US government just lost jurisdiction over the transaction. It really is as simple as that. Since Neteller and Western Unions sent to agents in third countries are getting to be the majority of deposits anymore, I think you can safely say this bill will do very little to slow the money flow either direction. They made the bank instruments clear because they were told by some that bank wires are very popular, of course the same guy insisted this was because of their operations are very similar to terrorist organizations, which do use bank wires quite a bit. Its another silly piece of work, just how many bank wires are being used anyways? The biggest piece of the pie they might have cut out is debit cards and direct debits from your account, but once again proper use of an intermediary agent gets around this pretty good.
This is very important, just read the law. The law has nothing in it that says its illegal to bet offshore. The Feds keep insisting its illegal to bet offshore, but there is no law against it, to say the Wire Act applies is dumb. The Wire Act puts the criminal action on the bookmaker, the person or entity "in the business of wagering" which doesn't mean the vast majority of us. Also, the Wire Act applies only to people the US has jurisdiction over, they cannot compel another country to turn over an entity, say Olympic Sports or one of their citizens. Its just not going to happen. If the US wants a conviction they need Jamaica to change their laws (or a really messed up judge in New York I guess can be added). The US might trample on a lot of things, but to go after legal businesses in another country is really using up a lot of brownie points that I think even John Ashcroft would rather save for other things. So if your book is clean and not associating with known mobsters then chances are pretty good they won't get into any trouble.
So yes there could always be a worry that you could get in trouble, but if your only crime is gambling then you should be more concerned about the IRS. Put it another way, I don't know if anyone has ever gotten jail time for just being a bettor. Bookies and casino operators can get jail time, bettors never get jail time. Quite likely the worst thing are these greedy scumbags would try to take your money, so its definitely a continuing reason to spread your funds around.
The thought that went around the crowd was is why hasn't the industry gotten its act together. I mean those of us involved in it take all this for granted since its the way things work, but to people new to the industry side it just seems crazy. You have a bunch of jurisdictions that don't make it illegal, yet don't really support it. You have places that charge taxes/regulation fees and then don't regulate the business. You have your banks all over the place. If you were to create an "incubator" to grow this business you certainly wouldn't do it like this industry does. These people may not understand the business well and may not know its history, but they are obviously insightful when they realize that in some ways the industry causes its own problems. The businesses that are fly-by-night, the uncalled for boasting by some operators, the lack of cooperation...lets just say the amateurish way of some operations and the way its all set up isn't something these new to game people have missed. Maybe at some point there will be a wakeup call, but right now the disarray and lack of support from an organized group that represents all the offshore industry definitely hurts when it comes to times like this.
This is very important, just read the law. The law has nothing in it that says its illegal to bet offshore. The Feds keep insisting its illegal to bet offshore, but there is no law against it, to say the Wire Act applies is dumb. The Wire Act puts the criminal action on the bookmaker, the person or entity "in the business of wagering" which doesn't mean the vast majority of us. Also, the Wire Act applies only to people the US has jurisdiction over, they cannot compel another country to turn over an entity, say Olympic Sports or one of their citizens. Its just not going to happen. If the US wants a conviction they need Jamaica to change their laws (or a really messed up judge in New York I guess can be added). The US might trample on a lot of things, but to go after legal businesses in another country is really using up a lot of brownie points that I think even John Ashcroft would rather save for other things. So if your book is clean and not associating with known mobsters then chances are pretty good they won't get into any trouble.
So yes there could always be a worry that you could get in trouble, but if your only crime is gambling then you should be more concerned about the IRS. Put it another way, I don't know if anyone has ever gotten jail time for just being a bettor. Bookies and casino operators can get jail time, bettors never get jail time. Quite likely the worst thing are these greedy scumbags would try to take your money, so its definitely a continuing reason to spread your funds around.
The thought that went around the crowd was is why hasn't the industry gotten its act together. I mean those of us involved in it take all this for granted since its the way things work, but to people new to the industry side it just seems crazy. You have a bunch of jurisdictions that don't make it illegal, yet don't really support it. You have places that charge taxes/regulation fees and then don't regulate the business. You have your banks all over the place. If you were to create an "incubator" to grow this business you certainly wouldn't do it like this industry does. These people may not understand the business well and may not know its history, but they are obviously insightful when they realize that in some ways the industry causes its own problems. The businesses that are fly-by-night, the uncalled for boasting by some operators, the lack of cooperation...lets just say the amateurish way of some operations and the way its all set up isn't something these new to game people have missed. Maybe at some point there will be a wakeup call, but right now the disarray and lack of support from an organized group that represents all the offshore industry definitely hurts when it comes to times like this.
