Tomorrow it will be 270 days since the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was signed into law by the President of the United States, and the deadline by which the Secretary of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, must set down regulations to identify and block restricted online gambling transactions. We have until the end of tomorrow to see whether the Federal Reserve and the Attorney General will stick to this deadline, but we are not far from learning exactly how the US Government intends to restrict its citizens online gaming activities.
For the management of online gaming companies that continue to provide services into the United States, these must be nervous times. We have already witnessed several cases which demonstrate that the US government will not shy away from pursuing the executives of such companies, or their financial transaction providers, and the regulations of the UIGEA will give them yet another weapon in their war on online gaming.
In March of this year Gary Kaplan, the founder of BetonSports Plc, was arrested in the Dominican Republic and extradited to face prosecution in St Louis on charges including violation of the Interstate Wire Act of 1961.
And Peter Dicks, the British Chairman of Sportingbet Plc was arrested in New York's JFK airport at the request of the St. Landry District Attorney in Louisiana, on charges of breaching a State statute on “offences affecting general morality”.
Now under section 5363 of the UIGEA, any person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may not knowingly accept payment in relation to participation in unlawful internet gambling. In this context, the UIGEA definition of a payment would be any transaction or transmittal involving credit or the proceeds of credit, electronic fund transfers, cheques, drafts or similar instruments and any other form of financial transaction as prescribed by the Secretary and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
Any person found in breach of section 5363 risks being fined, imprisoned for a maximum of five years, or both. It is the remit of either the US Attorney General, or the Attorney General of any State to institute proceedings in this regard.
So can we expect the US authorities to actively pursue online gaming operators that continue to provide their services to American citizens? According to Leslie Bryant, Head of the Cyber Crime Fraud Unit at the Federal Bureau of Investigation yes, we can.
Bryant states that as a key enforcement agency, the FBI’s strategy for tackling online gaming is to start with the companies providing the service, “We’re going after the people making the money, the owners of these virtual casinos, gaming rooms, and off-track betting parlours.”
And for US players Bryant had this warning, “Even if you don’t get caught gambling, you could well lose the money you have in an online gaming account if the company faces charges…..the U.S. government seizes assets in these cases whenever possible.”
At the time of this article, hundreds of online bingo, casino, poker and sports book sites continue to accept payments from American players, even if their payment options are becoming fewer and fewer. This places these companies and their customers funds in some considerable risk.
The online gaming executives that Gaming Intelligence Group has spoken to believe that the authorities will take action against US facing operators once the deadline for implementation of the UIGEA passes. Particularly for the poker operators who withdrew from the US market last year, this represents a levelling of the playing field, that will once again shift the balance of power in the fight for active player liquidity.
If the private online poker sites choose to withdraw from the US market, or are prosecuted for failing to do so, we could expect six of the ten largest operators to loose as much as 90% of their player liquidity.
PokerStars.com is probably best placed to survive such an event. While we estimate that 70-75% of PokerStars liquidity is derived from the United States, their customer base has grown rapidly outside the US in the past nine months, thanks in part to promotions like the $1 million guaranteed Sunday weekly tournament.
PokerStars continues to accept payments from US players via ePassporte, Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club, cashiers cheque, money order and bank draft, although withdrawals can only be made through ePassporte, Visa Debit or Moneybookers.
As recently as yesterday, the company was informing its American players that it would continue to provide its services. “You may play on our site as you did prior to the recent developments,” said PokerStars customer support. “We would like to reassure you that all funds held with PokerStars are completely secure. Player deposits are held in a separate bank account so that they remain completely isolated from all other aspects of the business.”
However Neteller’s customer funds were also held in separate accounts from that of the business, but that did not stop the US Attorney’s Office from seizing $60 million of their customers money. Five months on, Neteller is expected to announce later this week how and when customers can expect their money back.
Full Tilt will probably be even more affected than PokerStars due to their greater dependence on American players. We estimate about 85% of Full Tilt’s customers to be US based. Without these players, Full Tilt’s business could become unsustainable, particularly if their remaining non-US players left in search of greater liquidity.
And with the highest dependence on US players, Absolute Poker, Bodog and UltimateBet would end up with virtually no liquidity if they blocked these players, as they probably account for up to 95% of their customer base.
So who stands to gain from all this? Apart from the US land-based operators of course, it would have to be online poker operators such as PartyPoker, iPoker, Everest, Ongame and IPN. As the liquidity rankings change, these operators stand to gain the non-US players of the affected sites who will want to move to where the most action can be found.
And the Losers? The American public who can continue to gamble in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, on Indian tribal lands and trackside, but who some in the government believe cannot be trusted to enjoy the same leisure activities online in the comfort of their own homes.
http://gamingintelligencegroup.com/gig/content/view/407/2/
For the management of online gaming companies that continue to provide services into the United States, these must be nervous times. We have already witnessed several cases which demonstrate that the US government will not shy away from pursuing the executives of such companies, or their financial transaction providers, and the regulations of the UIGEA will give them yet another weapon in their war on online gaming.
In March of this year Gary Kaplan, the founder of BetonSports Plc, was arrested in the Dominican Republic and extradited to face prosecution in St Louis on charges including violation of the Interstate Wire Act of 1961.
And Peter Dicks, the British Chairman of Sportingbet Plc was arrested in New York's JFK airport at the request of the St. Landry District Attorney in Louisiana, on charges of breaching a State statute on “offences affecting general morality”.
Now under section 5363 of the UIGEA, any person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may not knowingly accept payment in relation to participation in unlawful internet gambling. In this context, the UIGEA definition of a payment would be any transaction or transmittal involving credit or the proceeds of credit, electronic fund transfers, cheques, drafts or similar instruments and any other form of financial transaction as prescribed by the Secretary and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
Any person found in breach of section 5363 risks being fined, imprisoned for a maximum of five years, or both. It is the remit of either the US Attorney General, or the Attorney General of any State to institute proceedings in this regard.
So can we expect the US authorities to actively pursue online gaming operators that continue to provide their services to American citizens? According to Leslie Bryant, Head of the Cyber Crime Fraud Unit at the Federal Bureau of Investigation yes, we can.
Bryant states that as a key enforcement agency, the FBI’s strategy for tackling online gaming is to start with the companies providing the service, “We’re going after the people making the money, the owners of these virtual casinos, gaming rooms, and off-track betting parlours.”
And for US players Bryant had this warning, “Even if you don’t get caught gambling, you could well lose the money you have in an online gaming account if the company faces charges…..the U.S. government seizes assets in these cases whenever possible.”
At the time of this article, hundreds of online bingo, casino, poker and sports book sites continue to accept payments from American players, even if their payment options are becoming fewer and fewer. This places these companies and their customers funds in some considerable risk.
The online gaming executives that Gaming Intelligence Group has spoken to believe that the authorities will take action against US facing operators once the deadline for implementation of the UIGEA passes. Particularly for the poker operators who withdrew from the US market last year, this represents a levelling of the playing field, that will once again shift the balance of power in the fight for active player liquidity.
If the private online poker sites choose to withdraw from the US market, or are prosecuted for failing to do so, we could expect six of the ten largest operators to loose as much as 90% of their player liquidity.
PokerStars.com is probably best placed to survive such an event. While we estimate that 70-75% of PokerStars liquidity is derived from the United States, their customer base has grown rapidly outside the US in the past nine months, thanks in part to promotions like the $1 million guaranteed Sunday weekly tournament.
PokerStars continues to accept payments from US players via ePassporte, Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club, cashiers cheque, money order and bank draft, although withdrawals can only be made through ePassporte, Visa Debit or Moneybookers.
As recently as yesterday, the company was informing its American players that it would continue to provide its services. “You may play on our site as you did prior to the recent developments,” said PokerStars customer support. “We would like to reassure you that all funds held with PokerStars are completely secure. Player deposits are held in a separate bank account so that they remain completely isolated from all other aspects of the business.”
However Neteller’s customer funds were also held in separate accounts from that of the business, but that did not stop the US Attorney’s Office from seizing $60 million of their customers money. Five months on, Neteller is expected to announce later this week how and when customers can expect their money back.
Full Tilt will probably be even more affected than PokerStars due to their greater dependence on American players. We estimate about 85% of Full Tilt’s customers to be US based. Without these players, Full Tilt’s business could become unsustainable, particularly if their remaining non-US players left in search of greater liquidity.
And with the highest dependence on US players, Absolute Poker, Bodog and UltimateBet would end up with virtually no liquidity if they blocked these players, as they probably account for up to 95% of their customer base.
So who stands to gain from all this? Apart from the US land-based operators of course, it would have to be online poker operators such as PartyPoker, iPoker, Everest, Ongame and IPN. As the liquidity rankings change, these operators stand to gain the non-US players of the affected sites who will want to move to where the most action can be found.
And the Losers? The American public who can continue to gamble in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, on Indian tribal lands and trackside, but who some in the government believe cannot be trusted to enjoy the same leisure activities online in the comfort of their own homes.
http://gamingintelligencegroup.com/gig/content/view/407/2/
