The implementation of online gambling was halted in Washington DC by the instructions of the legislative council. Some members of the council were aggrieved with the controversy surrounding the legislation. The law was pushed through without due debate, being attached to a must pass supplementary budget bill. There also was the issue of the association of independent councilor Michael Brown, who has promoted the bill, with pro online gambling lobbyists. Therefore it was decided to hold public consultations in the eight wards of Washington DC to ascertain what the residents felt about the law and about online gambling in general. These consultations were to be conducted by DC Lottery, the implementing agency for the online gambling law. Even these consultations did not get off to the desired start and had to be postponed.
However, the Washington Post now reports that the community briefings have been completed. And they have gone off well prom the point of view of online gambling proponents. There were hardly any city residents who stood up and spoke against the concept of government sponsored online gambling. The general thrust of the questions was whether the technology available was good enough to ensure player protection and good enough to ensure the exclusion of problem gamblers and the under aged citizens who may be tempted to try their hand at online gambling. As per reports, some people even demanded to know why the process was taking so long.
It was evident that the funds were needed by the District. The main concerns of the Washington DC residents were how the revenues generated by online gambling would be deployed by the council. The initial estimates of the revenue put it at nine million dollars and as one citizen remarked, "Nine million dollars is nine million dollars." Residents indicated that they would like the funds to be used for education or poverty alleviation. The citizens voiced that there was nothing wrong with the District being first to legalize online gambling in the United States. Most of them found no difference between online gambling and lottery. One Washington DC resident said, "I'd rather gamble my money in my home town rather than driving to Atlantic City."
Commenting on the response to the public consultations, the Washington Post wrote, "That the populace, by and large, has given online gambling its retroactive approval has made the questions about its origins more puzzling." It argued that a separate independent bill on online gambling would have caused fewer difficulties in the path Therefore it did not make sense "to slip what appears to be a popular proposal through the back door". It now remains to be seen what the legislative council thinks about the response and whether the implementation process will be back on rails.
There are thousands of online gambling destinations on the internet; most of these online casinos, bingo, poker and sports betting sites accept real money play from Australian punters. The law in this country stands in such a way that although these activities are intrinsically illegal for operators to run from Australia, they are not 100% illegal for players to play. Basically the law says that the onus for legality lays upon the operator and not the player, so, millions of Australian punters happily gamble offshore.
Currently the Australian federal Government is looking at what options they have available to them to control online gambling. They are also re-examining their own laws in this regard and have suggested that they use a similar control mechanism as the USA. This is UIGEA where banks and payment processors are forced not to process financial transaction from people playing at online gambling sites. Although UIGEA has really not done what it was actually designed to do, and was a very badly implemented law.
The Bankers’ Association of Australia has no influence over any decisions made by the federal government, but everyone is allowed to have their say. What they say is that targeting banks and online payment processors is simply not a solution. Even in the USA punters, operators and payment processors alike found ways and means of getting around the laws, although many got into hot water, but not before they made millions of dollars, and in the longer term it is the consumer that pays the highest price.
In the attempt for Australian online gambling reforms, Visa in particular is of the opinion that not only will this affect online gambling payment processing, as the restriction of making financial transactions online is just not that straightforward. If Australia is identified as an area where payment obligations might not be fulfilled, it could have a striking impact on the contestability of Australian businesses with an online presence, as well as the consumer of course.
State Rep. Jim Miceli, D-Wilmington, expressed his support for a Casino Gambling bill approved by the Legislature and signed into law this week by Gov. Deval Patrick.
“This is first and foremost a jobs bill,” said Miceli. “It will bring economic growth and local aid that is critical and create good construction jobs.”
The gaming conference report approved by Senate and the House also provides state revenue from a 25 percent tax on casinos revenues and 40 percent tax on the slot facility revenues. The revenues will be used to fund essential state and local services, including public safety, education, transportation, public health, debt reduction, local aid and the stabilization “rainy day” fund.
Licensing fees collected by the state would also be used for community mitigation, local capital projects, community colleges, tourism and other municipal needs.
The new law will allow for the construction of three resort-style casinos, as well as one slots parlor.
Open bidding for the licenses will start at 85 million for a casino license and at 25 million for the slot facility.
“Casino gambling is by no means a solution to our economic problems," said Miceli, “but it will certainly help at this time.”
Careful attention was made for provisions requiring the Gaming Commission to work with municipalities on reducing potential negative effects. No gaming facility would be built without the approval of the residents of the community in a referendum vote.
State Rep. Paul Adams, R-Andover, and state Sen. Barry Finegold, D-Andover, both opposed the Casino Gambling law when it was before the Legislature
Serbia adopted a new gambling law on November 22. The law aims to reduce the number of illegal operators and tackle the problem of money laundering associated with the industry.
The new law has been welcomed by the trade association JAKTA, who met with the Serbian Gaming Board the day after the legislation was passed. “We are very optimistic," said JAKTA president Mirjana Acimovic. “We can see that our conscientious work in gathering the relevant facts about gaming markets in the former Yugoslavia and the rest of Europe has been worthwhile. We compared different national regulatory models and collaborated with relevant partners such as testing laboratories, reputable companies and associations. JAKTA put a lot of effort into lobbying the government for the creation of a well-regulated gaming market.”
“The new law will lead to the opening up of the online gaming market,” said the director of the Serbian Gaming Board, Aleksandar Vulovic, adding: “There are three really important things that have been passed in this law.” According to Vulovic, the first and most important is controlling online gaming, the second is the electronic monitoring of operators and the third is the streamlining of taxation for the industry.
Legitimate gaming operators in Serbia have found it increasingly difficult to compete with the massive black market in the past five years. The Gaming Board is now planning to crack down hard on illegal operators who are believed to outnumber their law-abiding counterparts two to one. The Gaming Board will have the backing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to achieve this and the tax authorities will enforce the law in the field.
The central monitoring of operators is expected to be a powerful tool for the government to get a clear picture of the size of the industry, in order to regulate more effectively in future with fairer taxation, protection of players and promotion of a legal industry. The Gaming Board will also use the services of a gaming laboratory to license machines and there will be a limit of five machines in one gaming arcade. Video surveillance will be necessary in order to control under-age gambling. All gaming licences will have a duration of 10 years.
“In our opinion, the most important aspect of this new law is that the Serbian government has decided to strengthen its Gaming Board and to assist it in every way,” said JAKTA president Mirjana Acimovic.
The following editorial appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on Monday, Nov. 21:
Listen up, Congress: There are times when Silicon Valley really can help you understand the complexities of legislation that will affect the tech industry - and the world economy. The raging debate over the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act is one of those times.
It's not just the future of the industry that's at stake here. It's national security.
Congress needs to put the brakes on the horrific piracy legislation that is hurtling toward passage at the behest of the entertainment industry. Members need to work with San Jose Rep. Zoe Lofgren and other representatives on an alternative approach to curbing the theft of intellectual property.
President Barack Obama needs to listen, too. He should tell Congress - now - that he will veto the legislation unless a compromise is found to meet Hollywood's needs without killing the Internet as we know it. And no, that is not excessive hyperbole.
Online piracy is a serious problem for moviemakers and recording studios. But the proposed legislation is both unlikely to work and likely to cripple the technology companies that, based on last week's growing job numbers, are crucial to lifting the economy toward a real recovery. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, eBay, Twitter, Zynga and dozens of other tech companies and venture firms are fighting this bill. And no wonder.
The legislation sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, gives copyright owners and the federal government the power to shut down websites, a practice Obama and many members of Congress have denounced China for doing. (Where are the human rights groups? They should be up in arms about this.)
Smith's bill holds Web companies responsible for policing the Internet. Google, Yahoo and Facebook would be expected to shut down rogue operators, and if they didn't, the government could shut down their whole sites or invite punishing, expensive lawsuits. Imagine the resources required to parse through the millions of Google and Facebook offerings every day looking for pirates who, if found, can just toss up another site in no time. It is a whack-a-mole strategy.
Then there's the national security issue. Sandia National Laboratories does classified and unclassified work for the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense, so Lofgren asked Computer Director Leonard Napolitano to evaluate the proposed law. In a letter Wednesday, Napolitano argued forcefully that the bill (1) is unlikely to work and (2) "would negatively impact U.S. and global cybersecurity and Internet functionality." He said that filtering and other mandates could block plans for government security improvements.
Hollywood's frustration with piracy is understandable. It claims losses in the tens of billions of dollars and up to 750,000 jobs. But helping one industry by threatening to destroy another makes no sense, even if national security were not in play.
There is a better alternative. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt and Lofgren recommend going after the people processing the sales of pirated material, a strategy that has proved effective with online gambling. Follow the money and stop piracy from being profitable.
If it removes a barrier to national security, so much the better.
Money should start flowing into Massachusetts' treasury in a few years now that Gov. Deval Patrick has signed the casino bill into law. But residents of the Bay State must realize — if they don't already — that there's likely to be a peck of trouble along with that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Massachusetts needs to be prepared to fix the social and economic consequences that, based on Connecticut's experience, are sure to develop.
Commonwealth politicians debated the casino issue for several years before passing, earlier this year, legislation that allows one full-service casino in the southeast portion of the state, one in the Boston area and one in western Massachusetts. The Massachusetts pleasure domes will drain some business from the Connecticut tribal behemoths, Foxwoods Resort Casino and the Mohegan Sun. Mr. Patrick is excited about casino prospects, saying that "if done right, expanded gaming can create jobs, generate new revenue and spur economic growth in every region" of the state. That rosy scenario is at least partially true. Casinos are good for creating thousands of low- to middle-paying jobs. But gaming isn't a Route 128-style industry.
Massachusetts politicians would be foolish to count on casinos being fonts of always-growing revenue streams for the state. Casino revenues have been flat in Connecticut. The industry is not recession-proof.
Connecticut's experience also shows that there are other problems that casino gaming will bring to Massachusetts along with the jobs and the glitter. Casinos can be business-killers, in the words of Jeff Benedict, former president of the Connecticut Alliance Against Casino Expansion. The region around the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot casinos has seen restaurants and other small businesses bite the dust. Casino-bound traffic can bottle up a town.
Gaming will mean dire social consequences for those who can't control their gambling — in Connecticut, a surprising number of them trusted government officials, accountants, pillars of their communities — and their families. More bankruptcies. More divorces and broken homes. More kids at risk. More suicides.
Get ready, Bay State, to spend a lot of that new money on fixing new problems.
Two separate congressional hearings were held last week to address the legalization and regulation of online poker in the U.S. While the voices in opposition are few and far between, and the arguments in favor seemed compelling, there is still a lingering sense that Congress is in no hurry to pass legislation to bring legalized online gaming back to the States. Regardless, the fact that the issue has not be tabled but continues to have legs, gives us some hope that somewhere it the future there will be such legislation.
The first hearing was held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affair and was entitled an “Oversight Hearing on the Future of Internet Gaming: What's at Stake for Tribes?” The hearing focused on tribal concerns and priorities related to internet gaming. The Committee Chairman said that even though there is no legislation pending before the committee now, the move to legalize online gaming is gaining interest as legislators look at it for its potential revenue and help in creating jobs.
What is of particular concern to this committee was the potential effect of online gaming to the Indian gaming industry which is currently a $26 billion industry. Issues discussed included maintaining tribal sovereignty and ensuring that any legislation to legalize online gaming would provide all tribes with full participation on an equal footing to their counterparts in the general gaming industry.
During the hearing, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) set the tone, which was to make sure that Indian tribes were included in any discussion concerning legislation to legalize online poker. He discussed the positive impact of Indian gaming on revenue and jobs and, while voicing concerns about online gaming, said if Congress were to consider legislation legalizing online gaming, he argued that the tribes must be consulted in every step of the process.
Larry Roberts, general counsel of the National Indian Gaming commission, testified that there is no consensus among the tribes as to legalizing online gaming, some are in favor, some are opposed, and it was not his intention to ever take a position on the subject. However, the people he represents are concerned about how internet gaming might cut into their revenue and make it difficult for them to compete.
On Friday, there was a hearing in front of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. That hearing, a follow up to a hearing last month, entitled “Internet Gaming: Regulating in an Online World” focused on how proposed online poker legislation should be regulated at the federal and state levels.
“Most people, including members of the subcommittee, seemed to be supportive of the concept of a poker-only bill,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who proposed HR2366, one of the bills being debated by legislators that would legalize internet poker in the U.S. through various state agencies. The bill has 25 co-sponsors among House and Senate members.
But by definition “most” meant there were voices in opposition. One such voice belonged to Frank Wolf (R-VA) who testified about the evils of gambling, calling it “a dangerous activity and study after study has shown that for many in our society, there is no question that it is strongly addictive.”
Barton countered Wolf’s concerns by citing statistics that show that less than two percent of gamblers can be categorized as having an addiction to gambling. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) discussed his co-sponsorship of pending legislation, which Wolf had authored, to address the issue of problem gambling. Frank supports taking a direct approach to the issue of gambling, from legalizing and regulating it, to providing programs to combat its potential harm, as the proper role of the government.
“Enacting legislation to license, regulate, and tax online gambling as well as implement problem gambling programs, would bring this industry out of the shadows, benefit consumers, create American jobs, capture revenue and allow adults to enjoy freedom from unnecessary government interference,” Frank said.
Overall, the hearing left those supporting Barton’s bill feeling hopeful. “The hearings were great for us,” said Poker Players Alliance (PPA) Vice President of Player Relations Rich Muny. “They were also completely different. The October House subcommittee hearing didn’t mention anything about the morality of playing poker. Last week, Frank Wolf talked about morality, but his points didn’t connect with anyone. No one really referenced his comments throughout the rest of the hearing. Everyone else was talking about how we’re going to regulate it.”
As far as what is next for HR2366, Muny said “The next step for Barton’s bill would be a markup. We’ve had two hearings on internet gambling in the House subcommittee, so we’re hoping to be at the next step. It would be nice if we could get it in this year, but if that doesn’t happen, it could happen early next year. It has to be voted through somewhere.”
It seems unlikely that during an election cycle, Congress would be willing to stake a position on an issue as potentially incendiary as “gambling.” However, the tenor of the recent hearing gives some hope that moving the focus to the two prongs of revenue/jobs and protection of players might give the bill a chance.
With online poker being virtually absent from the U.S., there is greater urgency than ever to get a bill passed that would bring it back onshore. There was hope that the supercommittee might take it up as a revenue generator, but that did not happen. Barton’s bill, with its bipartisan support and focus on just poker, looks to be the best chance to get the issue resolved at last.
“I think we moved the ball forward and are getting closer to making this bill a law,” Barton said. “I think the votes are there in the subcommittee, the whole committee and on the House floor.”
Despite the fact that New Zealand is a really small country and only has a 4.4 million population, these fellas love to gamble, New Zealanders per populace are some of the most avid gamblers in the world. Currently – much like Australia – online gambling businesses are not allowed to operate from within this country, as this is not a regulated industry where these operations may be licensed. To all intents and purposes New Zealand residents should not be gambling online with offshore sites, but they do.
As online gambling has increased in popularity globally over the years, it has not escaped the attention of punters from this country. Laws do not punish players, and although operators are subject to their laws of prohibition, the nature of offshore online gambling makes prosecutions almost impossible to pursue – Australia has found the same. These businesses are not allowed to advertise in NZ, and since this legislation was enacted, no prosecutions or even reprimands of websites have taken place.
There are two exceptions to the rule and these are for TabCorp and the New Zealand Lottery Commission. The New Zealand Lotteries Commission (NZ Lotteries) is a Crown entity that operates nation-wide lotteries in New Zealand. The oldest and most popular draw is the weekly Lotto which boasts a top prize pool of NZ$1 million. There are three other draws, Big Wednesday, the twice-daily Keno, and newly launched Bullseye, and a variety of scratchcards known as Instant Kiwi. Powerball and Lotto Strike are optional extras with every Lotto ticket, whilst the Winning Wheel game is free to all Lotto ticket purchasers. Instant Kiwi may only be played by persons 18 years of age or older, under the Gambling Act 2003. Lotto/Daily Keno may be played by anyone.
After debating the wisdom of this, the New Zealand Lottery Commission has also recently launched their own website, MyLotto.co.nz is the official website of the New Zealand Lotteries Commission, where lottery tickets may be purchased online. There are capped amounts for players of a maximum monthly spend of NZ$300, and the feeling is that the Government is keen to look at regulating a wider industry. A Govt enquiry was launched regarding Interactive and Online Gambling earlier in the year, and potential operators are obviously hoping that this will initiate at least some type of reform.
Hard times have been a constant for most members of the Chippewa Indian tribe known as the Lac Vieux Desert Band.
Nestled in a wooded corner of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the tribe owns a modest casino, a hotel and a golf course. But the complex is far off the beaten path for tourists or gamblers, and many of the tribe's 600 or so members find steady work as unlikely as winning a jackpot.
So when a Mexico casino czar named Juan Jose Rojas-Cardona sent an offer to invest in Mexico's booming gambling industry, it seemed like a godsend.
But rather than a big payout, the disadvantaged Lac Vieux tribe got swindled. Its multimillion-dollar "investment" disappeared, adding the tribe to a list of victims that includes a mammoth hedge fund in London, an Australian manufacturer of gaming machines, an Arizona investor and two Mexican textile tycoons.
Rojas-Cardona, however, has gone on to build one of the biggest gambling empires in Mexico. Relying on a silky sales pitch and what appear to be close connections to Mexico's top politicians, perhaps including presidents, Rojas-Cardona now holds 60 permits to operate casinos in Mexico -- even though gambling remains technically illegal in that country.
A horrendous act of violence on Aug. 25 first exposed the dark underside of Mexico's casino industry when gangsters firebombed the Casino Royale in Monterrey, Mexico's industrial northern hub, killing 52 people. Those arrested later confessed that they were pressuring the casino owners for payoffs on behalf of Los Zetas, one of Mexico's two biggest crime groups.
A McClatchy Newspapers investigation in the months since has found evidence that the corruption in Mexico's gambling industry goes much deeper than a shakedown by drug gangs. Indeed, the entire industry appears to be deliberately opaque, designed by political barons as a way for them to hand out licenses as favors, tap casino coffers for cash and let casino operators flout the law.
The Mexican system is so corrupt and unregulated that U.S. casino companies refuse to enter the Mexican market. But that has not kept Americans from being victims of the corruption.
It's unclear what, if anything, the U.S. government has done to warn investors of the risks or to help prosecute scam suspects such as Rojas-Cardona, whose criminal record in the United States includes the dismissal of a drug charge in New Mexico.
Rojas-Cardona's life in Mexico includes a near-assassination in 2007 that was laid to drug barons or rival casino operators.
Gambling in Mexico has thrived under the National Action Party, or PAN, which swept into power in 2000 promising an end to the corruption and cronyism that had flourished in Mexico during the long reign of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI. The PAN's candidate in 2000, Vicente Fox, was the country's first non-PRI president in more than 70 years, and his successor, current President Felipe Calderon, a fellow PAN member, won the post in 2006 in one of the most closely contested races in Mexico's history.
In a dizzying inconsistency, Fox's government issued regulations in 2004 that essentially ignored Mexico's 1947 law that bans gambling. Even though that law remains in effect, Mexico's Supreme Court allowed the new regulations to go forward. In the ensuing years, first Fox's administration, and then Calderon's, issued licenses allowing 867 gaming establishments, permitting some bingo, sports betting and slot machine parlors to expand into poker, roulette and craps without explicit legalization.
Calderon's office declined to comment on whether the president knows Rojas-Cardona.
Hundreds of full-fledged casinos now dot Mexican cities, and scores, if not hundreds, more operate off the books or under court protection from friendly judges who provide legal relief. Politicians balk at enacting new laws legalizing the current situation for fear that under-the-table payments may dry up and that global gaming companies could move in and dominate.
Mexican political barons draw on the casinos as if they were "petty cash boxes," said Lizbeth Garcia Coronado, a member of Mexico's Chamber of Deputies and the coordinator of the chamber's working group on gambling. "But it's not 'petty.' The casinos generate a lot of money."
The corruption and favoritism rampant in the Mexican gaming industry served as an incubator for the rise of Rojas-Cardona, 44, who spent much of his adolescence and early adulthood in Iowa, where his parents had immigrated from Hidalgo state in central Mexico.
He was president of the student senate at the University of Iowa, where he studied economics for five years before leaving in the mid-1990s without a degree.
When Rojas-Cardona's U.S. agent came calling in early 2006, leaders of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa liked what they heard.
Rojas-Cardona worked hard to impress the tribe and its lawyers, squiring them around Mexico in his British Aerospace 125-700A jet to iron out details of their planned $6.5 million investment.
The riches he promised awed some council members.
"The numbers they were throwing out, I thought, 'How can we not invest with these guys?' I was excited," recalled Tyrone McGeshick, a former council member.
Moreover, the Rojas-Cardona brothers insinuated that they had backing from the highest politicians in Mexico.
"When I hit the lottery I'm going to help my family with my share of the winnings." The young woman and her friends at work play weekly because "you have to play to win." Her grandfather played for years and never won big. She is well aware that her money might be better spent going into a 401(k) plan.
Every time "Harry" and his wife went grocery shopping he bought a couple of scratch-off lottery tickets from the machine. If he was lucky he got back his investment of the dollar or two he'd spent when he felt lucky.
If you take a gamble and wait long enough, you may win what you're seekingor find you waited too long and lost it all.
For some people, gambling is more than "just" a social activity, an evening out, a set limit of how much you are willing to lose and stopping when you've lost to that amount.
"Gambling," write Cindy Kerber, Ph.D. and Brenda Sullivan, "is wagering something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods." The two women penned the article, "Video Lottery Terminal Gambling" which appeared in the Fall 2010 issue of Paradym magazine.
"Most people who gamble do so recreationally without severe consequences," they continue. "For somegambling be[comes] problematic" The article emphasizes video gambling. "Virtual reel mapping is considered deceptive and connected to rapid onset of pathological gambling." Problems associated with virtual gaming are:
- associated with more rapid onset of gambling problems.
-predominant form of gambling for treatment-seeking pathological gamblers of video slots and video poker, et al.
Virtual Lottery Terminals (VLTs) are quick to affect the senses. A bet can be placed every five seconds. Players, lulled into a numb trance lose track of time and money. Is that really surprising? Have you watched your son or daughter playing video games at home? Have you started to play a game of Mario and lost track of time because you just knew you could win the round if you played long enough?
The authors of the article say that the intentions of the manufacturers of the machines is clear in the 1984 Telnaes patent for virtual reel mapping: "It is important to make a machine that is perceived to present greater chances of payoff than it actually has within the legal limitations that games of chance must operate."
Pathological gambling sometimes clusters with abuses of alcohol and illicit drugs, further complicating the gambling problems. Under the influence of alcohol the gambler will take more risky chances, certain they are about to win.
But many states have brought in VLTs to help increase revenues. If a person is going to gamble anyway, there's no reason not to do this, right? Recovery from gambling may be more difficult when it is everywhere, and those who might gamble only socially may be enticed to gamble more and suffer addiction to it.
"Communities who allow VLTs should also have treatment options available for those who develop pathological gambling," the authors say.
The National Institutes of Health advise that "problematic gambling is more common among those with alcohol use disorders." It is not known why this is so. Both problems-gambling and alcohol-are on the rise in the U.S.
"Addictive behaviors are broadly characterized byan intense desire to satisfy a need, a loss of control over the substance or behavior, compulsive thoughts about the substance or behavior, and engaging in the behavior despite negative consequences."
Alcohol and/or gambling may be an issue for you or someone in your family.
For more information about this topic, contact Family Recovery Center at 964 N. Market St., Lisbon; phone, 330-424-1468; or e-mail, [email][email protected][/email]. FRC is funded, in part, by United Way of Northern Columbiana County.
Proposals to change the taxation of online betting companies which are based offshore could lead to 40 per cent of gamblers using unauthorised traders.
The Treasury closes its review into the £1.7bn UK remote gambling market next week, in which it is pushing for online companies to be taxed where the bet takes place rather than their physical location. Many online betting groups operate from places such as Gibraltar, where a lighter tax and regulatory regime operates.
However, a report by accountant Deloitte – commissioned by William Hill, which has more than 10 per cent of the UK online market – shows any tax burden will grow the black market: a 15 per cent tax could mean two-fifths of legitimate firms leaving the UK market.
A spokesman for William Hill said: "The question for the Government is, should it introduce policy which distorts markets?"
Many reports have been logged that the authorities are tightening the ropes regarding illegal online gambling across Asia
Authorities across Asia are said to be cracking down on online gaming establishments; perhaps the greatest number of reports are coming from the Philippines and Malaysia. While this crackdown is similar to ones in America of late, it is interesting to note that the two regions are treating the issue quite differently. For example, since early in 2011, many people—over 800 in total--have been arrested and the authorities have confiscated over four thousand computers. And it seems the governments are becoming even less tolerant as time goes on: the numbers in 2010 were not nearly as high as those arrested and computers seized as in 2011. In 2010, roughly 100 fewer people were detained and only 2,500 computers were taken by law enforcement agencies.
Of the people who have been detained by the police, most have been arrested previously. These repeat offenders have been utilizing the online gambling facilities that are run out of roughly 50 locations throughout the area. Because Asia views illegal online gambling as an extremely serious offense, authorities there try to deal with the problem quickly.
In both the Philippines and Malaysia, the 1953 Common Gaming House Act as well as the 1997 Entertainment and Places of Entertainment Act provide the ruling that prohibits online gambling and allows offenders to be arrested. In addition, the authorities are watching internet cafes trying to guarantee that they are not being used by people to access illegal gambling websites. If someone is found to be using a computer at an internet café for gambling illegally, both the player and the shop owner can be prosecuted. While a lot of the recent attention has focused on illegal online gambling, illegal gambling parties are also suspect and liable to be disbanded.
With Nevada being the first of the US states to get online gambling on the go; this is going to be the state which benchmarks this industry for the rest of the USA – and they are ready – all systems go! As far as policing these activities is concerned, there are obviously questions to be asked and answered, and a Nevada lawmaker has reassured the powers-that-be, that this industry can be policed just as easily on a nationwide basis.
Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman – Mark Lipparelli – was in the hot-seat answering questions amid fears that if legalized by congress, this industry could spiral out of control. He reassured lawmakers that while the chance of getting away with cheating a system does exist, as it does with any system, any cheats would be found out quite quickly. This also applies to identifying underage and/or addicted gamblers, poker or other gambling bots, and money laundering or other illegal activities.
The reality of it is that online gambling software has controls and analytical tools in place which ferret out erratic or unusual betting patterns. It is also important to consider that a highly unique fingerprint is created by the user prior to spending a penny, and when it comes to making withdrawals, validation is required. This validation also leaves an ID paper and electronic trail to the player or players. The same cannot be said for example, of buying lottery tickets in 7/11′s or betting at the track. While a cheat might get away with bucking the systems online once, it certainly won’t happen again.
Lipparelli testified before a House commerce subcommittee which is currently studying online gambling, to consider legalizing internet poker; also with a view to opening doors to other forms of online gambling. The Mary Bono Mack, hearings have become big news in the online gambling industry, but she has made it quite clear that nothing will move fast, “if at all”?!
It is a well known fact that without the technology available to online casino operators there would not be a safe or viable internet gambling industry. The service providers that are located all over the world carry the burden of keeping the mountains of data secure and safe. Some service providers stand above the rest because they employ the latest and best technology available and have a proven track record for reliability.
One such company is founder owned Continent 8 Technologies, which has through Mohawk Internet Technologies (MIT), over the last 10 years proven time and again that it understands the intricacies of the online gambling sector better than any other provider. Continent 8 Technologies has features such as customizable network security and configurations for disaster recovery and replication.
Continent 8 Technologies actively works on providing cross-jurisdictional business solutions to the gaming industry as well as technical expertise.
Continent 8 Technologies Data Centres are ideally located for access to the major global e-markets of Europe, Asia and North and South America. The firm continues to invest heavily in new initiatives, people and business opportunities in order to stay ahead of the pack in this specialized field. Data Centres in the Isle of Man, France, Malta, Gibraltar, London, Singapore and Montreal; coupled with our own Global Private Network, Continent 8 Technologies is ideally positioned as the provider of choice.
Continent 8 Technologies is focused on the delivery of market-defining Internet technologies, products and services for the global marketplace, providing online companies with a secure reliable facility from which to host their online operations. Redundant, low-latency and reliably managed bandwidth and advanced managed services, including denial of service security and prevention, are factors which have made Continent 8 Technologies a leading data centre and co-location services provider.
The prestigious EGR Datacentre of the year award has been given to Continent 8 Technologies in 2010 and 2011 proof that the industry agrees this service provider is the best there is.
With pressure on the Minnesota government mounting to construct a one billion dollar Vikings football stadium, it seems more likely that there will be more support for the expansion of gambling in the state to fund the massive project, if the only other option is a tax hike.
A stadium funding bill is set to be unveiled next month and it has been confirmed that gambling proposals are the main options being considered. Some of these options include allowing bars and restaurants in Minnesota to upgrade pull tab games to electronic versions. Another option could be to allow two horse racing tracks in Twin Cities to install up to two thousand video slot machines each, while a third being touted is the construction of a casino complex in downtown Minneapolis.
Whichever option is chosen – if it comes to that – the government will be getting a healthy chunk of the revenues from taxation as well as licensing fees. It is hoped that the money will be enough to pay the $650 million currently being asked by the Vikings to replace the Metrodome – with experts saying that the price tag could easily reach $1 billion by the end of the construction.
As with all attempts to expand gambling at a state level, there is already growing opposition to the idea. Native American tribes are rejecting the expansion of gambling as they are worried about the competition to their own casinos, while social advocacy groups are decrying the potential damage. “It encourages indebtedness, family problems,” said the president of the Minnesota Family Council, Tom Prichard. “You’re really targeting a narrow range of people who do a significant amount of gambling.”
A group of Alberta chiefs is calling for a review of the province’s multi-million-dollar First Nations gaming policy — a program one researcher called “neo-colonial” in its approach to divvying up casino funds.
According to Treaty 8 Grand Chief Richard Kappo, the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs voted in a fall meeting to re-examine the breakdown of gaming funds — including roughly $76 million each year that goes to the province’s own lottery fund initiatives.
“(We) want to go back and re-examine the process and how it’s done,” said Kappo, chief of the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation in northern Alberta.
In the five years since the first reserve casino opened in Alberta, First Nations charitable gambling revenue has climbed dramatically.
In 2009-10, the five on reserve casinos raked in roughly $262 million, according to a recent report commissioned by the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission.
At issue is how slot machine cash, which makes up almost three-quarters of total revenue, is split.
Under the First Nations gaming policy, 40 per cent from the slots goes to a First Nations development fund crafted specially for reserve gaming proceeds. It’s then divided so the five reserves that host casinos can access 30 per cent of the cash for community projects.
The remaining 10 per cent is parsed between the other 39 eligible tribes.
The province, meanwhile, swallows 30 per cent of First Nations casino slot revenue into its $1.4 billion Alberta Lottery Fund, which is then doled out to various government departments to fund community programs.
University of Lethbridge native studies Prof. Yale Belanger questioned why the Alberta government would take almost a third of slot revenue when the policy it crafted was intended to help First Nations people.
“What we’re seeing is First Nations resources ... are actually being utilized to fuel Alberta’s development,” Belanger said.
“It’s nothing more than a very neo-colonial approach during a time when the Canadian government has been promoting reconciliation and improving our relationships with First Nations.”
Belanger co-authored a major report commissioned by the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission to examine the province’s gambling industry.
The report, released in the spring, also recommended substantial changes to the existing First Nations Development Fund.
“In the last four years alone, First Nations casinos have channelled 89.3 times more money to the ALF (Alberta Lottery Fund) than First Nations and Metis organizations drew from it in the past decade,” the report states.
The findings were presented in April to the commission and to the former aboriginal affairs department (now part of the Intergovernmental, International and Aboriginal Relations portfolio).
In an interview, the minister in charge of the portfolio said the government is “well aware” of the recommendations contained in Belanger’s report, but has no plans for a formal review.
Cal Dallas said Alberta’s First Nations gaming policy has already led to a great deal of social improvements among various bands since the first reserve casino opened in 2006.
“I think it’s been highly successful in terms of creating a fund that has provided First Nations with numerous opportunities to fund a variety of projects,” said Dallas, minister of intergovernmental, international and aboriginal relations.
“Since the inception of the agreement, what that’s meant is over $100 million has gone to those other First Nations other than the hosts (bands that operate casinos).”
When the gaming policy was drafted, both the Alberta government and First Nations agreed on appropriate allocations, Dallas said.
The minister said he’s open to discussions about “whether we got this right five years ago and whether it’s still the type of formula and still is achieving the means we set out to.”
The 2001 First Nations gaming policy was supported by 77 per cent of Alberta bands when it was drafted.
Today, five First Nations casinos are operated in Alberta, including the highly profitable Grey Eagle Casino at Tsuu T’ina and the River Cree Resort and Casino run by Enoch Cree Nation.
Under the First Nations development fund grant program, Alberta tribes can apply for funding for social, economic and community development projects.
Since its inception, millions of dollars have been infused into reserve development across the province, for projects such as the Kainai Peacemaking Centre planned for the Blood Tribe and the Piikani Nation Buffalo Skull Lodge.
The 2010-11 budget projection for the development fund grant program is $118 million — which means all First Nations are eligible for at least $370,000, according to the Alberta gaming commission’s figures.
Alberta gambling researcher Harold Wynne, who helped draft the University of Alberta portion of the gaming study released in the spring, said there are some meaty questions about whether the bands without casinos are getting a fair shake under the policy.
Perhaps a more equitable breakdown would see the tribes that operate the casinos, who can apply for 30 per cent of slot machine revenue under the development fund grant, allocate a larger share to non-host tribes, suggested Wynne. The tribes that operate casinos receive a further 15 per cent outside the First Nations development fund for their own charity.
The share that goes into the Alberta Lottery Fund doesn’t seem out of line, considering many of the gamblers aren’t from reserves, he said.
“Not all of the revenues garnered from First Nations casinos come from First Nations communities,” he said.
“Could you not argue that some of the revenues from the slots should be invested back in the communities they came from?”
Belanger doesn’t think so.
Rather, Alberta’s cut should be chopped, so that the province merely recoups costs for regulating First Nation’s casinos, Belanger contended. The remaining cash should be poured back into the
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a key proponent of online gaming in Congress, announced plans Monday to retire at the end of his current term.
"There are other things I would like to do with my life," the 71-year-old lawmaker said at a news conference. He added that his retirement plans were hastened by two years because of reapportionment, which moved 325,000 new constituents into his district.
Frank, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, sponsored legislation in the last three sessions seeking to legalize online gaming.
Frank Fahrenkopf, president and CEO of the American Gaming Association, said Congress will be losing a tireless advocate for individual rights.
"Barney's personality and stature brought early attention to the issue of legalizing online gambling, and his tireless defense of online player rights and efforts to protect consumers has been admirable," Fahrenkopf said.
In 2006, Congress effectively blocked online gaming by restricting electronic transfers of cash between players and gambling websites. Frank introduced legislation the next year to revoke the ban and establish a licensing process for Internet wagering.
Frank reintroduced the bill in 2009, winning approval in his committee but failing to get a floor vote. This year, he teamed up with Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., to introduce a new version. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., is a co-sponsor.
Frank has also teamed up with Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, to argue for online gambling. The pair had urged the defict-reduction supercommittee to consider online gambling as a revenue source.
Frank's career has traced an arc from early promise to near career-wrecking scandal to legislative triumph, accompanied by a quick-witted intelligence and an often partisan and frequently acerbic speaking style.
Unusual for a politician, his appearance is routinely less-than impeccable, and he once distributed posters as a candidate for the Massachusetts Legislature that said "Neatness isn't everything. Re-elect Barney."
In Congress, Frank has fought for years to hold down what he viewed as excessive military spending, and said one of his objectives for his final year in office is to make sure the Pentagon shares in any deficit-cutting measures that take place.
Frank is the 17th Democrat to announce he will not seek re-election in 2012, when Democrats face an uphill battle to gain the 25 seats they need to win a majority. By contrast, six Republicans are retiring.
In a written statement, President Barack Obama hailed Frank's "passion and his quick wit." He praised his work to expand affordable housing, end discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals and enact "the most sweeping financial reform in history, designed to protect consumers and prevent the kind of excessive risk-taking that led to the financial crisis from ever happening again."
At his news conference, Frank said he intends to remain active on issues he is concerned about, pledging to defend the year-old Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill that many Republicans want to repeal. "I think I will find my motives less impugned and I will be able to talk more about the merits" once he is no longer a member of Congress, he said.
It was an earlier redistricting that presented Frank with his toughest challenge at the polls in a career counted in decades. He won his seat in 1980, then two years later was thrown into a race with a formidable Republican incumbent, Rep. Margaret Heckler. He outpolled her with 60 percent of the vote and his seat has been secure since.
Yet his career nearly ran aground because of his personal life.
Two years after a voluntary 1987 disclosure that he is gay, Frank had to explain why he had hired as a personal aide a convicted drug user and male prostitute, Steve Gobie, who was also living in the lawmaker's apartment. He said he always paid the aide out of personal funds, but the House Ethics Committee recommended Frank be censured for using his congressional status on behalf of the man, including seeking dismissal of 33 parking tickets.
"I should have known better. I do now, but it's a little too late," a contrite Frank told the House.
Some Republicans sought a harsher punishment, including expulsion, but majority Democrats blocked the move, and Frank resumed a career that far outlasted many of those who had sought his ouster.
Over the decades, Frank was a prominent supporter of several gay-rights issues, including a bill to allow same-sex partners of federal employees the same benefits as spouses, and attempts to end the military's policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
When Republicans sought passage of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2006, he said, "I think this is motivated, frankly, by a dislike of those of us who are gay and lesbian," and he objected to "people taking batting practice with my life."
Yet he also had a clear-eyed view of what was politically possible.
In 2004, he said San Francisco's decision to challenge state law and grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples could damage efforts by gay rights advocates in Massachusetts to legalize gay marriage through the courts. "When you're in a real struggle, San Francisco making a symbolic point becomes a diversion," he said, expressing concern that an image of lawlessness and civil disobedience in one city would hurt efforts elsewhere.
As a longtime member of the House committee that oversaw the banking and housing industries, he often worked to expand affordable housing and end redlining, a practice in which banks are accused of imposing onerous lending conditions on residents of inner cities and other poor neighborhoods.
As chairman in 2008, he was a lead Democrat in drafting $700 billion legislation that President George W. Bush supported to bail out financial institutions.
A year later, with Obama in the White House, he turned his attention to a far-r
Online gambling companies said they filed a complaint with European Union regulators asking them to demand changes to a Greek revenue-raising law that they claim hinders betting firms from starting services in the country.
The European Gaming and Betting Association, a group which represents Unibet Group Plc (UNI😎 and Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment Plc, and the Remote Gambling Association said they asked the European Commission to address “as a matter of urgency” Greek measures that require new operators to be based in the country and handle financial transactions with Greek banks.
Gambling companies already operating in the country may also be required to pay tax on revenue from Greek customers retroactively from 2010, the groups said in an e-mailed statement.
The European Commission in Brussels declined to immediately comment on the matter.
The UK Treasury is expected to complete its review of the £1.7 billion British online gambling market early in December. Experts are of the view that the recommendation of a secondary licensing fee on offshore remote gaming companies operating in the British market is on the cards.
Last week the discussions arranged by Member of Parliament Matthew Hancock threw up a radical proposal. That may not be part on any immediate legislation but has definitely set the cat among the pigeons. The proposal sought to change the definition of where online gambling takes place from the operator's server to the point of consumption, which is the player's hardware. The British MPs took their cue from events in South Africa. Earlier this year the North Gauteng High Court in South Africa had ruled that online gambling takes place at the player's end in the case of a casino operator in Swaziland. Hancock wants to include the definition of where online gambling takes place in an annual Finance Bill. Experts feel that this would not be possible because the Finance Bill does not include regulatory provisions.
This issue apart, the MPs were unanimous in wanting the government to close the tax loopholes enjoyed by offshore online gambling operators. Most of the top 20 operators in the UK market operate from offshore locations and do not pay taxes or horseracing levies in Britain. As mentioned earlier the government too is keen to finalize the matter and has involved the Treasury and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Hancock told the media that the minister had not committed a date, but with the cross-party agreement on this issue it is just a question of when.
The gambling group that will be most affected by the secondary licensing fee is William Hill. It has more than 10% market share of the UK online gambling sector and operates from offshore. In order to stall any legislation on this matter, William Hill had recently commissioned the respected professional business services provider Deloittes to carry out its own review. The results have been just published. Deloittes concludes that secondary taxation at the point of consumption could lead to an exodus of the more reputable online gambling operators, forcing an estimated 40% of the players to shift to unauthorized and untaxed operators. The report states that the proposed 15% British tax could result in two-fifths of legitimate firms departing the UK market. This would result in the growth of a black market in online gambling. A spokesman for William Hill told The Independent newspaper, "The question for the Government is, should it introduce policy which distorts markets?"
On Nov. 18, 2011, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held its second hearing on the legalization of online gaming. The subcommittee had held an initial hearing on the subject last month.
The hearing began with an opening statement from subcommittee chair Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who noted that online gambling already exists in many forms and the question is now for Congress to decide whether online gaming across state lines is legal. Mack raised a few issues of concern in the legalization of online gaming, including consumer protection, the effect on state lotteries, and the effect it would have on Native American tribes.
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) testified on the benefits of legalizing online gaming: “Passing legislation like ours would foster the development and growth of a new American industry, which would bring along with it thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity, the revenues of which could be taxed to assist our ailing federal budget.”
However, the Washington Post now reports that the community briefings have been completed. And they have gone off well prom the point of view of online gambling proponents. There were hardly any city residents who stood up and spoke against the concept of government sponsored online gambling. The general thrust of the questions was whether the technology available was good enough to ensure player protection and good enough to ensure the exclusion of problem gamblers and the under aged citizens who may be tempted to try their hand at online gambling. As per reports, some people even demanded to know why the process was taking so long.
It was evident that the funds were needed by the District. The main concerns of the Washington DC residents were how the revenues generated by online gambling would be deployed by the council. The initial estimates of the revenue put it at nine million dollars and as one citizen remarked, "Nine million dollars is nine million dollars." Residents indicated that they would like the funds to be used for education or poverty alleviation. The citizens voiced that there was nothing wrong with the District being first to legalize online gambling in the United States. Most of them found no difference between online gambling and lottery. One Washington DC resident said, "I'd rather gamble my money in my home town rather than driving to Atlantic City."
Commenting on the response to the public consultations, the Washington Post wrote, "That the populace, by and large, has given online gambling its retroactive approval has made the questions about its origins more puzzling." It argued that a separate independent bill on online gambling would have caused fewer difficulties in the path Therefore it did not make sense "to slip what appears to be a popular proposal through the back door". It now remains to be seen what the legislative council thinks about the response and whether the implementation process will be back on rails.