The European Union, Japan, and Canada have reached a settlement with the U.S. regarding its protectionist online gambling policy through UIGEA, although US tolerates some forms of online gambling, such as state lotteries and horse racing.

Remote Gambling Association made today a complaint under the EU Trade Barriers Regulation seeks to stop discriminatory practices against European operators. The complaint says is against the United States (US) for discrimination based on violations of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

“We have been left with no choice but to pursue all legal avenues available to challenge the US Department of Justice for its discriminatory enforcement activities against European online gaming operators,” said Clive Hawkswood, the Chief Executive of the Remote Gambling Association.

The DOJ has repeatedly stated that all forms of online gambling are illegal, yet it continues to enforce this view only in connection with non-US businesses. In October 2006, the US enacted a new law (the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act”, or UIGEA) which effectively criminalised online gaming provided by foreign operators while providing exemptions for protected domestic suppliers.

“How would US investors and businessmen feel if they invested in a business in the United Kingdom based on international law commitments, and then suddenly the U.K. not only passed new laws forcing them to shut down their business, but then tried to throw them in jail for past activities while still allowing their domestic competitors to continue on doing the same thing?” Hawkswood asked.“That’s what is happening to our industry in the US,” he added.

Through the members of RGA there are 888, Bet 365, Skybet, Betfair, Sportingbet, Microgaming, Totesport, CryptoLogic, PartyGaming, Eurogaming, Playtech, and many other very known companies.

The fight for online gaming industry just started. Do you bet on US, or the EU companies?

All the three companies have agreed to pay a total of $31.5m (£15.7m) to settle claims that they accepted online ads promoting illegal gambling, during the last ten years.

Microsoft has to pay $21m, part of it as a charitable donation to support exploited children ($4.5m to the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC) to establish a fund to assist ICMEC with its national and international mission), and another part, $9m, for an ad campaign against the online gambling

Yahoo to pay $3m and to fund an $4.5m ad campaign against the online gambling.

Google has to pay $3m.

All the three companies say that they stopped the online gambling advertising some years ago.

In accordance with the News Release,

“These sums add to the over $40 million in forfeitures and back taxes this office has already recovered in recent years from operators of these remote-control illegal gambling enterprises,” said Hanaway. “Honest taxpayers and gambling industry personnel who do follow the law suffer from those who promote illegal online behavior.”

“Illegal internet gaming operations continue to be areas of IRS compliance concern,” stated James D. Vickery, Special Agent in Charge, IRS-Criminal Investigation. “CI will continue to play an enforcement role in the illegal gaming industry and to support regulatory and legislative initiatives aimed at eliminating an environment conducive to illegal gambling.”

The 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed with hope that tribe-operated casinos would provide a steady source of income for Native American communities. The income genereated from these casinos would aid reservation economic development. Many tribal governments have seen great improvements in their ability to provide public services to their members, building schools, making infrastructural improvements, and shoring up the loss of native traditions. The casinos have changed the economic climate in and around the reservations. Of course, there have been positive changes as well as negative changes. The positive changes include young adults moving back to reservations, adult employment increasing by 26 percent, and a 14 percent decline in the number of working poor. In counties with or near a casino, the employment- to- population ratio has increased and mortality has declined. The negative changes include a 10 percent increase in auto thefts, larceny, violent crime, and bankruptcy in areas near a casino, and an increase in bankruptcies within 50 miles of a new casino. In 2006, Congress introduced legislation to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to attempt to address some of the above concerns.
Vinje, David. L. 1996. Native American Economic Development on Selected Reservations: A Comparitive Analysis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 55 (4): 427-442.

In 1987, US recognizes the right for the native American tribal entities to operate casinos free of state regulation. In 1988 it was enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), as an economical aid and a source of income.

The Indian gaming industry has grown from nearly $100 million in total revenues in its first year, to more than $22 billion annually; exceeding the combined gaming revenues of Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

The most recent Indian gaming statistics, provided by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), indicate that there are approximately 360 Indian gaming establishments in the United States. These casinos are operated by approximately 220 federally recognized tribes and offer Class I, Class II and Class III gaming opportunities (See IGRA) . The largest casino in the United States, Foxwoods Casino, is owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and located in Mashantucket, Connecticut. Tribal casinos located in the eastern United States generated roughly $3.8 billion in FY02. Those located in the Central United States recorded gross revenues of approximately $5.9 billion, while those located in the Western United States generated close to $4.8 billion. Most of the revenues generated in the Indian gaming industry are from Indian casinos located in, or near, large metropolitan areas. Currently, 12% of Indian gaming establishments generate 65% of Indian gaming revenues. Indian gaming operations located in the populous areas of the West Coast (primarily California) represent the fastest growing sector of the Indian gaming industry. Currently there are 562 federally recognized tribes in the United States. The tribal gaming industry will continue to grow in the near term, as new casino and resort developments are built by tribes and America’s general passion for opportunities to gamble (Las Vegas, poker tours, Internet, etc.), continues to flourish. There are currently a number of lawsuits pending which challenge the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on constitutional grounds (see e.g. Warren v. United States) (Wikipedia)

Mohegan Sun is a resort and casino located in the village of Uncasville in the town of Montville, Connecticut and is the world’s second largest casino.

About Mohawk:

Total population: 78,000+Regions with significant populations

• Canada (Quebec, Ontario): 30,000
• United States (New York): 20,000

Languages: English, Kanien’keha’ka, Other Iroquoian DialectsReligions: Christianity, Longhouse, Handsome Lake, other

Since the 1980s, Mohawk politics have been driven by factional disputes over gambling, land claims, traditional government jurisdiction, taxation, and the Indian Act. The elected chiefs and the controversial Warrior Society have encouraged gaming as a means of ensuring tribal self-sufficiency on the various reserves/reservations, while traditional chiefs have opposed gaming on moral grounds and out of fear of corruption and organized crime.

Mohawk Gambling Casinos

On October 15, 1993, Governor Mario Cuomo entered into the “Tribal-State Compact Between the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and the State of New York.” The compact purported to allow the Tribe to conduct gambling, including games such as baccarat, blackjack, craps and roulette, on the Akwesasne Reservation in Franklin County under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

The tribe is currently pursuing obtaining approval to own and operate a casino in Sullivan County, NY at Monticello Raceway. The U.S. Department of the Interior has so far approved of this action and is awaiting Governor Eliot Spitzer’s concurrence subject to the negotiation and approval of either an amendment to the current compact or a new compact and for the land to be taken into trust.

The Kahnawake Mohawk Territory (Kahnawá:ke) is an Indian reserve on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec, Canada, across from Montreal.

The Kahnawake Gaming Commission offers gambling licenses to Internet-based poker, casino, and sportsbook sites and has established Kahnawake as a substantial player in that business. Many sites are hosted and managed by Mohawk Internet Technologies (MIT), a local data center located within the territory. MIT is the closest and fastest source for “legally hosted” gambling websites for their North American players.

Both the Canadian and Quebec governments dispute the legality of Kahnawake’s gambling operations, but have not risked taking further action due to the harsh international repercussions that followed the Oka Crisis. The websites hosted within Kahnawake are the only privately owned gambling sites that have operated in continental North America without legal action being taken against them. (Wikipedia)

The US government calls it “Canada’s Problem”.

60 Percent of World’s Online Gambling Runs Through Mohawk Controlled Servers. Chad Hills, analyst for gambling research and policy at Focus on the Family Action, said the Internet gambling industry is “out of control,” and Canadian and American policymakers need to establish “clear policies or effective oversight for tribal gambling operations.”
“Actually, as these events have little, if anything to do with the Jurisdiction of the Mohawks of Kahnawake, it has not been an issue for us,” Chuck Barnett, Board of Supervisors for Mohawk Internet Technologies, told Gambling911.com this weekend. “My understanding is that these offices (Golden Palace) were located well into the City of Ville St. Laurent, a borough of Montreal. And it was the offices of CyberWorld Group (CWG) that were raided. This entity is not licensed by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission.”

Hartley Henderson from MajorWager.com says that gambling has always been of interest to some of the Mohawks, but many others have rejected it. In fact in the 1990s there was an internal struggle among the Mohawks on the Akwasasne reserve which straddles the Canadian and U.S. border over the issue of gambling. While many Mohawks at Akwasasne felt this could be a vibrant source of revenue, other Mohawks on that reserve were vehemently opposed. In fact the issue led to a bloody conflict. At Kahnawake, on the other hand, gambling was not allowed to develop into a similar struggle. Clearly the leaders at Kahnawake were hoping to raise money for the reserve by way of a land based casino and decided to use a democratic process to decide the issue. They put the issue to a referendum and the motion for a casino was defeated in 1994 by a 724 to 627 margin. The close vote was a sign to the leaders of Kahnawake that the residents didn’t necessarily have objections to revenue generation by way of gambling, they simply didn’t want a physical casino on the reserve and the resulting social issues that often arise from one. So in 1996, the KGC was given the directive to oversee all gambling projects on the reserve and the obvious direction was to develop a system to promote wagering via internet servers. By doing so, the much needed revenue would be generated for the reserve without the concerns the inhabitants had with regards to a physical casino on the land.

In 1998 the Mohawk Council created Mohawk Internet Technologies. MIT is solely owned and operated by the Mohawks themselves and is overseen by KGC.

The Mohawk Gaming Commission has issued 443 online gambling permits so far, according to Joe Delaronde, a member of the Kahnawake band council, and the jurisdiction has gained a well-deserved reputation for probity, CBC reports.

CBC recently reported a story claiming “Kahnawake’s resident cybercasino giant fined for illegal gambling,” but the story was misleading, says Hartley Henderson. While they claimed that Golden Palace, the largest cybercasino operating in Kahnawake, was fined for illegal gambling, the claim just wasn’t true. Cyber World Group was fined, but they are not the same as Golden Palace, and more importantly they were not operating at MIT. Instead, Cyber World Group had an office in St. Laurent which is on the island of Montreal and that is what they were fined for – operating in Quebec proper.

The Register says that Cyber World Group, the owner of GoldenPalace.com, in Canada this week pleaded guilty to charges of illegal gambling and agreed to a $2m fine.

“We don’t ask for anything. We tell them that this is our right to do this. And we’re doing it properly, we’re administering it properly — the world seems to think that we’re doing a good job, and we’re confident we’ll continue to do a good job. I’m not just making that up,” said Delaronde. “You go to any of the publications around the world about this and Kahnawake is well-respected. Its jurisdiction is unquestioned. The only place where there is a question is in [our] backyard.”

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (Pub.L. 100-497,

The Act establishes three classes of games with a different regulatory scheme for each:

1. Class I: traditional Indian gaming and social gaming for minimal prizes.
   Regulatory authority over class I gaming is vested exclusively in tribal governments.
2. Class II: the game of chance commonly known as bingo, and non-banked card games (played exclusively against other players rather than against the house or a player acting as a bank).
   The Act specifically excludes slot machines or electronic facsimiles of any game of chance from the definition of class II games.
   Tribes retain their authority to conduct, license, and regulate class II gaming so long as the state in which the Tribe is located permits such gaming for any purpose and the Tribal government adopts a gaming ordinance approved by the Commission, Tribal governments are responsible for regulating class II gaming with Commission oversight.
3. Class III: all forms of gaming that are neither class I nor II (casino-style gaming).
   The Act restricts Tribal authority to conduct class III gaming.

In order for a Tribe to conduct class III gaming, the following conditions must be met:

1. The respective game must be permitted in the state in which the tribe is located;
2. The Tribe and the state must have negotiated a compact that has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary must have approved regulatory procedures;
3. The Tribe must have adopted a Tribal gaming ordinance that has been approved by the Chairman of the Commission.

FBI has federal criminal jurisdiction over acts directly related to Indian gaming establishments.

IGRA establishes an independent federal regulatory authority for gaming on Indian lands, Federal standards for gaming on Indian lands, and the creation of the National Indian Gaming Commission.

As an independent federal regulatory agency of the United States, the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) was established pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (Act). The Commission comprises a Chairman and two Commissioners, each of whom serves on a full-time basis for a three-year term. The Chairman is appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary of the Interior appoints the other two Commissioners. Under the Act, at least two of the three Commissioners must be enrolled members of a federally recognized Indian tribe, and no more than two members may be of the same political party.

The Commission maintains its headquarters in Washington, D.C., with five Regional Offices, located in Portland, Oregon; Sacramento, California; Phoenix, Arizona; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

In February 2003, FBI and NIGC created the Indian Gaming Working Group (IGWG). The IGWG’s purpose is to identify resources to address the most pressing criminal violations in the area of Indian gaming.

IGWG responsibilities:

1. To contact the Indian Country Special Jurisdiction Unit, if suspected criminal activities in the Indian gaming industry and IGWG has not enough resources
2. To determine if the alleged criminal violation is a matter of “national importance”
3. To make a case presentation. Following a full review, the IGWG will assist the requesting office/agency to identify and obtain resources to assist in the investigation.
4. To assist by providing “experts” in the investigation, allocating special funding, conducting liaison with other federal agencies, facilitating the establishment of Indian gaming task forces, and/or providing consultation.

IGWG should to:

1. Identify the Indian gaming establishments in their territory.
2. Establish appropriate liaison with Tribal Gaming Commission (TGC) members, State Gaming Commission Representatives, State Gaming Regulatory Agency Representatives, and Casino Security Personnel.
3. Establish liaison with representatives from the NIGC and regional Indian gaming intelligence committees.
4. Make proactive attempts during crime surveys to identify criminal activity in Indian gaming establishments.
5. Send investigators and financial analysts to training which provides them with the knowledge and skills they need to effectively investigate criminal activity in Indian gaming establishments.

Unfortunately for the online casinos and poker rooms, the agreement (signed in Geneva) is not to change UIGEA, but to compensate EU for this ban.

United States will compensate European Union especially in the domain of the trade, and mail services. In accordance with Business Week, “This compensation cannot be quantified up to the euro,” the EU mission to the WTO said in an e-mailed statement. “Nonetheless, it is clear that new trade opportunities are created for EU service suppliers in important sectors in the U.S.”

US will also provide access to research and development in the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, and will help the European companies offering technical testing and analysis services.

“We are pleased to confirm that the United States has reached agreement … with Canada, the EU and Japan” Gretchen Hamel, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative’s office said in a statement. “The agreement involves commitments to maintain our liberalized markets for warehousing services, technical testing services, research and development services and postal services relating to outbound international letters”.  (Reuters)

EU officials declared that EU will continue to believe that it is better to regulate than to prohibit online gambling. “While the US is free to decide how to best respond to legitimate public policy concerns relating to internet gambling, discrimination against EU or other foreign companies should be avoided,” said Peter Power, EU trade spokesman.

Peter Mandelson, EU trade commissioner, said last month that he would be pressing for “substantial” compensation. European gaming companies have claimed losses of an estimated $4bn a year from the US move.

Clive Hawkswood, of the Remote Gambling Association, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” at the EU settlement. The sector’s best hope was for the EU to take its claim against the US to arbitration, given the number of European-based online gambling companies affected by the US clampdown. (Financial Times)

US is still in discussions for compensation with India, Antigua and Barbuda ($3.4bn in trade sanctions against the US), Macau and Costa Rica.

On Regulations.gov, December 12 was the last day allowed for public comments on the Docket ID Treas-DO-2007-0015:

• Title   Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling
• Type   Rulemaking
• Description   Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act requires the Treasury and the Federal Reserve System (the “Agencies”) to proscribe regulations requiring designated payment systems and all participants to identify and block unlawful Internet gambling transactions through the establishment of reasonably designed policies and procedures. The agencies are publishing an NPRM that requires designated payment systems and all participants to establish and implement written policies and procedures.
• Organization   Treasury
• Bureau Acronym   DO

Regulations.gov is the public face of the U.S. government’s eRulemaking Initiative, facilitating public participation in the federal regulatory process by improving the public’s ability to find, view, and comment on federal regulatory actions.

It was 188 comments, almost all of it in text format, some in Word, and very few as PDF

You will find very detailed and interesting information on this Docket (TREAS-DO-2007-0015) and Document (TREAS-DO-2007-0015-0001) here:

- in PDF format

- in text format (for text format, you have to visit the web site and you can access the document from there only)

Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 is part (Title VIII) of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (or SAFE Port Act, Pub.L. 109-347), an Act of Congress in the United States that covers port security and online gambling. This title (found at 31 U.S.C. § 5361–
367) prohibits the transfer of funds from a financial institution to an Internet gambling site, with the notable exceptions of fantasy sports, online lotteries, and horse/harness racing.

SEC. 802.
PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PAYMENT INSTRUMENT FOR UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
SUBCHAPTER IV
PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING
§ 5361. Congressional findings and purpose
(a) FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.
(2) The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent such sites.
(3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry.
(4) New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or national borders.
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
NO provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.

§ 5362. Definitions
In this subchapter:
(1 ) BET OR WAGER.
The term ‘bet or wager’—
(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;
(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);
(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 3702 of title 28;
(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering; and
(E) does not include-
(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the purchase or sale of securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of that Act);
(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act;
(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;
(iv) any other transaction that
(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act; or
(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;
(vi) any contract for insurance;
(vii) any deposit or other transaction with an insured depository institution;
(viii) participation in any game or contest in which participants do not stake or risk anything of value other than
(I) personal efforts of the participants in playing the game or contest or obtaining access to the Internet; or
(II) points or credits that the sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor; or
(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions:
(I) All prizes and awards offered to winning participants are established and made known to the participants in advance of the game or contest and their value is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants.
(II) All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals (athletes in the case of sports events) in multiple real-world sporting or other events.
(III) No winning outcome is based
(aa) on the score, pointspread, or any performance or performances of any single real world team or any combination of such teams; or
(bb) solely on any single performance of an individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event.

(2) BUSINESS OF BETTING OR WAGERING.
The term ‘business of betting or wagering’ does not include the activities of a financial transaction provider, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service.

(3) DESIGNATED PAYMENT SYSTEM.
The term ‘designated payment system’ means any system utilized by a financial transaction provider that the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, jointly determine, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

(4) FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDER.
The term ‘financial transaction provider’ means a creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, or international, national, regional, or local payment network utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value product transaction, or money transmitting service, or a participant in such network, or other participant in a designated payment system.

(5) INTERNET.
The term ‘Internet’ means the international computer network of interoperable packet switched data networks.

(6) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.
The term ‘interactive computer service’ has the meaning given the term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).

(7) RESTRICTED TRANSACTION.
The term ‘restricted transaction’ means any transaction or transmittal involving any credit, funds, instrument, or proceeds described in any paragraph of section 5363 which the recipient is prohibited from accepting under section 5363.

(8) SECRETARY.
The term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(9) STATE.
The term ‘State’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or other possession of the United States.

(10) UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘unlawful Internet gambling’ means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.
(B) INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.
The term ‘unlawful Internet gambling’ does not inelude placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where
(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single State;
(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made is expressly authorized by and placed in accordance with the laws of such State, and the State law or regulations include-
(I) age and location verification requirements reasonably designed to block access to minors and persons located out of such State; and
(II) appropriate data security standards to prevent unauthorized access by any person whose age and current location has not been verified in accordance with such State’s law regulations; and
(iii) the bet or wager does not violate any provision of-
(I) the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
(II) chapter 178 of title 28 (commonly known as the ‘Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’);
(III) the Gambling Devices Transportation Act (15 U. S. C. 1171 et seq.); or
(IV) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
(C) INTRATRIBAL TRANSACTIONS.
The term ‘unlawful Internet gambling’ does not inelude placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where-
(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively-
(I) within the Indian lands of a single Indian tribe (as such terms are defined under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; or
(II) between the Indian lands of 2 or more Indian tribes to the extent that intertribal gaming is authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;
(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made is expressly authorized by and complies with the requirements of-
(I) the applicable tribal ordinance or resolution approved by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission; and
(II) with respect to class III gaming, the applicable Tribal-State Compact;
(iii) the applicable tribal ordinance or resolution or Tribal-State compact includes
(I) age and location verification requirements reasonably designed to block access to minors and persons located out of the applicable Tribal lands; and
(II) appropriate data security standards to prevent unauthorized access by any person whose age and current location has not been verified in accordance with the applicable tribal ordinance or resolution or Tribal-State Compact; and
(iv) the bet or wager does not violate any provision of-
(I) the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
(II) chapter 178 of title 28 (commonly known as the ‘Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’);
(III) the Gambling Devices Transportation Act (15 U. S. C. 1171 et seq.); or
(IV) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
(D) INTERSTATE HORSERACING.
(i) IN GENERAL—The term ‘unlawful Internet gambling’ shall not include any activity that is allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.).
(ii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING PREEMPTION.
Nothing in this subchapter may be construed to preempt any State law prohibiting gambling.
(iii) SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that this subchapter shall not change which activities related to horse racing may or may not be allowed under Federal law. This subparagraph is intended to address concerns that this subchapter could have the effect of changing the existing relationship between the Interstate Horseracing Act and other Federal statutes in effect on the date of the enactment of this subchapter. This subchapter is not intended to change that relationship. This subchapter is not intended to resolve any existing disagreements over how to interpret the relationship between the Interstate Horseracing Act and other Federal statutes.
(E) INTERMEDIATE ROUTING.
The intermediate routing of electronic data shall not determine the location or locations in which a bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

(11) OTHER TERMS.
(A) CREDIT; CREDITOR; CREDIT CARD; AND CARD ISSUER.
The terms ‘credit’, ‘creditor’, ‘credit card’, and ‘card issuer’ have the meanings given the terms in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602).
(B) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER.
The term ‘electronic fund transfer’
(i) has the meaning given the term in section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U. S. C . 1693a), except that the term includes transfers that would otherwise be excluded under section 903(6)(E) of that Act; and
(ii) includes any fund transfer covered by Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State.
(C) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.
The term ‘financial institution’ has the meaning given the term in section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, except that such term does not include a casino, sports book, or other business at or through which bets or wagers may be placed or received.
(D) INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION.
The term ‘insured depository institution’—
(i) has the meaning given the term in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)); and
(ii) includes an insured credit union (as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act)
(E) MONEY TRANSMITTING BUSINESS AND MONEY TRANSMITTING SERVICE .
The terms ‘money transmitting business’ and ‘money transmitting service’ have the meanings given the terms in section 5330(d) (determined without regard to any regulations prescribed by the Secretary thereunder).

§ 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling
No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling-
(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);
(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;
(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any finanvial institution; or
(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction, as the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may jointly prescribe by regulation, which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of such other person.

§ 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions
(a) REGULATIONS.
Before the end of the 270-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations (which the Secretary and the Board jointly determine to be appropriate) requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of restricted transactions in any of the following ways:
(1) The establishment of policies and procedures that-
(A) allow the payment system and any person involved in the payment system to identify restricted transactions by means of codes in authorization messages or by other means; and
(B) block restricted transactions identified as a result of the policies and procedures developed pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(2) The establishment of policies and procedures that prevent or prohibit the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system in connection with a restricted transaction.
(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
In prescribing regulations under subsection (a), the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall-
(1) identify types of policies and procedures, including nonexclusive examples, which would be deemed, as applicable, to be reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of the products or services with respect to each type of restricted transaction;
(2) to the extent practical, permit any participant in a payment system to choose among alternative means of identifying and blocking, or otherwise preventing or prohibiting the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system or participant in connection with, restricted transactions;
(3) exempt certain restricted transactions or designated payment systems from any requirement imposed under such regulations, if the Secretary and the Board jointly find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of, such transactions; and
(4) ensure that transactions in connection with any activity excluded from the definition of unlawful internet gambling in subparagraphs (B), (C), or (D)(i) of section 5362(10) are not blocked or otherwise prevented or prohibited by the prescribed regulations.
(c) COMPLIANCE WITH PAYMENT SYSTEM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
A financial transaction provider shall be considered to be in compliance with the regulations prescribed under subsection (a) if-
(1) such person relies on and complies with the policies and procedures of a designated payment system of which it is a member or participant to-
(A) identify and block restricted transactions; or
(B) otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system, member, or participant in connection with restricted transactions; and
(2) such policies and procedures of the designated payment system comply with the requirements of regulations prescribed under subsection (a).
(d) NO LIABILITY FOR BLOCKING OR REFUSING TO HONOR RESTRICTED TRANSACTIONS.
A person that identifies and blocks a transaction, prevents or prohibits the acceptance of its products or services in connection with a transaction, or otherwise refuses to honor a transaction-
(1) that is a restricted transaction;
(2) that such person reasonably believes to be a restricted transaction; or
(3) as a designated payment system or a member of a designated payment system in reliance on the policies and procedures of the payment system, in an effort to comply with regulations prescribed under subsection (a), shall not be liable to any party for such action.
(e) REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT.
The requirements under this section shall be enforced exclusively by-
(1) the Federal functional regulators, with respect to the designated payment systems and financial transaction providers subject to the respective jurisdiction of such regulators under section 505(a) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and section 5g of the Commodities Exchange Act; and
(2) the Federal Trade Commission, with respect to designated payment systems and financial transaction providers not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of any Federal functional regulators (ineluding the Commission) as described in paragraph (1).

§ 5365. Civil remedies
(a) JURISDICTION.—In addition to any other remedy under current law, the district courts of the United States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain restricted transactions by issuing appropriate orders in accordance with this section, regardless of whether a prosecution has been initiated under this subchapter.
(b) PROCEEDINGS.
(1) INSTITUTION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
(A) IN GENERAL.
The United States, acting through the Attorney General, may institute proceedings under this section to prevent or restrain a restricted transaction.
(B) RELIEF.
Upon application of the United States under this paragraph, the district court may enter a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a restricted transaction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(2) INSTITUTION BY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(A) IN GENERAL.
The attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of a State in which a restricted transaction allegedly has been or will be initiated, received, or otherwise made may institute proceedings under this section to prevent or restrain the violation or threatened violation.
(B) RELIEF.
Upon application of the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of an affected State under this paragraph, the district court may enter a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a restricted transaction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(3) INDIAN LANDS.
(A) IN GENERAL.
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for a restricted transaction that allegedly has been or will be initiated, received, or otherwise made on Indian lands (as that term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)-
(i) the United States shall have the enforcement authority provided under paragraph (1); and
(ii) the enforcement authorities specified in an applicable Tribal-State compact negotiated under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710)shall be carried out in accordance with that compact.
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
No provision of this section shall be construed as altering, superseding, or otherwise affecting the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
(c) LIMITATION RELATING TO INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICES.
(1) IN GENERAL.
Relief granted under this section against an interactive computer service shall-
(A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access to, an online site violating section 5363, or a hypertext link to an online site violating such section, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph shall not apply if the service is subject to liability under this section under section 5367;
(B) be available only after notice to the interactive computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear are provided;
(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity violating this subchapter;
(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and
(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.
(2) COORDINATION WITH OTHER LAW.
An interactive computer service that does not violate this subchapter shall not be liable under section 1084(d) of title 18, except that the limitation in this paragraph shall not apply if an interactive computer service has actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers and-
(A) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; or
(B) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made.
(d) LIMITATION ON INJUNCTIONS AGAINST REGULATED PERSONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, and subject to section 5367, no provision of this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing the Attorney General of the United States, or the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of any State to institute proceedings to prevent or restrain a restricted transaction against any financial transaction provider, to the extent that the person is acting as a financial transaction provider.

§ 5366. Criminal penalties
(a) IN GENERAL.
Any person who violates section 5363 shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
Upon conviction of a person under this section, the court may enter a permanent injunction enjoining such person from placing, receiving, or otherwise making bets or wagers or sending, receiving, or inviting information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers.

§ 5367. Circumventions prohibited
Notwithstanding section 5362(2), a financial transaction provider, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service, may be liable under this subchapter if such person has actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers, and-
(1) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; or
(2) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made, or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made.”
(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
The table of sections for chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
SUBCHAPTER IV-PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING
5361. Congressional findings and purpose
5362. Definitions
5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling
5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions 5365. Civil remedies
5366. Criminal penalties
5367. Circumventions prohibited.

SEC. 803.
INTERNET GAMBLING IN OR THROUGH FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.
In deliberations between the United States Government and any foreign country on money laundering, corruption, and crime issues, the United States Government should
(1) encourage cooperation by foreign governments and relevant international fora in identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering, corruption, or other crimes;
(2) advance policies that promote the cooperation of foreign governments, through information sharing or other measures, in the enforcement of this Act; and
(3) encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, in its annual report on money laundering typologies, to study the extent to which Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering purposes.
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an annual report to the Congress on any deliberations between the United States and other countries on issues relating to Internet gambling.

Original/official PDF file of the bill

All our life and decisions are part, in fact, of the Big Gambling. Let’s take a look to the gambling definition: “wagering money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money or material goods”. And now, let’s think at most of our acts: for 99.9% of it, the measure of the success in any domain, it is represented by the conversion in money, in “material value”.

Yes, it can be love, power, or glory. But let’s think a bit more. Just an example: Paris Hilton. Thousands of men are in love with her and all these men will marry her in a minute even if she would have no money, as declared by them. But what if Paris Hilton would was born without MONEY? What if she was, from the beginning, just a poor girl? Nobody knew her, and would was loved by just his fellow worker man or chief from the washhouse where she would work.

So, what is gambling?

Wikipedia tells us that the gambling usually excludes:

• Emotional or physical risk-taking where what is being risked is not money or material goods (e.g., skydiving, running for office, asking someone for a date, etc.)
• Buying insurance, as the primary intent of the purchase is to protect against loss, rather than to collect or win
• All forms of ‘investment’ (stock market, real estate) with positive expected returns, economic utility, and some underlying value independent of the risk being undertaken
• Starting a new business, as time and effort are also being wagered and the outcome is not determined in a short period of time
• Situations where the possibility of winning additional money or material goods is a secondary or incidental reason for the wager/purchase (e.g., buying a raffle ticket to support a worthy cause)
• Prediction markets or knowledge exchanges where the outcome is to encourage the development of market-based mechanisms for resolving questions of science, technology, management, strategy, planning, policy, etc.

Sorry guys, but business like insurance, investment, prediction markets, stock exchange, are the most pure form of gambling. The casino gambling is for these business like it is the target shooting sport for the war, like the role playing games for the real life. It is in fact a simulation, just much less variables.

In casino gambling, Wikipedia tells us that there are three variables common to all forms of gambling:

• How much is being wagered, the initial stake (in money or material goods).
• The predictability of the event.
  • In mechanical or electronic gambling such as lotteries, slot machines and bingo, the results are random and unpredictable; no amount of skill or knowledge (assuming machinery is functioning as intended) can give an advantage in predictability to anyone.
  • However, for sports events such as horse racing and soccer matches there is some predictability to the outcome; thus a person with greater knowledge and/or skill will have an advantage over others.
• The odds agreed between the two (or more) parties to the wager; where there is a house or a bookmaker, the odds are (quite legally) arranged in favor of the house.

So, why to not use the real life gambling, where the number of the variables are boundless? For some gamblers, I think that the casino gambling is just like me playing Tetris after a tiring day of computer work: a way to disconnect your head from the hard connections made during the day.

Gambling addiction. Agree, there it exists a pathological form for some players, like it exists an addiction for some men for the non-gambling games, for working, for love, or even for looking to some objects. Sorry for these guys, but what to do? To ban all the games, the work, the love, the life? Banning, is not a solution!