It may seem strange but in the United States gaming has become entangled in the 9/11 Bill. The U.S. House Financial Services Committee has sent the Bill on to the Rules Committee with a proposed online gambling amendment intact.

The United States Government maintains the position that Online Gambling is illegal and its citizens should not be allowed to access this form of betting. An amendment, brought by Republican Jay Inslee and passed on a voice vote with no debate, means that if either the person betting or the online operator is located in a jurisdiction where online gambling is illegal then they are committing an offence. Inslee argued that it didn't matter if the operator is in a jurisdiction where they hold a licence, if they allow someone in the US to access their site it should be illegal.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act has already been passed as a standalone bill and is now an amendment to the 9/11 Bill. Some Republicans feel that additions to the Bill will make it a less focused piece of legislation and may strip the Internet gambling part when it goes to the Rules Commission. The amendment would prevent the use of credit cards, wire transfers and other banking facilities for online gambling transactions.

It seems that horse racing is to escape the proposed ban, according to the Thoroughbred Times, and horse racing account-wagering companies might not be affected. Another bill in the Senate would ban sports betting on the Internet but not horse racing. There are currently no plans to impose such restrictions in the bills being considered for federal anti-terror legislation.

Money laundering and consequent terror funding are, of course, the US Government's professed reasons for its stand against Online gambling. Most gambling jurisdictions now impose stringent anti money laundering provisions in their licensing agreements, and Online Gambling seems set to be as well regulated as land-based operations. Any Online gambler would choose to play at a site that is properly licenced and regulated, in order to ensure the safety of their money and the right odds for winning. Maybe the US would have better control if it took the view that setting the terms is much better than trying to plug the holes.


© Copyright 2004 CasinoCompendium



>>> return to archives
>>> return to frontpage