"Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden without Benefit?"

This was the name of the hearing held by a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, on Wednesday, April 2nd, to discuss the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The hearing was meant to address some of the concerns that "involved parties" have had with the UIGEA thus far and to discuss the overall feasibility of the current act as it stands. The hearing was set up in two parts. The first part was dedicated to the governmental bodies that would be most involved with the UIGEA (i.e. the Board of Governors, Department of Treasury, Federal Reserve System). The second part focused on America's payment systems, including representatives from the American Banking Association, the Credit Union National Association, and the Financial Services Roundtable. Both parts of the hearing seemed to return to common themes and issues with the UIGEA that are quite difficult to address. For example, the UIGEA does not give a current and clear definition of what "unlawful internet gambling" is, which makes policing it next to impossible. It also does not provide any kind of a list as to which companies would be considered illegal according to the UIGEA. Furthermore, it seems to put the burden of enforcing the Act on the banking systems which is "an unprecedented delegation of governmental responsibility, with no prospect of practical success," according to Wayne Abernathy, the Executive Vice President of the ABA.

Overall, almost all that was said about the UIGEA during the hearing was in the negative, leaving Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to conclude the day by inferring that the title of the hearing, was apropos indeed.

For story in it's entirety, please visit the Independent Online Poker Authority, PokerNews.com