Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

by J.W. - When passed on September the 29th, by U.S. legislators, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 sent ripples all over the world, ripples that caused all sorts of – expected and unexpected- side effects.

The stock exchange shock felt by all major online gambling operators was only the very first pier to be touched by these ripples. When they broke ashore the media war between pro and con activists exploaded in full effect.

On one hand there were the lawmakers hitting us with the usual rhetorics, which wasn't all completely off this time around, since they probably had a strong point on claiming that internet gambling was a huge factor in the problems customer credits were preyed upon by. The way the Act got passed in the firstplace though left a lot room to suspicion. It was attached to the non-related Safe Ports Act which few lawmakers would've afforded to reject.

On the other hand, came the pro-gambling crowd's voice, claiming that this Act was robbing the American Citizen of one of his fundamental rights, the right to spend his money the way he saw fit. Again these guys had a strong point as well, however the most reasonable reaction came to be that of people drawing a parallel between the prohibition-era of the 1920s and the Act, suggesting that the government should find some sort of a compromise to allow some internet gambling to go on and tax it for the benefit of the citizens.

These guys had probably no idea that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was aiming just for that, and they might've already got the exact thing they'd been asking for. First of all we need to get a few things straight:

• does the Act make internet gambling altogether illegal? No it doesn't.
• Does it forbid financial institutions to make money transfers to offshore internet gambling companies? It sure does.
• Does it allow the states to individually decide whether internet gambling should be illegal in their jurisdiction or not? Spot on – it does.

It has basically passed the ball over into the states' court to do with as seen fit, and here's where the substance of the law resides. It wants the states to turn gambling into an income and what better way to aid then to it, than killing all offshore competition in the process..

If a State decides to make it legal for online casinos to function then so be it. It won't be forbidden to accept wagers from within its borders or from any other place where online gambling is legal, and if it decides it could use a solid funds-flow into its financial institutions making this move is all it takes to achieve just that.

If a state decides to legalize online gambling every sharp gambler from all over the country will instantly open a bank account there and transfer money for his/her online gambling needs legally. Theoretically this would work with offshore operations as well, though the government could soon decide to blacklist the operator used for money-transfer, thus again working towards its aim to keep the funds in the country. Opening an account with an offshore company based in a country in which online gambling is legal, ( be that a bank or an online money transfer company) should again provide a legal way to fund one's online gaming.

This would also pretty much filter out underage users from online casinos and poker rooms, another declared goal of the Act.