U.S. Disregard to Online Gambling Ban Complaints Ires EU
The United States has replied to European Union concerns that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is a protectionist violation of trade with a peremptory and dismissive attitude which may lead to an escalation of the disagreement.
The European Commission has had complaints filed by online casinos operating within its boundaries that the United States persecutes their operations while allowing domestic business, such as the horse racing industry and land-based casinos, to continue unimpeded. When officially questioned by the Commission, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab declared there was “no basis for any allegation of ‘discriminatory enforcement’ of US gambling laws”.
A similar stance by the United States in its online gambling dispute with Antigua has already led to a judgement by the World Trade Organization of damages owed by the U.S. to the tiny Caribbean nation.
In response to Schwab's letter, European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson will send a delegation to Washington in July, seeking a correction of the current situation.
The U.S. Department of Justice has ferociously pursued foreign online gambling operators, seeking to apply tremendous legal pressures in order to force huge financial settlements against dubious liabilities. The Remote Gaming Association, representing the online casino industry, has alleged selective prosecution which favors American gambling operations.
RGA spokesman Clive Hawkswood accused the U.S. of “unfair and discriminatory treatment of the EU gambling industry, and the continuing threat of prosecutions cannot be allowed to go unchecked”.
The U.S. continues to dance a complex and confusing jig, unable to form a clear, concise, and consistent position regarding gambling into which its contradictory and confusing laws can comfortably fit. Perhaps if all U.S. citizens advise their federal legislators that they wish to stop fighting this costly, doomed battle and adopt Barney Frank's legislation regulating online gambling, there will be one less fissure in U.S. relations with the world.
Recent Comments
| Posted by: Lester Bird | When: 06/22/2008 03:34:44 AM EST |
| America allows bets on horse racing. So lets have unlimited money laundering from Syria to Antigua to the US. That makes perfect sense. | |
| Posted by: Clive Hawkswood | When: 06/22/2008 04:07:49 AM EST |
| The comment by Lester Bird is, unfortunately, symptpmatic of some of the debate on these issues; with due respect it is simplistic and ill formed. Money Laundering, of course, needs to be combated effectively and in the EU it already is. All online casinos are subject to the EU Money Laundering Directive which is enforced through regulations in each EU Member State. The same standards are applied as those in the banking system and are comparable to those already in place inthe US. That should be sufficient for anyone in the US who looks at this subject objectively and it is reasonable for us to say that if the US believes it can combat money laundering for US online horserace bets then why can't it do that for all types of online gambling? If EU standards are still not deemed sufficient (although it's to think why this would be when the US is happy to accept them for international banking transactions)then the US could introduce a non-discrimnatory licensing system that would attract a number of our members and they could become subject to US controls. The bottom line is that arguments about money laundering have become a smoke screen in the US to cloud rational debate about issues that sooner or later the US will have to come to terms with. Clive Hawkswood Remote Gambling Association www.rga.eu.com | |
| Posted by: Joshua McCarthy | When: 06/22/2008 04:06:32 PM EST |
| The fact, Mr. Bird, is this: America's various prohibitions, against alcohol, drugs, and now online gambling, have done far more damage than good. Criminal empires have been created by all three; yet, now that alcohol is legal, taxed, and regulated, there is far less involvement of organized crime, or terrorists for that matter, in this industry. Would not this model benefit the country more than spending billions to fight a losing fight? Thank you, Mr. Hawkswood, for your attention and response. | |
