Moi aussi! France nabs online betting execs

Online betting operator BWIN is outraged at the arrest of its two top men on a trip to France, where only the state lottery and tote are exempted from a nationwide gaming ban. The two are accused of organising illegal bets online and advertising online bets. BWIN shares were suspended in Vienna and other online gaming ventures faltered badly on the news. BWIN says it has a "European-wide license" and will sue the French authorities. Partygaming says the crackdown contravenes the Treaty of Rome - even though gambling was excluded from the Services Directive and the country of origin principle is in tatters.

Online gamblers to swing November elections

No doubt acting on a tip from the anonymous lobbyist quoted in an Eye On Gambling article, online gambling companies have written over one hundred thousand letters to their customers urging them not to vote for anyone who supports prohibition of Internet gambling this November. "Our customers understand quite well that Frist is on a crusade for his own personal agenda," said one industry spokesman. "We might not be able stop the bill from passing this year, but we will make a difference in November to some who don't recognize the number of Americans who love to gamble online."

US authorities on a mission

The crackdown has started, announces Russel Hotten on telegraph.co.uk. Bets are off, says The Economist. The Peter Dicks case is about "gambling by computer", not telephone bets as in BetOnSports, and the arrestee is an investor/non-executive director, not motor-mouth Carruthers. Whether it'll affect the Senate process - which The Economist says is likely to stall - is another matter.

Smaller banks struggle to track terrorist funds

Smaller US banks are not entirely wild about the idea of having to enforce the new rules that could follow if a proposed online gaming ban goes into effect, the Wall Street Journal reports. Under the rules proposed by Congress, they would be required to block electronic transactions involving illegal Internet casinos. Lobbyists representing small to medium sized banks are arguing that the burden of monitoring 35 billion annual transactions would involve an awful lot of work and considerable expense.

Ignoring a provision in the proposed new legislation directing the government to come up with an implementation plan that wouldn't be overly burdensome for banks, the Independent Community Bankers of America says the smaller banks don't have the resources to block offshore gambling transactions.

The American Bankers Association, which represents the nation's biggest banks, has not voiced the same level of concern. But the little guys are balking at the extra work involved in modernizing their systems and keeping the list of offshore casinos updated. "It would be extremely challenging," says one consultant, adding that "it is already difficult for banks to identify electronic transfers involving (...) known terrorists and drug dealers."

This sounds a bit like the arguments proponents of online file sharing and illegal downloading have been making for years: If it's difficult and complicated to police the internet, why bother trying? Three to five years after the first critics argued that it would be practically impossible to control the flow of illicit content, the volume of illegal file sharing has dropped and companies like iTunes are doing very well, thank you.

The major banks are a self-regulated force, proactively embracing money laundering and terrorist financing issues and gaining brownie points in the process. It would be surprising if whingers in the minor league were to erode the lawmakers' resolve.

An Objective Eye

Niall O'Connor writes a mean column and his latest contribution to the cause of lottery knowledge is a 5,700 word opus entitled From Schindler to Placanica and beyond. Very comprehensive, but is it authoritative? For example, we don't agree (after an email exchange) about whether the European Parliament stripped out the hotly disputed country-of-origin principle before it passed the Services Directive - and that sort of stuff is quite easy to verify. Unfortunately for Niall's objective eye on the betting industry, various bookmakers are in his "affiliate programme", as are the industry-financed Centre for the Study of Gambling and the privately-funded Betting Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University. Having said which, bettingmarket.com a goldmine of info and shouldn't be dissed just because his objectivity is tainted by bookmaker money. Hell, even advertising free bets on Totesport isn't a crime (is it?) but I'd love to know why he does it in Russian!