Congressman seeks delay in online gaming regulations

One of Congress’ leading supporters of online gaming urged Bush administration officials today to hold off on instituting regulations to outlaw the games in the final days of the presidency.

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, asked Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to postpone the “flawed” regulations until President-elect Barack Obama’s administration can review the rules.

Congress passed a bill in late 2006 essentially banning the online games, and the administration has drafted regulations needed to put the legislation in place. Frank’s committee passed a bill this fall that would stop the rules in favor of a new process.

“I am deeply disappointed to hear that your agency is proceeding with what I consider to be unseemly haste in issuing regulations implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” Frank wrote.

“This midnight rulemaking will tie the hands of the new Administration, burden the financial services industry at a time of economic crisis, and contradict the stated intent of the Financial Services Committee.”

Kentucky’s TwinSpires Goes From Internet Gambling Boycott to Ban

Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky argues that online gambling is dangerous to children and consumers, so he is attempting to seize the domain names of 141 online casinos. Despite the muddied reasoning of his case, some in the federal government agree, and are pursuing the finalization of regulations implementing the UIGEA before the change of Presidencies.

The irony is that Beshear, whose ill-conceived court case has drawn calls across the Internet for boycotts of Kentucky industries in general and Churchill Downs and its online entity, TwinSpires, in specific, now faces a more complete move against online gambling than he desired. Beshear wanted to use protectionist policy to defend TwinSpires from competition, and excepted the site from his order.

But the feds have made no such distinction. Even though the UIGEA allows for horse race wagering online, banks have said part of their difficulty enforcing the payment ban is distinguishing legal from illegal online gambling. Thus, the regulations being reviewed give protection to banks who simply refuse all gambling payments, effectively including TwinSpires and other Internet racing sites.

Now Beshear finds himself in the unenviable position of defending TwinSpires as a legitimate, acceptable site for online gambling, while explaining how the sites facing his forfeiture order are any more dangerous to society than the home-grown Kentucky one.

As Beshear’s move was generated by money in the form of state taxes, the rumor is that undue pressure applied by a White House official acting to protect National Football League interests may be the cause of the sudden developments at Treasury. William Wichterman is currently a top aide in the White House, but as recently as March he was paid to lobby against online casinos for the NFL.

Beshear could escape the quandary of his position by dropping the pursuit of the order in Judge Thomas Wingate’s court and allying with the numerous Congressional Democrats supporting the legalization and regulation of online gambling. He would save face by using regulation as the reason for reversing his public position regarding protecting children and patrons. And TwinSpires would not be driven out of business.

Microgaming Online Gambling Software Website To Block All US Traffic

We have learned that effective Monday, Microgaming – a leading software provider for online casinos and poker sites based in South Africa and the Isle of Man – will begin blocking all US-based traffic.  The commonwealth of Kentucky has listed Microgaming among its web domain names to forfeit later this month.

Microgaming Software Systems Ltd has been a leading software providers to the online gambling industry, with just under 100 casinos listed on its website. Online casino operators such as the Carmen Media Group, Fortune Lounge Group, Ladbrokes, 32Red, Fairground Gaming, Vegas Partner Lounge and Golden Star Lounge are among those who use Microgaming’s software.

Microgaming also has an online poker subsidiary called Microgaming Poker, which is the network used by Doyles Room.   Doyles Room’s domain registrant, GoDaddy.com, already announced it had turned over the website’s operating certificate to the commonwealth of Kentucky.

The state of Kentucky claims that several dozen online gambling websites have cut into their economic well being and will hold a forfeiture hearing in two weeks.  Original reports suggested that Microgaming would only block Kentucky residents, however, the degree of difficulty in blocking a single state within a country appears too overwhelming for the firm.

There were no immediate indications that Microgaming would require its actual licensees to block US traffic as of press time.

Many Microgaming licensed companies restrict individuals from playing for real cash originating from certain states, however, the actual websites are not blocked.

China, Singapore and some Arab countries engage in similar blocking efforts and Australia is looking to follow suit.

Bush Treasury Seeks UIGEA Implementation On Online Gambling

Despite testimony from a rainbow cross-section of society, including leaders of financial institutions, government departments,Congressional members, Internet experts, and foreign policy observers, the Department of the Treasury is intent on implementing the UIGEA before the coming change of administrations.

Treasury officials finalized regulations which would define which online gambling activities were illegal to transact payments through banks and credit card companies. On October 21st, the new rules were forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget for review before implementation.

Representatives from various gambling industries, along with Treasury officials, are meeting all week with OMB personnel to voice opinions about the regulations before they are enacted. Letters signed by a group of Congressmen have asked that the implementation process be stopped.

Horse and dog racing industry reps have already had meetings to attempt to retain exemptions in the new definitions that were provided in the UIGEA. Members of the Interactive Gaming Council have also attended at least one discussion, and Executive Director John Pappas of the Poker Players Alliance is scheduled to have a say on Friday.

Pappas said, “It’s really remarkable that this administration would try to push this out given the burden it would place on financial institutions at this time of financial crisis.”

If the Treasury succeeds in placing definitions on what constitutes online gambling and improper payments, the transaction process for online casinos will become even more awkward and muddied for American players.

The Bush administration is following a tradition of imposing controversial regulations before the end of term, a process which allows the incoming administration a clear desk and no pressure to immediately deal with the liability of handling a hot potato. But there is also the belief that the Obama Executive Branch will be friendlier to Internet gaming, thus leading hardcore religious Republicans to push this agenda now.

Obama Should Support Overturning the UIEGA and Use Online Gaming as a New Revenue Stream

When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency, he listed three main areas of domestic policy he planned to focus on: health care, education and tax cuts for the middle class. Asked how he planned to pay for it, Obama stated that he would go through the budget line by line and stop funding for any programs or initiatives that were ineffective or impractical and implied he would find new revenue sources that were feasible. In light of those statements, Obama must readdress the USTR’s decision to withdraw its WTO commitments regarding gambling services.

For anyone who isn’t familiar with the case, Antigua has fought with the United States for almost a decade, arguing that the U.S. attempts to block online gambling to Americans from operators in Antigua violates a GATS commitment the U.S. made previously. The U.S. government stated that the commitment was made in error and wasn’t bound by it, but the WTO courts ruled that the U.S. indeed was in violation of the agreement and the decision was upheld by an appellate body. Instead of living up to its commitments, the U.S. government instead chose to rewrite its commitments and in doing so had to compensate all countries that could have been affected by that decision. Antigua, Canada, India, Macao, Costa Rica and Japan asked for compensation, along with the EU. To date the government has come to agreements with Canada, Japan and the European Union, while the other governments are still in negotiations. No details were given on the agreements, although it has been reported that the European Union agreed to concessions in the areas of shipping and storage in exchange for allowing the U.S. to rewrite the commitments. The amount that it will cost the States in potential lost duty is unknown, although a representative from the EU did tell me it was “substantial” and that shipping and storage were areas the EU has been trying to get the United States to budge on for years. At the same time, it was far less than the $100 billion in compensation many experts believed the EU would demand. As well, because the country of Antigua was directly affected by the U.S. reneging on its commitments, and because they brought the case to the WTO, Antigua was granted $21 million in sanctions against the United States which it could apply by ignoring U.S. copyrights and trademarks (Antigua had asked for $3.4 billion in annual compensation). The WTO’s compensation amount was based on what it felt Antigua could have made if horse racing was allowed to be offered by Antigua to the United States. Thus far, Antigua hasn’t attempted to impose those sanctions.

While the U.S. came to this agreement, it’s clear that the countries that asked for compensation weren’t happy about it. Antigua and Costa Rica still clearly want the United States to open its borders to offshore wagering, and Peter Mandelsson, the EU trade commissioner, has been taking heat for the agreement ever since he signed it. Many in the United Kingdom feel that he let the U.S. off too easy and that he should have forced the United States to live up to its agreements, as the U.S. has demanded of other countries on numerous occasions under similar circumstances; plus, they feel he should have demanded that all lawsuits against European operators be dropped as a condition of the agreement. Furthermore, UK gambling companies still want access to the lucrative U.S. market, and now Bermuda is looking at online gambling as a possible revenue generator (so the U.S. will have another friend it will probably antagonize). According to a source at the WTO, the U.S. still has the opportunity to change its mind about rewriting its commitments without any repercussions. If they agree to simply abide by the old agreement, then the agreed to compensation would be withdrawn—Obama’s new government should seriously look at that option. Don’t forget, Obama has stated that he is going to look for any programs that are impractical and this is indeed an initiative that makes no sense. Aside from the fact that it will cost the U.S. several billion each year in lost duty, the decision could also have long term effects on trade, as countries could deem the U.S. as a country that doesn’t take its commitments seriously (as Barney Frank and others pointed out last year when they asked the USTR not to follow through with their plans to rewrite the commitments). Many countries like Canada, Mexico and the EU are already worried that Obama may be protectionist, given his comments about scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement, so stating they won’t renege on this WTO agreement could actually show those who are concerned that his government isn’t protectionist.

More importantly, this is a frivolous expenditure that makes no sense. Granted, it isn’t “a program” per se, and it isn’t money coming directly out of U.S. coffers, but obviously the amount lost to the government must be significant or shipping and storage wouldn’t be on the WTO exclusion list now. Many accounts I have read indicate its worth is in excess of $3 billion to the industry. But what is the point anyway? The agreement, if passed, is only meaningful if the UIGEA remains in tact, and it seems clear that the UIGEA as it stands is coming under fire. The banks and the House financial committee have deemed the bill ineffective and impractical and have argued that trying to implement it would be virtually impossible, and very costly, even if it could be implemented. Barney Frank, Robert Wexler et. al., (who now have a much larger Democratic presence in the House and Senate) have passed a motion demanding that the UIGEA spell out exactly what is deemed an illegal transaction to make things easier for the banks, and they want exclusions for all forms of online gambling except sports. Frank, Wexler and other’s arguments are that if horse racing, lotteries and fantasy sports are excluded from the UIGEA, then poker needs an exemption too—anything other than that is discriminatory. The DOJ has thus far dismissed the notion and claims it will continue to go after all online gambling, but shortly the DOJ will have a vastly different look, and indications are that those being considered for the new jobs don’t think chasing offshore gambling companies is a good expenditure of time or money. So if the UIGEA is amended to allow poker, and possibly casinos, then the U.S. will essentially be throwing away many concessions they obviously deem important to protect for the ability to block online sports betting, which is a tiny percentage of the total online betting handle (not to mention it has already been found to be illegal by U.S. courts under the Wire Act back in 2000). As well, even finding the few sports gambling transactions will be very costly to the banks since checks aren’t written under the sportsbook’s name, and that expense is certainly one banks can’t afford, not to mention that many of these banks are going to be bought out by the U.S. government anyway, so it will become a direct taxpayer expense.

Furthermore, California is going to legalize online poker sometime in 2009, whether the DOJ likes it or not. California feels this will provide the state needed revenue, and it is confident that it is not in violation of any federal laws. Other states will certainly follow suit, and before you know it you’ll have an interstate poker network in the U.S. All gambling lawyers and pundits agree that it isn’t a matter of whether it will happen next year, but when. Furthermore, Nevada, which is getting killed in the current financial climate, is seriously looking at offering online gambling and taking their chances with the courts. In fact the Palms Group is on the verge of bankruptcy, and Hilton and MGM aren’t in great shape either. Online gambling may not be an option, but rather a necessity. That, of course, brings Antigua back into the equation. Antigua hasn’t started with the trademark sanctions for two reasons. First, it is hoping the U.S. will change its mind; and second, it knows that the small damages given to it by the WTO courts were based on a hypothetical situation whereby horse racing could be offered stateside by Antiguan gambling operators. If, and when, interstate poker is offered in the U.S., Antigua will surely go back to the WTO and demand the settlement be revisited because the situation changed. At that point, given the enormity of poker, the WTO may indeed award Antigua something closer to the $3.4 billion per year Antigua originally sought. That is a lot of money that could be used for healthcare and education, not to mention it could affect many companies like Microsoft and Apple that are already struggling in this economy.

Without question, therefore, the pursuit of rewriting the WTO gambling commitments and the implementation of the UIGEA are faulty policies—not to mention that prohibition doesn’t work. Obama said where he sees a bad policy that costs money he’ll change it, and he should start here. He certainly has the mandate for it, and the overwhelming wins in Congress by the Democrats should give them the votes to overturn the UIGEA if they see fit to do so. Aside from the fact that the UIGEA can’t work, it also puts a stranglehold on the country if the U.S. ever decides it wants to delve into the area of online gambling in the future. In the UK, Germany and many other countries the United States would consider close allies, online gambling is allowed and actually encouraged. And in all countries, including the United States, a large percentage of land based gambling revenue almost always is used for health care, education and amateur sports. Before the UIGEA was passed, it was estimated the online gambling revenues from the U.S. would approach $20 billion by 2012. If that is indeed the case, then a legal, regulated and taxed online gambling industry could be a huge windfall for the country. The U.S. could follow Austria’s lead, whereby Americans betting at all sites would pay a tax on all wagers equal to a percentage of the stake if they lose. Half the stake could go to the State and half could go to the federal government to be used for health care and education.

Also, don’t forget that the UIGEA was a Republican initiative that couldn’t pass Congress under normal voting procedures and was only rammed through by Bill Frist by attaching it to an unrelated bill, with the full knowledge of other Republicans like Jon Kyl, Robert Goodlatte and George Bush who were upset they weren’t getting their way. Overturning this ridiculous law and stopping a very dangerous decision to purposely renege on a WTO commitment will show the Republicans that Obama and his party won’t be pushed around and will get things done the right way. Obama made a commitment to find additional revenue and stop funding on bad initiatives. Here are a couple that are staring him right in the face.

Treasury Regulations For Online Gambling Due By End of November

The Internet gambling world is asking why the Treasury Department of the United States government is pushing to enact regulations enforcing the UIGEA now, after two years of debate.

Online Casino Advisory has contacted an inside source with the Bush administration. From the administration point of view, he said, it is not a rush to suddenly and hastily promote rules, but a culmination of two years’ work at defining illegal online gambling, and illegal payment procedures.

The insider said his office was not responsible for writing law, but for attempting to “faithfully execute the law” as written by Congress. This did seem to ignore that the UIGEA could not be enforced as written, due to the vague and confusing use of undefined terms. By defining those terms, the Executive Branch is ignoring previously established and existing definitions, which only the Congress can change.

The source continued by saying he expected the review by the Office of Management and Budget to be finished and the regulations to be published and therefore effective by the end of November. He did caution that that estimate may be off by a week or two, but probably not more than that.

While the insider insisted that the timing of the finalization of regulations against Internet casinos was purely coincidental with the end of the Bush administration, others thought it represented one last chance for radical Republicans to attempt to leave in place long-lasting public policy.

Certainly, rules already in effect are much harder to change than merely proposed rules. Meanwhile testimony before OMB officials continues by Treasury representatives, as well as animal racing leaders, members of the Interactive Gaming Council, and members of the Poker Players’ Alliance. What is being said in those meetings will be available in the final, published report.

Judge tosses cases against 9 in gambling probe

A Superior Court judge effectively threw out the cases of nine men indicted in March in a massive illegal-gambling probe.

On Thursday, Judge Roland Steinle sided with the defendants, who argued that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office violated their constitutional rights by not telling the grand jury that indicted them about federal Internet gaming laws and a state law that could have cleared them.

Under Steinle’s order, the county attorney can take the cases back to the grand jury to get new indictments.

Steinle made similar rulings on two other cases in September.

The case involves 35 defendants accused of being managers, bookies or collectors in four loosely associated gambling rings that operated in the East Valley and Scottsdale.

The sheriff’s office rounded up the defendants in April 2007 and seized millions of dollars in cash and assets after a more than yearlong investigation in which undercover deputies infiltrated the groups and bugged their phones and offices.

County attorney spokesman Barnett Lotstein said his office is considering whether to seek new indictments in the cases Steinle tossed.

Authorities say the gambling was illegal because the bets were made online but the debts were settled in Arizona.

Authorities also allege that the gambling rings dealt in loan sharking.

The grand jury in March returned a 250-count indictment, more than half of them misdemeanors.

Steinle also threw out all of the misdemeanor counts on Thursday, saying that prosecutors took too long to file the charges.

One of the cases Steinle threw out completely was against Eugene Valentini, who was accused of being the ringleader of one of the groups.

Also getting a break was Ralph Dipiero III, 40, son of another of the accused ringleaders, Ralph Dipiero Jr., 79, a reputed mobster.

Chandler businessman James Bennitt got his case tossed in September.

Bennitt argued in court documents that the county attorney misled the grand jury by providing only the facts that fit the state’s theory of Bennitt’s involvement.

Bennitt has said he was simply a high-stakes bettor who lost large sums of money and was not in business with Valentini as authorities alleged.

Bennitt’s attorney, Jean Jacques Cabou, argued that Bennitt can prove his innocence if given a chance to testify before the grand jury.

Steinle ordered that Bennitt be allowed to testify if the county attorney takes his case to the grand jury again.

Even if prosecutors give up on the criminal case, a parallel civil forfeiture case can still go forward, and Bennitt stands to lose everything he owns.

“That seems like an obvious end run around due process,” Cabou said

Excellent prospects for online gambling in Ireland

The United States may be adopting more and more laws against online gambling, but Ireland – as it seems – has an opposit view that looks forward to the online casino industry as an opportunity to create more jobs and stimulate the domestic economy.

The Gaming and Leisure Association of Ireland has asked the government to vote on legislation, which will attract online casino operators in Ireland. It is estimated that with favorable arrangements and with the effective institutionalization of online gambling, would create 10,000 additional jobs in information technology and in the areas of financial and support services such as accounting, tax, advertising and legal services.

The report also mentions that the institutionalization of online gambling will bring the country an amount of about $ 68 million every year!

And the question arises: Could the United States follow the example of Ireland, with a result that jobs and revenue in general will be 100 times more than what is estimated for Ireland?

This is kind of difficult at present for the United States since there is strong opposition to gambling in several ‘conservative’ parts of society. This is mostly based on ‘moral’ grounds, and despite the economic downturn and increase in unemployment rate, the attitude against gambling is not expected to change.

It has been a while now that Irish authorities allow citizens of the country to participate in online gambling without however establishing the appropriate legal framework. Some online gambling companies took advantage of the lack of legislation and unsuspecting customers became victims of several scams.

However, the proposed regulations are in the process of approval, and online gambling will become much safer for the Irish public.

The online gambling firms would be particularly excited to relocate their businesses in a country like Ireland, where exists specialized personnel in the field of information technology and also the industry infrastructure is highly developed and readily available.

We expect Ireland to develop into a paradise for online casinos, such as Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus.

Online-gaming case in jeopardy

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge on Thursday sent gambling-ring charges back to the grand jury because a county prosecutor failed to inform the jury of certain legal facts in getting the indictments.

Last Friday, Judge Roland Steinle also threw out all the misdemeanor counts in the case -mostly charges of benefiting from gambling – because the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office had failed to get indictments before the one-year statute of limitations ran out on those crimes.

More than 30 defendants faced 130 felony and 80 misdemeanor counts for placing and collecting on bets conducted through Costa Rican Web sites.

Steinle had already remanded charges against two defendants in September because the prosecutor failed to mention that the Costa Rican Web sites were possibly protected by international treaty and because of the prosecutor’s failure to answer questions about the legality of actions that took place in Costa Rica.

On Thursday, Steinle threw out charges against nine other defendants.

Twenty defendants remain charged with multiple felonies in the case.

Eugene Valentini was one of the first two defendants to have his case remanded because the prosecutor was unable to answer questions as to the legality of online gaming in Costa Rica, where the Web sites are located.

“The actions for which (my client) is accused are lawful and are controlled by an emerging body of federal, state and international law which should have been studied in detail before bringing this case before a grand jury,” said William Foreman, an attorney representing Valentini.

Foreman’s point was backed up by attorney Jean-Jacques Cabou, who represents defendant James Bennitt.

“In this case, by virtue of its treaty obligations, the United States has agreed to certain international conventions that seem to establish that this is lawful conduct,” Cabou said, referring to the Internet gambling.

Bennitt also claimed that the prosecutor had made false statements to the grand jury, painting Bennitt as a ringleader instead of a bettor; his case was remanded in September.

The County Attorney’s Office portrayed the remands and the dismissed counts as minor obstacles in the case.

“We can now take those cases back to the grand jury if we choose to do so,” said Barnett Lotstein, a spokesman for the office.

As for the dropped misdemeanors, Lotstein said, “We felt at the time we charged them that we had a viable argument because of the circumstances of the case.”

He was referring to the route it took from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to the Pima County Attorney’s Office before arriving at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.The case made headlines in April 2007 when the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office claimed it had broken up four loosely associated gambling rings. The defendants were allegedly operating gaming Web sites headquartered in Costa Rica, where online gaming is legal. At question is whether payments and bets on sporting events were made and paid face-to-face in Maricopa Countyor if the transactions took place electronically.

Sheriff’s detectives claimed to have infiltrated the rings and the courts authorized wiretaps to track the gambling.

In April 2007, sheriff’s deputies served search warrants in Phoenix, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and arrested more than 30 men and women.

Deputies arrested some of the defendants at their homes, and as permitted under racketeering laws, they seized cash and cars and property. In at least one case, a defendant says that deputies took the wedding ring off his wife’s finger, even though the warrants said that they were not to take items of sentimental value.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard stepped off the case because he was being investigated by the county attorney’s and sheriff’s offices over his handling of a criminal case against former state Treasurer David Petersen. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, Goddard sent the case to the Pima County Attorney’s Office.

At stake were an estimated $30 million to $35 million in cash and property seized from the defendants under racketeering statutes.

David Henderschott, chief deputy for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, allegedly told Pima County prosecutors that he would not cooperate with their handling of the case, so the Sheriff’s Office sent its attorney, Dennis Wilenchik, to bring the case – and the money – back to Maricopa County.Wilenchik did just that. It is now being prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.

In February, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office was fined by a Pima County court for failing to turn over public records in the case to a Tucson newspaper in a timely manner.

Indictments in the case were obtained on March 8.

The 33 defendants were charged with 250 crimes, including racketeering, illegal use of wire or electronic communication, promotion of gambling, benefiting from gambling, money laundering, betting and wagering, and extortion.

Neither the Attorney General’s Office nor the Sheriff’s Office would comment.

Government eyes Internet gambling as source of revenue

Bermuda could tap into a market worth billions of dollars — but also enter an international legal row — by becoming an offshore host for online gambling.

The Island is currently assessing its suitability as a centre of Internet gaming, following a path taken by rival jurisdictions including Antigua and Barbuda and Costa Rica.

It would mean gamblers abroad, most likely from the US, having their wagers processed in Bermuda — giving the betting companies tax breaks on profits and keeping them out of reach of anti-Internet gambling American authorities.

Several years ago, Antigua turned to Internet gambling — a $12 billion global business — as a way to end its reliance on tourism, a problem Premier Ewart Brown is equally keen to solve in Bermuda.

In 2000, Antigua’s online gaming industry generated $37.5 million in taxes, provided 3,000 jobs and was said to be giving people a route to affluence other than drugs trafficking. However, about five years ago the US introduced laws blocking its residents from using online casinos, claiming it needed to protect children and prevent financial crimes such as money laundering.

Antigua hit back by becoming the smallest country ever to successfully bring a case with the World Trade Organisation, arguing such a move was illegal and unfair as American operators were allowed to offer remote betting on horse- and dog-racing.

Since then there has been much tweaking of the US online gambling laws, with commentators saying the authorities have been trying to clamp down on it, while Antigua has been pushing for compensation from the US.

Some claim it is very difficult to enforce US law in jurisdictions which do not respect US statutes and that banning online gaming would drive it into the wrong hands.

Meanwhile, figures from two years ago show more than 200 Internet-gambling companies have set up shop in Costa Rica, earning it the tag: ‘the Internet’s Las Vegas’.

Poker is among the most popular Internet games — for many players in Bermuda as well — while gamblers can also have an online flutter with blackjack, craps and roulette among others.

Internet gaming is one of a series of possibilities, including casinos and a national lottery, being looked at in the $300,000 feasibility study by the Innovation Group.

The Premier, through his press secretary Glenn Jones, has refused to give any information about what we could expect to see in Bermuda, or to confirm exactly what he had in mind when he announced Innovation would determine Bermuda’s suitability as a centre of Internet gaming.

Dr. Brown’s predecessor as Tourism Minister, Renee Webb, backed the study, telling The Royal Gazette: “I was publicly in support of legalising gambling. Firstly, because it already exists through bingo, horse-racing, football pools and Crown and Anchor.

“So you are not legalising gambling but extending what already exists Islandwide. I supported a national lottery where the benefits go to education, the arts and other national causes similar to the British lottery.

“With respect to casinos, I supported them in principle as sophisticated entertainment centres — containing restaurants, shows, and gambling tables.

“These forms of gambling endeavour exist worldwide in places that once outlawed gambling, such as Sri Lanka, Egypt, and Caribbean islands. In these cases it is not widespread but restricted to certain areas like hotels.”

Ms Webb said she had two feasibility studies done in her time as a Minister and met with at least two groups who were interested in opening operations in Bermuda. The Premier also mentioned the feasibility study in an interview with the BBC World Service while on his current trip to the UK.

“Bermuda has a history of having had two significant economic bases. One is tourism and the other one is international business,” Dr. Brown said.

“We don’t export anything; we import 90 percent of what we consume and so we haven’t been able to come up with another pillar for our economy, although we are exploring new revenue streams … like gaming.

“We’ve actually announced last week that we’re going to have a feasibility study on gaming. That’s going to start next week.”

Asked if big casinos would be opened, he replied: “Well I don’t know. I don’t know that it’s going to be big casinos opening up. We are studying everything from Internet gambling to lotteries.”