Your presumption is correct.

I am getting questioned about the policy that is posted on BOL that Lele gave the URL to. The wording reads as if the bank is not required to block or prevent a transaction in the case of unlawful internet gambling.

Perhaps this was an error? The reg states that it should not be blocked or prevented if the internet gambling is legal, but if illegal, the transaction should be prevented or blocked in some way.

In opening new business accounts has anyone implemented the question that we should be asking our applicants for accounts? I was looking to see what other banks will be asking business applicants.

What about irrevocable trusts? They don't meet the definition of a consumer account, but not make a lot of sense for a notice?

Newnd - The policy posted on BOL was a generous peer contribution, not a model developed by BOL or its personnel. Its highest and best use is to help a bank get started on its own policy development; it is not a document that any bank could adopt without its own competent, critical review.

I have not read the policy, but agree that your policy should indicate your plans to block transactions in the way that the reg envisions; i.e. by conducting due diligence at account inception, not by interdicting transactions in process. The supplementary information accompanying the regulation acknowledges it is nearly impossible to block transactions in process and your policy should not reflect any general commitment to do so.

zitch70 - Due diligence could equate to: Is your organization in any way involved in gambling activities? A "yes" response means you go to enhanced due diligence; i.e. you determine what those gambling activities are. (They could be as innocuous as lottery ticket sales.)

Enhanced due diligence queries could continue with: Are any of your gambling activities conducted via the Internet? A "yes" answer would trigger further interrogatories designed to assure that the involvement was legal and would incorporate obtaining the documentation required by UIGEA.

Rosie O/Grady - The regulation's definitions lack the precision found in most consumer protection laws. It simply defines commercial customers as non consumer customers; i.e. any customer that is not a natural person. Estates, trusts, etc. are obviously not natural persons so they fit this regulation's definition of a commercial customer. Nevertheless, it's a tad ridiculous to consider their potential involvement in Internet gambling.

The bottom line is will your examiners expect you to have used some common sense in excluding some customers from your notice and due diligence requirements? I'm not willing to rely on that; I would not advise you to exclude them.

Potential posters - This thread has become sort of a dumping ground for Reg GG questions. As the deadline nears and questions are now following questions it is increasingly difficult to figure out "who's on first" and hard to respond. Hence, some questions are not being answered. If you have a question that is not a follow-up, I suggest you start your own thread with a specific heading.

If you are trying to figure out what you are supposed to do just by asking questions in the Threads at this point you're toast. BOL's Webinar is still available. Buy it.

Then you better start passing out some Peanut butter and Jellie, there is a lot of toast in this thread.

It was part of last December's Webinar on "Blocking Internet Gambling Transactions - The Final Rule," presented by, er, me.

There's another "new and improved" version of that webinar, presented earlier this month, now available in the BOL Banker Store in CD-ROM format. It includes all the materials used in the webinar, the full audio (re-recorded) and slide presentation, and the Q&A covering all the questions asked during the session. Click HERE for more information.

John I listened to your webinar for the 2nd time yesterday so I will pass on the peanut butter & jelly. :-) Very informative!!

Thanks, i was part of that webinar and have found the Q&A's.

What about irrevocable trusts? They don't meet the definition of a consumer account, but do not make a lot of sense for a notice?

See #1270281 above.