Federal independent MP Andrew Wilkie has long sniped from his Hobart base at the damage poker machines do to to the living standards of family's addicted to their enticing music and offer of a cascade of money.
In particular, his ire has been directed at linked poker machines which enable the jackpot offer to be stupendous, but entice the player by congratulary music and a light show when the " win " payout is even less than the amount wagered on that roll of the symbols
Wilkie has turned his attention to money bet with "bookmakers" now that many international " bookies " are established in Australia and are heavily advertising their services on national television. He wants to extend the laws that cover " money laundering " to make bookmakers responsible for paying compensation when stolen money is used to fund bets.
He justifies this by making comparison with the pawnbroker industry which is highly regulated. A pawnbroker advances money by way of a " loan " calculated against the value of property surrendered by the applicant. The loan is much less than the value of the goods held and must be repaid within a nominated time frame.
Should that not happen, the pawnbroker becomes the legal owner of the surrendered goods and may sell them at a profit. Strict laws ensure that each loan is recorded with the name and address of the borrower and the police check regularly to discover stolen goods that have been pawned.
Stolen goods held by a pawnbroker are confiscated and compensation paid to the original owner if they have been sold and not recovered. It is the pawnbroker that suffers this loss if he loans on stolen goods. In the past, this has been the method used by thieves to turn stolen goods into cash money.
The bookmaking industry does not advance loans and bets are made with cash money and any resulting legislation will need to clear that hurdle. Crime research shows that money stolen from employers is often used to pay gambling debts but it is impossible for a bookmaker to be sure that the money offered has been legally obtained.
It is unlikely that we will see a law change to make bookmakers responsible for bets made with stolen money. Wilkie's proposal has a degree of support from the crossbench but both of the major parties are seeing the difficulties of turning this proposal into law.
A bookmaker would be entering shaky legal ground to refuse a bet on suspicion the offered money might be stolen. That might open a claim for " character assassination " if it is later proved the better's remote uncle had died and he had inherited a fortune.
The desire to place a wager is as old as humankind itself. It is an integral part of the human psyche and it caused trouble back in the time when Roman legions marched the known world. Andrew Wilkie is probably pursuing an impossible dream.
Such is the perversity of human nature that we aggressively reject proposals that save us from our own folly !
.
No comments:
Post a Comment