Russia opposes gambling, except in a handful of special zones supply revenue to the government. Allowing people to gamble as they please and spend their money how they want, however, isn’t on Russia’s list of likes.

It started with land-based casinos and poker rooms, which were banned in July of 2009. There is a loophole in the law, however. The law makes it a crime for the companies to run gambling businesses, but it does not criminalize gambling on the player’s part. Since it’s legal for players to gamble but there are no legal casinos in which to play, online gambling has increased in Russia. Players have been legally placing bets and playing their favorite casino games online. Now Russia’s government wants to put an end to that activity.

A new bill has been introduced by Ivan Savvidi that makes it illegal for Russian citizens to gamble using the internet or mobile networks. Such a law would make all online gambling illegal. The bill proposes fines ranging from 500 to 2,000 rubles for violating the law.

Russia taking more freedom away from the people isn’t exactly surprising. After all, their Prime Minister is a former KGB officer and he has in no way distanced himself from that dark past. In addition to the new bill closing a loophole that allows players to gamble online, it would also clear up a loophole about slot machines.

The current law defines slots in such a way that game manufacturers have been able to design slot-like games that are technically legal. “People are trying to escape responsibility by using machines that are capable of doing everything that is banned by the law,” said Irina Tulubyeva, a partner from the law firm Tulubeya, Osipov and Partners.

Alexander Pochinok, a member of the Federation Council and co-author of the bill, said that a new and clearer definition of slot machines “is the most important part of my bill.” So it seems like the government will be adding online gambling and playing of certain slot-like games to the list of things their comrades can no longer do in Russia.

As a result of a legal decision, online casinos are now closing their doors to South African customers. Yesterday, Silver Sands Online Casino announced that they will not allow South African citizens to gamble on their website. In their statement, the online casino, which is based in South Africa, said that they have “made the decision to exclude South African players from participating in our games until there is more clarity regarding the legality of gaming in cyberspace for South African citizens.”

Silver Sands is the second South African online casino to make that move. After initially standing in defiance against the legal decision banning online gambling, Piggs Peak online casino, also based in South Africa, announced that they would temporarily stop online gambling in South Africa until their appeal is heard and a decision made.

Though South African customers can no longer play any games on Silver Sands Online Casino, management stresses that the players accounts “will remain accessible” and the players “may request a withdrawal” at any time. A similar statement was released by Piggs Peak, who is still legally operating their brick and mortar casino in the nation.

All of this stems from an August 20 ruling by the North Gauteng High Court that it is illegal to gamble online in the country, a decision that has been praised by the Gauteng Gambling Board but is being appealed by Piggs Peak.

By sheer coincidence, outlawing online gambling in South Africa would eliminate the only competition for the GGB, who runs all gambling operations in the nation. I’m sure that had nothing to do with the ruling, though.

It’s getting harder and harder to find people who aren’t mad at Harry Reid. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader, elected by Nevada, seems to be unpopular with everyone. People on the right hate him because of his radical leftist policies. People on the left feel that he hasn’t gotten enough done for them. People in the middle realize that he’s incompetent and possibly senile. After all, several times he has accidentally voted against his own bill and had to be reminded by a colleague that he wants to vote for it. “Hey, Harry, you sponsored and wrote this bill. I think you meant to vote yes.” And then there are the Las Vegas casinos.

A large part of Nevada’s economy is based on tourism and a large part of that is in Las Vegas. For that reason, Reid has always tried to keep the casinos happy. Therefore, when the topic of legalizing online gambling came up, Reid tried to walk the tightrope. Some of his colleagues in Congress have been trying to overturn UIGEA ever since it passed in 2006, but Reid held out as long as he could and avoided giving his opinion on the issue. The reason is simple. Some Las Vegas casinos are against online gambling and others want in on the market. There is also the issue of tribal casinos to deal with.

Earlier this year, Reid – whose approval rating has been listed as low as 8%  –  finally gave in and decided to support a federal legalization of online poker. As a compromise, he opposes any other form of online gambling and only wants to allow poker. It is a stance that was meant to give him more support but instead it guarantees that he will have none.

The Vegas casinos who oppose online gambling are furious, stating that legalizing online poker puts the foot in the door for a wider online gambling expansion that they believe will hurt their businesses. Eric Dale, general manager of Baldini’s Sports Casino, says that legalizing online poker will not only hurt the casinos in Nevada, but it will also hurt the rest of the tourism industry. He says that such legislation would “take money out of the hands of those who play online, money they won’t have to go out to a restaurant, to a movie, to gamble or eat. They won’t need to come out to a physical box (like a restaurant or casino) that employs people and that scares me.”

I suppose it’s the same problem that brick and mortar stores have had with the popularity of Amazon.com and other e-commerce websites. Like those stores, Nevada businesses will have to adapt to online poker. One such adaptation would be to get into the online gambling business themselves, something Harrah’s Entertainment is already doing.

While those who oppose online gambling are mad at Reid for supporting online poker, those who support it are mad that he wants to draw the line there. Barney Frank’s bill in the House, which passed the Financial Services Committee, would legalize all online gambling except sports betting. If Reid developed a Senate bill that only allows online poker, the two bills would be incompatible and no online gambling bill could be passed. In fact, it’s hard to find anyone who agrees with Reid that online poker is fine but all other games need to be banned. So who is he pleasing? Seemingly 8% of his voters. Good luck with that reelection campaign, Harry.

In the worst decision in South Africa since allowing vuvuzelas in the stadium during the World Cup, online poker is now banned in the country. A ruling by the North Gauteng High Court on August 20 banned online poker and all forms of online gambling in South Africa. The decision protects the Gauteng Gambling Board’s monopoly on gambling in the nation by removing online gambling as competition.

The Gauteng Gambling Board (GGB) has been fighting for a ban on online gambling for a while to protect the interest of their brick and mortar casino industry, with us worth $2.2 billion. Last week, Judge NB Tuchten ruled in favor of the GGB and banned online gambling. As a result, anyone caught gambling online or playing online poker in South Africa can face a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $1.36 million fine.

The new anti-online gambling ruling would punish not only players, but also online casinos, financial institutions and internet service providers involved in online gambling transactions. Advertising for online gambling in the country is also now illegal.

Though the GGB is excited by the ruling – warning that they will have any violators arrested – not everyone is ecstatic. Piggs Peak, for instance, intends to fight the ban and appeal to a higher court. Piggs Peak runs both a brick and mortar casino in Swaziland and an online casino website. Lew Saul Koor, Operations Director of Piggs Peak, stands in defiance of the GGB, stating that “until the appeal has been heard and the outcome determined, our business will continue as usual as agreed with the Gambling Boards.”

The most common sense solution to the dispute would be for the South African government to legalize online gambling but require the casinos to pay a fee or a tax for operation in the country. After all, South Africa needs more money and generally they are all for anything that generates an income for them. The online gambling ban seems to show that they think they lose more money to online casinos than they would earn by regulating them. Only time will tell.

The new gambling legislation in Belgium is already being challenged. Two powerful online gambling lobbies, the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) and the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) have filed a complaint with the European Commission, stating that the law violates European Union rules.

As has been the case every other time someone has petitioned the EU about a European nation’s gambling laws, it comes down to foreign competition. According to the complaint, the new Belgian law places barriers for foreign competition in their online gambling market. Though the law doesn’t ban overseas operators, it requires applications for internet gambling licenses to first participate in the land-based market. For domestic operators, that isn’t a problem. For overseas online casinos, though, that is only possible if they open a brick and mortar casino in Belgium, which none want to do. Few European online casinos are involved in any land-based businesses. The complaint also states that online casinos would need to have servers, equipment and personnel located in Belgium permanently.

Instead of protecting consumers, it seems that the Belgian government is using their gambling laws to protect their land-based casinos from foreign competition. Such a thing is not permitted by EU free-trade rules.

In the complaint, the RGA stated that the Belgian law “completely ignores the obligations and safeguards to which foreign operators are already subject in their member state of establishment.” CEO Clive Hawkswood stated that the policy of protectionism will actually hurt Belgian consumers because it will “only serve to reduce the value and choice available to them.”

Belgian lawmakers insist that the legislation is legitimate and that it is intended to protect their people and ensure that all online casinos available to their citizens are safe. However, according to the EGBA, the response was nothing other than Belgian waffling.

There has been no comment yet from the European Union.