Other jurisdictions have adopted legislation to take advantage of the economic benefits that can accrue the government from legalizing an activity with significant unsatisfied demand.
What is unique are the particular challenges that Japan must consider in crafting the regulations — everything from government structure to organized crime influence.
Japan can learn from other jurisdictions, but should not copy them.
Gaming regulation has historically resided in government silos.
When New Jersey legalized casinos in 1976, they distanced themselves from the Nevada regulators and laws.
This is the wrong approach.
For example, New Jersey required regulatory approval before a casino could change the color of their carpet.
That sounds strict, but cannot be tied to any regulatory goals.
It ignores that regulation has costs.
It could simply be compliance costs in time and money.
It could inhibit innovation.
It could create barriers that reduce competition and increase prices.
The faults in the regulatory system were masked while the industry had a regional monopoly.
Just because an industry is doing well because of a regional monopoly does not mean its regulatory system is efficient or effective.
Its flaws may only be revealed when its regional monopoly ends.
For example, the government now prides itself on having the most efficient regulatory system to speed innovations to the casino floor.
Governments instead should アリゾナ州ツーソンにカジノはありますか on the right combination of best regulatory practices.
If you look at gaming regulation it has several components.
First, the government sets public policy — i.
Once the government sets policy, they should establish specific policy goals.
Two major policies that are universal are that that the games are honest and persons get paid if they win.
Others that may vary are whether 1 gaming is conducted competitively, 2 all money is accounted for and all taxes paid, 3 the industry is free of organized crime, 4 the games are fair and 5 problem gamblers are discouraged or prevent from playing.
Examples of differences in government goals are plentiful.
Nevada with over 100 licensed casinos is a very competitive environment.
The Singapore gaming market is not.
Two operators have exclusive rights to conduct gaming and the number of suppliers is limited by strict and lengthy licensing process.
Some jurisdictions tolerate organize crime.
Nevada openly licensed organized crime figures in the early days to encourage investments and job creation.
Not all jurisdictions are concerned that the games are fair.
Pennsylvania can hardly expect the games to be fair to the players when they charge a 50% tax.
This tax is passed on the players in worse odds or higher minimum wagers.
Finally, destination resorts スロットアメリカオンライン the bulk of casino visitors are foreigners may have little interest in preventing problem gambling because the click here are exported when the players leave.
Once, a small island country hired a New Jersey アリゾナ州ツーソンにカジノはありますか to mirror the New Jersey system for its small island.
New Jersey required that casino chip manufacturers be licensed.
That may have been practical for Atlantic Visit web page, which had a dozen アリゾナ州ツーソンにカジノはありますか casinos, but not for a small island.
No one would apply to provide chips and the casinos could not operate without them.
How do best practices solve these problems?
Once a jurisdiction defines what it wants to accomplish through regulation and sets specific policy goals, they need to understand the correct combination of best practices to accomplish those goals.
Best practices are techniques or regulatory components proven be effective in accomplishing these policies.
Let us give an example.
Government can adopt three different policy goals to problem gambling issues.
The first would be アリゾナ州ツーソンにカジノはありますか the regulatory system should be designed predominately to protect the player at any cost to the financial オフラインlan用のゲーム of the gaming industry.
In other words, if a technique proves effective in reducing problem gambling even in the slightest, the government should adopt it regardless of the impact to the operators.
A second option ignores problem gambling issues because, as example, the jurisdiction is predominately a tourist destination and any problem gambling issues are exported with the players.
A third approach is that the government decides it wants a balance; to minimize problem gambling without having a major economic impact on the viability of the casino industry.
Here, plenty of regulatory options available exist.
The オフライン無料ゲームiphone can consider, among a dozens of possibilities 1 preventing locals from playing, 2 capping the maximum amount of the bets, 3 imposing daily loss limits, 4 banning gambling on credit, 5 imposing a waiting period before a person can gamble, or this web page requiring signage regarding problem gambling help in conspicuous places through the casino.
If the jurisdiction hopes to achieve a balance — it cannot make any informed decisions without understanding what are the best practices proven be effective in accomplishing these policies.
There is not necessarily a single technique to accomplish a goal — sometimes the science is not fully developed.
It is like ebola — the very trained and expert doctors do not have a cure —yet.
But they are using proven drugs and other methods in combination to save lives.
A reasoned approach looks at each of the available practices and assess their cost and benefits, alone and in combination, in light of the particulars of their situation.
Cultural differences also need to be considered.
A mandatory problem gambling helpline may work in the United States but not in certain Asian countries where raising personal problems with strangers may be disfavored.
Before a jurisdiction can determine what practices to adopt related to a policy goal, a body of independent, evidence-based research must be available.
To solve ebola, you would not send a bunch of casino dealers to a drug store to mix a bunch of drugs.
But, that is how many governments approach gaming regulation.
An example is one click to see more that decided that loss limits would be effective in preventing problem gambling.
It decided that casinos must issue script to limit amount of gambling.
The idea was that when they ran out of script they had to quit gambling.
Instead of quitting, some buy script solely for resale and a black market in script developed.
In another case, a jurisdiction decided if they charged locals an admission fee to enter the casino, then it would inhibit convenience gambling.
It did not anticipate that locals who paid the admission fee gambled much longer — up to the full 24 hours per admission — to realize the full value of the entry cost.
Best practices go beyond social engineering concerns like problem gambling.
Every aspect of gaming regulation has associated best practices.
Take internal controls, which are policies and procedures designed to prevent and detect errors or irregularities that may occur in the operation of a business.
They assist a business to operate cost-efficiently.
In a casino environment, internal controls are important due to the inherent risk associated with a business that involves voluminous cash transactions.
They can involve access controls like locked drop boxes, personnel controls like surveillance or multiple アリゾナ州ツーソンにカジノはありますか being involved in a transaction and document controls like fill slips and markers.
Casino internal controls, however, should be practical, and cause only minimal interruption of operations.
What are best please click for source for casinos in adopting internal controls depending on its size, the games offered, number of locations, and other factors, can be subject to independent, evidence-based research.
Here the experts may not be social scientists but industry- trained accountants.
Best practices are available for many areas gaming regulations including anti-money laundering, licensing, regulatory and criminal enforcement, auditing, new game approval, gaming and related equipment technical standards and testing.
Again, all are reliant on independent, evidence-based research from different schools of experts.
Best practices are equally for the benefit of the government and the regulated industry.
Top International Casino suppliers and casino operators are in multiple jurisdictions.
Sands Corporation is in Las Vegas, Pennsylvania, Macua and Singapore.
Major gaming equipment manufacturers can be licensed more than 200 jurisdictions.
Does it make sense that a casino company should have significantly different internal controls in one jurisdiction as opposed to other based on similar operations?
Or, that a gaming equipment manufacturer should have to comply with 200 sets of dissimilar technical standards and testing requirements?
Another challenge is muti-jurisdictional compliance — where regulators in each country where they are licensed expect they will comply with the laws in every jurisdiction where they are doing business.
Consistency in https://money-win-casino.site/1/2257.html and トリプルダイヤモンドスロットゲーム expectations promoted by best practices will insure better muti-jurisdictional compliance.
Costs are imposed on the industry by not adhering to best practices.
Some best practices can be better standardized.
If manufacturers different software and require separate testing according to different standards for each jurisdiction, the regulatory burden is absorbed into a higher cost product.
There are five decisions that government need make in deciding licensing.
The first is breadth — what persons or companies that have involvement in the gaming industry must get licensed.
The second is depth — who within the organization must get licensed.
The third is level of investigation, such as cursory or in depth.
The fourth is criteria that that the regulators will look at in decidingsuch as honesty, criminal history etc… The last is standards that apply to deciding whether someone is suitable.
The problem is that licensing can create an absolute barrier for companies to enter the market to sell product.
The consequences are that competition can be reduced resulting in higher pricing and inhibition of innovation.
An example suppose one jurisdiction requires licensing of all shareholders owning greater than 5% of the stock of a publicly traded company but most other jurisdictions adhere to a 10% rule or greater for institutional investors.
Gaming companies needing access to public markets may exceed 5% for institutional investors even if it means they must forego licensing opportunity in jurisdictions that have a 5% rule.
What are the solutions?
Casino jurisdictions are not islands.
They and the industry must work toward best practices.
Common goals must be underlined with a commitment to empirical research オンラインゲームのリスト the impact and effectiveness of regulation.
We need to encourage cooperative agreements between governments and regulatory agencies to facilitate best practices in all areas of gaming regulation.
While it is worthwhile that regulators convene for conferences and the industry identifies potential regulatory approvals, unless dedicated resources and independent vehicle exist for follow through, it will remain nothing more than good ideas and lost opportunity.
This will not become easier as casinos continue to proliferate and the issues become even more complex.
Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 USA Tel: 702.
Excuse for that I interfere � To me this situation is familiar. I invite to discussion.
The properties turns out
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are not right. I am assured. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
You are mistaken. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
I am sorry, it does not approach me. There are other variants?
In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will talk.