In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 The Respondent: HISTORICAL ARCHIVES
 at BCM/TACC, London, England

 P.S. Docket No. 15/95;  
 
 02/09/83
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 John F. Ventresco, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1100

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 J. S. Drummond
 Historical Archives BCM/TACC
 London, England

Following the filing of a Complaint on December 6, 1982, Tentative Decision and Order No. 82-176 was issued on December 9, 1982, which concluded that in accordance with 39 CFR § 952.7(b) the Order authorized by 39 U.S. Code § 3005(a) should be issued against Respondent. Accompanying the Tentative Decision and Order was a notice which advised Respondent that unless it presented good cause for dismissing the Complaint, the Tentative Decision and Order would become final.

By letters dated December 21, 1982, Respondent filed two replies to the Tentative Decision and Order in which it contends that it is not engaged in conducting a lottery nor does it seek remittances through the mail by means of false representations. Attached to its letters are solicitations for its premium savings bond program which it contends is not a lottery.

Respondent's reply does not address the exhibit which is attached to the Complaint and which served as the basis for the issuance of the Tentative Decision and Order. This exhibit by its express terms and in substance shows that Respondent is engaged in the sale of lottery tickets for the British National Lottery. The solicitation for the purchase of lottery tickets was sent to an addressee within the United States and thus constitutes a violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005.

The premium savings bond program advertised in Respondent's attachment to its replies is also a lottery enterprise which violates 39 U.S.C. § 3005. The purchase of a premium savings bond is necessary in order to be eligible to win a prize and the prizes are distributed by chance. Thus, the elements of a lottery are present in the premium savings bond promotion. See Public Clearinghouse v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 (1904); Brooklyn Daily Eagle v. Voorhies, 181 F. 579 (C.C.E.D.N.Y. 1910). Respondent argues that while it may be a lottery in fact, it is not a lottery "in law" because purchasers may obtain a full refund any time after three months of purchase even if they have already won a prize. Even if Respondent's contentions about its refund arrangements are true, the premium savings bond program still would constitute a lottery since only by buying a ticket and holding that ticket at the time of a lottery drawing can one qualify to win a prize.

Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent is engaged in a lottery enterprise in violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Therefore, in accordance with 39 C.F.R. § 952.7(b), Tentative Decision and Order No. 2-176 is now the Final Decision and Order of the Postal Service.