270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary

[Hock_]

[Same caveat as my "Summary post" -- this should not be considered legal advice]

Having re-read the statute with a clearer head, I am now much more comfortable in predicting that financial institutions will NOT do anything to stop transactions until the Fed has promulgated its regs. The Act does not place any obligations on financial institutions other than those regs; the prohibition is on the parties "accepting" the transactions -- i.e., the sites. Moreover, the limitation on liability for financial institutions in s. 5364(d) is in part (subpart 3) premised on following the regs, so financial institutions could actually be exposing themselves to liability if they block "clean" transactions before the regs are finalized.

And I think it will likely take at least 270 days for regs to get done.

Bottom line: No run on the banks necessary; we probably all have at least 270 days, at least as far as moving money is concerned.

[fsuplayer]

god i hope so.

[NFuego20]

Let me ask this question....for purposes of being able to continue to play online (I don't question the fact that this law will greatly hurt the profitability and number of people playing the game), should we at some point actually take additional efforts now to get funds into Neteller or other similar accounts? I have read in a few places that according to some people's opinion, depositing will be the issue, but we should still be able to withdraw. This is obviously open to debate and my guess is it will take time to find out. However, to prevent a worst case scenario where Neteller stops accepting transfers in the near future, should we get the money in there now for purposes of sustaining play in the future?

I'd be curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think it will likely take at least 270 days for regs to get done.

Bottom line: No run on the banks necessary; we probably all have at least 270 days, at least as far as moving money is concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just add that the bill clearly states that the regulations must be in place NO MORE than 270 days after enactment of the bill (i.e. 270 days from the date the President signs the bill, which will be in no more than 10 days from now). The relevant text is on page 231 of the conference report text, beginning on line 7 ("Before the end of the 270 day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subchapter...").

This clarification is important, because the 270 days are a MAXIMUM time frame, so it is inaccurate to say that there are "at least" 270 days left. From my understanding, however, regulations such as these would take at least 100 days to determine.

Otherwise, I agree with you that Neteller, etc. is unlikely to do anything until the regulations are in place. It's just a matter of being on top of where the process is going forward.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
I would just add that the bill clearly states that the regulations must be in place NO MORE than 270 days after enactment of the bill (i.e. 270 days from the date the President signs the bill, which will be in no more than 10 days from now). The relevant text is on page 231 of the conference report text, beginning on line 7 ("Before the end of the 270 day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subchapter...").

This clarification is important, because the 270 days are a MAXIMUM time frame, so it is inaccurate to say that there are "at least" 270 days left. From my understanding, however, regulations such as these would take at least 100 days to determine.

Otherwise, I agree with you that Neteller, etc. is unlikely to do anything until the regulations are in place. It's just a matter of being on top of where the process is going forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what the statute says, but as I pointed out in another threa it's not that uncommon for agencies to blow through those statutory deadlines (waddaya gonna do, sue 'em?). And in this instance to draft proposed rules, accept comments (usually interested parties get at least 60 days for a major rule), consider them, and pass a final rule is going to take WAY more than 100 days, probably more than 270 IMO.

[MicroBob]

It would not surprise me if some banks decided, on their own, to stop accepting EFT transactions from neteller.

And neteller has to decide if they want to continue to do business with U.S. citizens (they already voluntarily stopped all transactions to Maryland residents).

Otherwise, I certainly hope and believe (from my very amateurish viewpoint) that you are correct that a run on the banks or neteller isn't necessary.

[MannyIsGod]

[ QUOTE ]
It would not surprise me if some banks decided, on their own, to stop accepting EFT transactions from neteller.

And neteller has to decide if they want to continue to do business with U.S. citizens (they already voluntarily stopped all transactions to Maryland residents).

Otherwise, I certainly hope and believe (from my very amateurish viewpoint) that you are correct that a run on the banks or neteller isn't necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine their cooperation with Maryland to be much different than any cooperation with this. I'm not saying they won't do it, but its one thing to do it while they're threatening to kill off your business and quite another to do it knowing it will kill off your business.

Neteller has nothing to lose any longer is my basic point. The compliance with Maryland may have been part of an attempt to head off this legislation, but not that this legislation is actually here what incentive does Neteller have to comply with the United States government?

[BillJames]

NFuego20,

As a lawyer, though not one with any expertise in banking regulations, my reading of the bill suggests that the regulations will mean everything in this area -- and thus your question is impossible to answer at this point.

However, this is the scenario I THINK will happen:

Neteller does nothing regarding its American customers until the regulations come out. The regulations will have specifications about the types of codes, etc. that must accompany "gambling transactions" to specify that they are indeed "gambling transactions".

Neteller, because it is a legit business that doesn't want to be an international "rogue", will not ban Americans entirely, but will simply stop transactions to and from Party, Stars, etc. Thus, I don't believe any money in Neteller is threatened either now or after the regs are passed. However, if the regs are indeed as complicated and difficult to enforce as the banks will claim, then it is possible that Neteller wil just shut off Americans because it doesn't want the added headache of dealing with these regulations. That will be a business decision that is impossible to determine at this point.

Finally, all of this means that simply depositing into Neteller will be meaningless, because Neteller will not process deposits into gaming sites anyway, even if they still allow Americans for general transactions. If this happens, it is quite possible that some other Neteller-esque site will pop up that will process Americans' transactions, but that is, of course, very speculative at this point.

In short -- my opinion is that your money in Neteller is not threatened right now, but don't expect to get around anything by simply making deposits now.

[MannyIsGod]

[ QUOTE ]
NFuego20,

As a lawyer, though not one with any expertise in banking regulations, my reading of the bill suggests that the regulations will mean everything in this area -- and thus your question is impossible to answer at this point.

However, this is the scenario I THINK will happen:

Neteller does nothing regarding its American customers until the regulations come out. The regulations will have specifications about the types of codes, etc. that must accompany "gambling transactions" to specify that they are indeed "gambling transactions".

Neteller, because it is a legit business that doesn't want to be an international "rogue", will not ban Americans entirely, but will simply stop transactions to and from Party, Stars, etc. Thus, I don't believe any money in Neteller is threatened either now or after the regs are passed. However, if the regs are indeed as complicated and difficult to enforce as the banks will claim, then it is possible that Neteller wil just shut off Americans because it doesn't want the added headache of dealing with these regulations. That will be a business decision that is impossible to determine at this point.

Finally, all of this means that simply depositing into Neteller will be meaningless, because Neteller will not process deposits into gaming sites anyway, even if they still allow Americans for general transactions. If this happens, it is quite possible that some other Neteller-esque site will pop up that will process Americans' transactions, but that is, of course, very speculative at this point.

In short -- my opinion is that your money in Neteller is not threatened right now, but don't expect to get around anything by simply making deposits now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill with your legal view in mind, at this point why would Neteller cooperate with the legislation? Would being considered a "rouge" company here in the United States really be of top concern from them?

[chicagoY]

I think the big thing is site perception and if they fear this will cause the arrest in the US of their executives then it would give them cause, in their own minds, to give us the heave ho early.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the big thing is site perception and if they fear this will cause the arrest in the US of their executives then it would give them cause, in their own minds, to give us the heave ho early.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no basis whatsoever for financial institution execs to be arrested under this statute.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NFuego20,

As a lawyer, though not one with any expertise in banking regulations, my reading of the bill suggests that the regulations will mean everything in this area -- and thus your question is impossible to answer at this point.

However, this is the scenario I THINK will happen:

Neteller does nothing regarding its American customers until the regulations come out. The regulations will have specifications about the types of codes, etc. that must accompany "gambling transactions" to specify that they are indeed "gambling transactions".

Neteller, because it is a legit business that doesn't want to be an international "rogue", will not ban Americans entirely, but will simply stop transactions to and from Party, Stars, etc. Thus, I don't believe any money in Neteller is threatened either now or after the regs are passed. However, if the regs are indeed as complicated and difficult to enforce as the banks will claim, then it is possible that Neteller wil just shut off Americans because it doesn't want the added headache of dealing with these regulations. That will be a business decision that is impossible to determine at this point.

Finally, all of this means that simply depositing into Neteller will be meaningless, because Neteller will not process deposits into gaming sites anyway, even if they still allow Americans for general transactions. If this happens, it is quite possible that some other Neteller-esque site will pop up that will process Americans' transactions, but that is, of course, very speculative at this point.

In short -- my opinion is that your money in Neteller is not threatened right now, but don't expect to get around anything by simply making deposits now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill with your legal view in mind, at this point why would Neteller cooperate with the legislation? Would being considered a "rouge" company here in the United States really be of top concern from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with Neteller "complying" with the US Government. If if the US bans the banks from dealing with Neteller then Neteller has no reason to bother dealing with US citizens. There would be too much confusion for it to be made worthwhile. Also, I'm sure that they aren't exactly looking to become an enemy with the US Government, which they certainly would become if they started helping Americans illegaly. Not to mention the entire ordeal of dealing with Americans and foreign bank accounts and what not is a huge hassle and probably not worthwhile for them.

[Josh.]

i still think this stuff getting into the news will have a huge affect. people will realize that it is illegal, and they will start to fear that they won't be able to cash out. you can't assume people will act rationally, because they usually don't. my sister has been telling me for a few months to cash my money out because some of her friends who are analysts told her money in party poker is not safe. so these are smart people who, before this, were acting completely irrationally.

also, the long-term value of advertising in the US will be much less for sites and affiliates. so we'll probably see a steady decline in the number of commercials and sponsored tv tournaments.

i'd be so happy if we had a final 9 months. i feel so horribly guilty about not putting in the hours in the past.

[MannyIsGod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NFuego20,

As a lawyer, though not one with any expertise in banking regulations, my reading of the bill suggests that the regulations will mean everything in this area -- and thus your question is impossible to answer at this point.

However, this is the scenario I THINK will happen:

Neteller does nothing regarding its American customers until the regulations come out. The regulations will have specifications about the types of codes, etc. that must accompany "gambling transactions" to specify that they are indeed "gambling transactions".

Neteller, because it is a legit business that doesn't want to be an international "rogue", will not ban Americans entirely, but will simply stop transactions to and from Party, Stars, etc. Thus, I don't believe any money in Neteller is threatened either now or after the regs are passed. However, if the regs are indeed as complicated and difficult to enforce as the banks will claim, then it is possible that Neteller wil just shut off Americans because it doesn't want the added headache of dealing with these regulations. That will be a business decision that is impossible to determine at this point.

Finally, all of this means that simply depositing into Neteller will be meaningless, because Neteller will not process deposits into gaming sites anyway, even if they still allow Americans for general transactions. If this happens, it is quite possible that some other Neteller-esque site will pop up that will process Americans' transactions, but that is, of course, very speculative at this point.

In short -- my opinion is that your money in Neteller is not threatened right now, but don't expect to get around anything by simply making deposits now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill with your legal view in mind, at this point why would Neteller cooperate with the legislation? Would being considered a "rouge" company here in the United States really be of top concern from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with Neteller "complying" with the US Government. If if the US bans the banks from dealing with Neteller then Neteller has no reason to bother dealing with US citizens. There would be too much confusion for it to be made worthwhile. Also, I'm sure that they aren't exactly looking to become an enemy with the US Government, which they certainly would become if they started helping Americans illegaly. Not to mention the entire ordeal of dealing with Americans and foreign bank accounts and what not is a huge hassle and probably not worthwhile for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I understand your speculation but I think its debateable that dealing with US customers isn't worth the hassle for Neteller. Its a huge market and the US rules simply do not apply to them because they are not a US company. They have no obligatio not comply with them.

I'm not saying they won't, but I do not think it is an open shut case either way. They have to view the US market as very important and I'm not so sure they're just going to walk away from it.

As for the blocking of transactions, I do not know the specifics - and imagine very few people here do - but I do know that a poster who claimed banking background and knowledge said that blocking EFTs was not nearly as easy or simple to accomplish as blocking credit card transactions because of the coding involved. It remains to be seen how feasible that is.

Its going to be a period of speculation either way here, and I hope that posters knowledgable in the appropriate fields help us shine some light on the situation.

[Fishy McDonk]

[ QUOTE ]
If this happens, it is quite possible that some other Neteller-esque site will pop up that will process Americans' transactions, but that is, of course, very speculative at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't there already other Neteller-esque sites like moneybookers and epass? They charge fees that I find objectionable, but maybe a competitor will spring up (possibly even financed by shell corporations financed by online casinos) that is fee-less for the customer. I would think online casinos would get more pro-active in setting up alternatives so they can retain their US customers.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Would being considered a "rouge" company here in the United States really be of top concern from them?

[/ QUOTE ]


for their standing amongst their investors I would think that being a 'rogue' type company is something they would rather not do.

I believe this is part of the reason why BetOnSports simply got out of the U.S. entirely. In efforts to win back their share-holders.

Seriously, they can get Carruthers back on whatever kind of deal and then immediately set up shop again and accept U.S. customers. But they choose not to.

Neteller may do something of the same.

of course, I'm hoping they do as you predict and take a 'what do we have to lose?' attitude about the whole thing.


It will be interesting to see.

[Quercus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this happens, it is quite possible that some other Neteller-esque site will pop up that will process Americans' transactions, but that is, of course, very speculative at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't there already other Neteller-esque sites like moneybookers and epass? They charge fees that I find objectionable, but maybe a competitor will spring up (possibly even financed by shell corporations financed by online casinos) that is fee-less for the customer. I would think online casinos would get more pro-active in setting up alternatives so they can retain their US customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first issue is whether the major poker sites want to take the risk of dealing with US customers. Treaty obligations forcing countries to extradite poker executives to the US is a threat that they will have to weigh.

[Fishy McDonk]

[ QUOTE ]

The first issue is whether the major poker sites want to take the risk of dealing with US customers. Treaty obligations forcing countries to extradite poker executives to the US is a threat that they will have to weigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. It doesn't look good for established "respectable" online casinos. Now, we will be reduced to playing in "rogue" online casinos that don't care about US law.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with Neteller "complying" with the US Government. If if the US bans the banks from dealing with Neteller then Neteller has no reason to bother dealing with US citizens. There would be too much confusion for it to be made worthwhile. Also, I'm sure that they aren't exactly looking to become an enemy with the US Government, which they certainly would become if they started helping Americans illegaly. Not to mention the entire ordeal of dealing with Americans and foreign bank accounts and what not is a huge hassle and probably not worthwhile for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

the whole point is that there is no reason to believe the bolded section will take place.

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with Neteller "complying" with the US Government. If if the US bans the banks from dealing with Neteller then Neteller has no reason to bother dealing with US citizens. There would be too much confusion for it to be made worthwhile. Also, I'm sure that they aren't exactly looking to become an enemy with the US Government, which they certainly would become if they started helping Americans illegaly. Not to mention the entire ordeal of dealing with Americans and foreign bank accounts and what not is a huge hassle and probably not worthwhile for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

the whole point is that there is no reason to believe the bolded section will take place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, there is because gambling is all Neteller does.

However, all we really need is for some Neteller like company that does enough non gaming business not to get classified as a gaming interest.

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
the whole point is that there is no reason to believe the bolded section will take place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not entirely accurate. While the statute itself says nothing specifically about banks' relationships to Neteller, it is concievable that the regulation will be very strictly worded -- perhaps specifying that banks could face liability under the statute for processing transactions not only directly to gambling sites, but to EFTs that deal almost exclusively in gambling transactions (i.e. potentially Neteller, though I don't know what % of Neteller's business is gambling-related).

The whole point is that we don't know until the regs are promulgated. If they are indeed very strict, then practically every US bank may simply refuse transfers to all but a select few EFT-type business that they know don't do gambling transactions (like PayPal). Otherwise, it will be very difficult for them to determine which sites mainly do gambling transactions and which don't. This type of policing problem is the whole reason the banks hated this internet gaming statute in the first place.

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
However, all we really need is for some Neteller like company that does enough non gaming business not to get classified as a gaming interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most likely, this would have to be something that already exists with a large non-gambling client base. Otherwise, any new EFT system would likely become mainly associated with gambling transactions.

Does anyone have any ideas about what is out there that fits this description? I'd imagine that if something is out there, we'll know about it quickly -- when PayPal banned gambling transactions, the names "Neteller" and "Firepay" came out of the woodwork pretty quickly.

[Fishy McDonk]

[ QUOTE ]
This type of policing problem is the whole reason the banks hated this internet gaming statute in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they hated it, why couldn't they stop it? Banking has a very powerful lobby.

[mlagoo]

is their lobby as strong as the christian coalition?


we keep throwing this stuff around like "why didnt PP stop this" "why didnt the banking lobby stop this" "why didnt Mason Malmuth stop this" -- it's not that easy. hell, it might even be the case that a senator or representative with some pull/power just really felt strongly about this legislation and wanted to get it passed, damn the lobbies. but i imagine the fact of the matter is that the christian lobby is about 10x stronger than the mustered will of all the poker/banking/2p2 lobby.

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This type of policing problem is the whole reason the banks hated this internet gaming statute in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they hated it, why couldn't they stop it? Banking has a very powerful lobby.

[/ QUOTE ]

They hated it they way you hate jock itch not the way you hate cancer. It's going to be a pain in the ass for them because they are ultimately the ones with the responsibility for enforcing it and that means determining which sites are gambling sites and which aren't.

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
If they hated it, why couldn't they stop it? Banking has a very powerful lobby.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that the banking industry has a very strong lobby, but that doesn't mean they always get everything they want.

This is true with any lobbying group. The Christian groups are a massive part of the modern Republican Party, but even so(some) Republicans got together with Democrats to pass stuff like the stem-cell research bill (which Bush vetoed). The point being that even the strongest lobbies sometimes lose out.

[rakemeplz]

Banks didnt lobby against it cuz they didnt want to piss off christians and they dont give a [censored] about degenerates.

Very simple!

[nhtool]

i can't wait until some christian, right-wing republican of iowa has a transaction mistakenly blocked by the banks because they think it's gambling-related. something like that is bound to happen if they make an intense effort to crack down on unholy transfers of money. the implications of having banks watch over us like this are pretty serious, and the irony of course is that it's going to be costing them a lot of money--money that we're going to be paying them so they can do a better job of babysitting us.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[Same caveat as my "Summary post" -- this should not be considered legal advice]


[/ QUOTE ]

all the same, I'll withdraw my rather substantial (to me) chunk of money and deposit and play relatively small amounts on a 'need to' basis.

---Leavenfish

[mikeh1975]

what about click2pay?

[nomadtla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Same caveat as my "Summary post" -- this should not be considered legal advice]


[/ QUOTE ]

all the same, I'll withdraw my rather substantial (to me) chunk of money and deposit and play relatively small amounts on a 'need to' basis.

---Leavenfish

[/ QUOTE ]

The word deposit is the problem here. If you want to keep some for 'need to' reasons then you may not want to withdraw it all cause you may not be able to put it back in.

[uncleshady]

Its effin great that a hole christians are letting me know what I can and cant spend my money on. Beautiful.

[AAAA]

they also know that they can pass on any costs to their customers and blame it on national security.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with Neteller "complying" with the US Government. If if the US bans the banks from dealing with Neteller then Neteller has no reason to bother dealing with US citizens. There would be too much confusion for it to be made worthwhile. Also, I'm sure that they aren't exactly looking to become an enemy with the US Government, which they certainly would become if they started helping Americans illegaly. Not to mention the entire ordeal of dealing with Americans and foreign bank accounts and what not is a huge hassle and probably not worthwhile for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

the whole point is that there is no reason to believe the bolded section will take place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again.

[mlagoo]

oh ok lawman007

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]
but to EFTs that deal almost exclusively in gambling transactions

[/ QUOTE ]

can we get the exact wording on this from the bill, because neteller is not in the buisness of accepting bets or gambling. Gambling transactions occur on party poker when you are at the tables, the gambling is finished before you cash out. Im just curious what the bill says.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but to EFTs that deal almost exclusively in gambling transactions

[/ QUOTE ]

can we get the exact wording on this from the bill, because neteller is not in the buisness of accepting bets or gambling. Gambling transactions occur on party poker when you are at the tables, the gambling is finished before you cash out. Im just curious what the bill says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it yourself:

http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/hr49543_portscr.pdf

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]

Overview

NETELLER operates a secure online funds transfer service. One of the leading service providers in the industry, the firm has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. A NETELLER account acts as an e-wallet that enables customers (individuals who open NETELLER accounts) to load, withdraw and transfer funds. Customers can instantly transfer funds to/from any merchant website that supports NETELLER's online payments system, and to/from other NETELLER customers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Neteller may be used for transfering to and from casinos but that is not their only buisness. It seems that if the US tried to block it that Neteller or Firepay could file a WTO case, because their buisness is online electronic transfers to any merchant or peer to peer transfers, it seems like the US would be cutting off their business and the WTO could come into play.

Not only that, the US would have to know which neteller transactions came from, say Party poker. I can not assume that Neteller and the Banks would just be like: [censored] it this is to much of a hassle, WE WILL BAN ALL EFTS.

targeting a specific company to ban EFTs from seems like it could definitly cause problems and if enforced could very well not hold up.

[Lawman007]

Do you honestly think that the United States government gives a damn about the WTO? LOL

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
However, all we really need is for some Neteller like company that does enough non gaming business not to get classified as a gaming interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't really help. As soon as a company gets large enough that gaming business is not important, it is far easier to jetison gaming business than fight for it against the Feds.

PayPal is your number one example.

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, all we really need is for some Neteller like company that does enough non gaming business not to get classified as a gaming interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't really help. As soon as a company gets large enough that gaming business is not important, it is far easier to jetison gaming business than fight for it against the Feds.

PayPal is your number one example.

[/ QUOTE ]

And their reason for jettisoning it would be what exactly? And their need to fight the feds comes from where exactly?

There's going to have to be some kind of method for classifying the recipients of the payments. Sites that are not primarily gambling or used to fund gambling aren't going to be classified against. Yes, this is an assumption on my part but the ones to promulgate the regulations would have to have their heads so far up their asses they're actually inside out in order for it to be otherwise.

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, all we really need is for some Neteller like company that does enough non gaming business not to get classified as a gaming interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't really help. As soon as a company gets large enough that gaming business is not important, it is far easier to jetison gaming business than fight for it against the Feds.

PayPal is your number one example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paypal was US based and forced into showing its paperwork.

[CharlieDontSurf]

What happens if Party has race horse betting on their poker site?

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
Banks didnt lobby against it cuz they didnt want to piss off christians and they dont give a [censored] about degenerates.

Very simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, right. Like Christians would suddenly stop using banks if that happened.

They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that and they will have a significant word in the writing of the actual regulations. So if they discover that it's too burdensome, they'll castrate the bill during the regulation process.

[Silent1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5395928.stm

EU fighting US dirty tricks

After 9/11, US authorities demanded that airlines should provide personal passenger data for all inbound flights.

But the subsequent US-EU agreement was ruled illegal by the highest European court in May of this year. Saturday was the deadline for a new deal.

...

================================

This is a not an unrelated topic. In addition to be a protectionist trading partner (gambling is ok if you do it in a B&M but not ok if you visit an off shore site), the US is also abusing post 9/11 anti terrorist activities. The BETonSPORTS CEO was identified and captured because his name came up on air line list provided to the US. BETonSPORTS may not have been the nicest betting site, but BETonSPORTS clearly had nothing to do with terrorism either.

The US is so keen to use any available means to charge business people with wire fraud -- BETonSPORTS, Conrad Black, and many many others. Why? It is a money grab, to no doubt finance the IRAQ and terror wars. At least, UK/EU business people might see it that way (US terorising UK/EU business people). These kind of EU/US disagreements could well lead to a broader trade war fought in the WTO.

I am betting that PartyGaming will get very strong support in the business community and ultimately from the government once Blair is flushed out of office /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that and they will have a significant word in the writing of the actual regulations. So if they discover that it's too burdensome, they'll castrate the bill during the regulation process.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that the banks have the ability to dictate the regulations that they will be subject to, huh? LMAO You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just pulling this crap out of your rear-end.

[E.Z.]

didn't read the entire thread but surely you can fund a online horse racing site with neteller?? if that's the case then how can banks shut off neteller as some think

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
It would not surprise me if some banks decided, on their own, to stop accepting EFT transactions from neteller.


[/ QUOTE ]

i would be tremendously surprised if this were the case.

as stated before not only does the bill not say that recieving funds is a no-no, common sense says it would be beyond dumb for a bank to refuse funds unless told to do so, which wont happen since that is money that cant/wont be taxed by the US.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that and they will have a significant word in the writing of the actual regulations. So if they discover that it's too burdensome, they'll castrate the bill during the regulation process.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that the banks have the ability to dictate the regulations that they will be subject to, huh? LMAO You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just pulling this crap out of your rear-end.

[/ QUOTE ]



Nice job being wrong and arrogant about it. Pretty much every heavily regulated industry plays a HUGE role in the rule-making process.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that and they will have a significant word in the writing of the actual regulations. So if they discover that it's too burdensome, they'll castrate the bill during the regulation process.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that the banks have the ability to dictate the regulations that they will be subject to, huh? LMAO You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just pulling this crap out of your rear-end.

[/ QUOTE ]



Nice job being wrong and arrogant about it. Pretty much every heavily regulated industry plays a HUGE role in the rule-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have a reading comprehension problem. I never said that the banks wouldn't play a role in the process. I said that they can't dictate what the regulations will be so as to "castrate" this statute, and they can't.

[boomshakalaka]

there is a lot of US money in online poker sites, youll have ample time to withdrawl if withdrawling does indeed become illegal. Youll get warning, your funds wont just be frozen, that makes no sense, no one benefits from that.

**Im not giving legal advice, but I have my br online still and Im not worried.**

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that and they will have a significant word in the writing of the actual regulations. So if they discover that it's too burdensome, they'll castrate the bill during the regulation process.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that the banks have the ability to dictate the regulations that they will be subject to, huh? LMAO You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just pulling this crap out of your rear-end.

[/ QUOTE ]



Nice job being wrong and arrogant about it. Pretty much every heavily regulated industry plays a HUGE role in the rule-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

He'll stop trolling if no one talks to him. I know he's wrong. You know he's wrong. Anyone that reads his posts is going to see what he is. Heck he probably knows he's wrong. If people continue to argue with him, he'll ruin every thread on this forum because that’s what gets him off. Ignore him and find some other forum to bother.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, there is because gambling is all Neteller does.

However, all we really need is for some Neteller like company that does enough non gaming business not to get classified as a gaming interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
I question this whole premise.

Neteller does have merchants other than gambling sites. But according to my reading this is not necessary anyway.

Transfers between a U.S bank and Neteller are not illegal under the new law because Neteller does not offer illegal gambling. The law specifically says the implementing regulations can neither forbid legal transactions nor cause legal transactions to be blocked.

It would take some nerve to promulgate a regulation that blocks Neteller. Of course that doesn't mean it won't happen. But a regulation that violates the underlying law may well be overturned by a judge anyway.

Obviously some banks could block Neteller anyway. But the wording of the law strongly encourages *following* the regulations. Acting on their own just creates problems: cost, nuisance, lost business, and potential liability.

[Stashua]

Good luck. The answer is not legislative but judicial. I still think the answer lays with the Americans with Disablities Act, and subsequently the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If the ban can't be construed in those terms, look for another way to sate your appetite.

[Phil123]

If you guys in the USA are allowed to withdraw but not deposit can't you just tranfer money to a friends bank in another country and get your friend to transfer money to your Poker account via the poker site. Thus you can still fund your poker account via your friend in another country and still withdraw money as the act doesn't cover withdrawals? I know not everyone knows someone in another country that they trust enough to do this but it could be a good solution for some perhaps.
I really feel sorry for you guys in the US. Your government seems to be slowly introducing a totalitarian regime over there.

[mosta]

shouldn't we be able to get payout by personal check? the major sites draw on respected british banks. and they don't need to have any incriminating names on the check. I mean, there are two issues. one, payment by check should get through any restrictions, right? (even if the law would apply?) second, is there a significant risk that major sites might keep players' accounts as their last chance at income?

[Phil123]

[ QUOTE ]
second, is there a significant risk that major sites might keep players' accounts as their last chance at income?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't see the online sites stealing your money. The sites do have customers from outside the USA and if they did steal US player money then all there other customers would no longer trust them. Even if the US government manages to stop every US player playing on the sites there are still plenty of poker players in Europe and the Asian market seems almost un-tapped as far as poker is concerned. The poker sites will make less profit but the big one's will still make lots of it, even wthout the USA players
As for checks, even if they don't have the poker sites name written on them they will still have the poker sites account details on and therefore the USA banks would still be able to tell where they have come from. However I know here in the UK if you want to send money by check you can get your bank to issue the check they then deduct money from your account and send a check as if the check is from the bank i.e there is nothing on the check to indicate who's account it has come from. I guess this could be a possibility, but maybe that could cause some kind of international incedent if UK banks were helping people in the USA to gamble illegally.
I think once the law is in place the poker sites and the likes of Neteller will find ways around the law.

[MLSchaff]

No major, repectable site will keep Americans money as their last chance at income. They have large european customer bases and will continue to operate. Additionally, this would certainly be illegal in their home countries - meaning their execs will go to jail at home, not just if they change planes in the U.S. I don't think this is an issue at sites run by publicly traded companies. I've never dealt with smaller sites, but if I did I would get my money out of those.

To address the issue of the banking industry and their involvement in setting up the new regs - I am a former commercial banker, so I have some knowledge of this, although I never worked in a compliance department or for the Fed. The banking industry as a whole will work hard to make the regulations as easy to for them to follow and implement as possible. They will do everything they can to NOT become big brother on this. The regulations will be as toothless as the industry can make them. Here is where I think politics will come into play in our favor - the banks do have a huge lobby. The politicians wanted this passed so that they can go bragging to the Christian right about what they did to save the country from moral decay in time for the November elections. Once the elections are over, the politicians' (especially Republicans, but really all of them) interest shifts from pleasing people like this to pleasing corporations. I honestly believe that Frist and his cohorts are much more interested in saying that they made internet gambling illegal than actually doing anything to stop it. This is just my opinion, but I think the new regs will be on the less strict side. Yes, we will lose some fish over this in the short term. But the sites will turn their marketing dollars to new markets (Pai Gow, anyone?), and Asians will soon discover Hold 'Em or whatever game becomes the next big thing and plenty of new fish will arrive.

My two cents - the sky isn't falling. It's scary now, but so was Y2K in December 1999.

And yes, I know - tl; dr

Phil123 made his post as I was writing this diatribe - obviously I agree with most of your points Phil - nh.

[ricdaman]

The bill does not prohibit withdrawls from the poker sites, so there is no problem there. It's not illegal to play, make money, or cash out, just illegal to fund. So here's what you do:

Open a Canadian / British / ANY non-US Bank Account.
Transfer funds from your American bank account to your non-US Bank Account, and then transfer the funds from your non-US Bank account to your online wallet and on to your poker site.

The US Based financial institutions aren't going to stop funds from being transfered to another bank.

But honestly... I'm thinking the legality of stopping transfers to online wallets is questionable. In fact, I think the legality of prohibiting gambling altogether is questionable, since our wonderful constitution says it's in the power of the states to regulate gambling.

I would not be surprised if this bill ends up in the Supreme Court. It would not be the first of this congress' bills under President Bush to end up in the Supreme Court.

[Phil123]

[ QUOTE ]
Asians will soon discover Hold 'Em or whatever game becomes the next big thing and plenty of new fish will arrive.

[/ QUOTE ]If the sites get get the Asian market interested in poker it will make the money gambled by the US players look like penny's. You only have to look in any UK casino to see what mental gamblers the Asian people are and of course there are lots an lots of people in Asia and they are getting richer and richer by the day. I think the Asian market is going to be a big pot of gold for online poker if the sites market well.

[Phil123]

[ QUOTE ]

Open a Canadian / British / ANY non-US Bank Account.
Transfer funds from your American bank account to your non-US Bank Account, and then transfer the funds from your non-US Bank account to your online wallet and on to your poker site.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am pretty sure you have to be a UK citizen to have a UK bank account (not 100% sure), however I know a lot of the banks offer offshore accounts in the Channel Islands (UK Owned) and I think anyone can have an offshore account there so maybe that is a possibilty.Anyone in the know regarding foreign nationals opening bank accounts here in the UK or in any of the UK's offshore tax havens? Maybe the rules in Canada are different?
Also, what about Indian reservations. They have their own laws regarding casino's so maybe you could see a load of Indain reservation banks popping up along side the Indain reservation Casino's? Is this possible under US law?

[dibbs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Asians will soon discover Hold 'Em or whatever game becomes the next big thing and plenty of new fish will arrive.

[/ QUOTE ]If the sites get get the Asian market interested in poker it will make the money gambled by the US players look like penny's. You only have to look in any UK casino to see what mental gamblers the Asian people are and of course there are lots an lots of people in Asia and they are getting richer and richer by the day. I think the Asian market is going to be a big pot of gold for online poker if the sites market well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was always under the impression most Asian countries had strict bans on online poker, totally not sure though.

[MLSchaff]

Anyone have insight into the Asian market/legality on this? I did a quick search for articles but most were rather old. What I did find was sportsbook-oriented and said that despite online betting being illegal the Asian market was growing rapidly.

[John Roberts]

I play on stars.

Bring me a test case....

[yad]

[ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure you have to be a UK citizen to have a UK bank account (not 100% sure)

[/ QUOTE ]

As a US citizen who has a UK bank account (and who acquired it by walking into a UK bank and showing my US passport for ID), I can definitely state that this is not true.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I think the legality of prohibiting gambling altogether is questionable, since our wonderful constitution says it's in the power of the states to regulate gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, it's blatantly unconstitutional. Problem is the same is also true of drug laws and for much the same reasons.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I think the legality of prohibiting gambling altogether is questionable, since our wonderful constitution says it's in the power of the states to regulate gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, it's blatantly unconstitutional. Problem is the same is also true of drug laws and for much the same reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, Gambling is regulated by whoever holds jurisdiciton of that area where the gambling is taking place. State land=state, Indian land=federal (Indian land only needs to follow federal law). Internet falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, so they can do what they want. Plus the Commerce clause (is Commerce the one I'm thinking of?) gives the Feds power in interstate business, which is the Internet.

[Phil123]

[ QUOTE ]

As a US citizen who has a UK bank account (and who acquired it by walking into a UK bank and showing my US passport for ID), I can definitely state that this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good news then. The UK banks are going to be loving this! The other advantage of having a UK bank is you can totally dispose of Neteller etc and just deposit from and withdraw to your bank account's debit card.

[mpslg]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have insight into the Asian market/legality on this? I did a quick search for articles but most were rather old. What I did find was sportsbook-oriented and said that despite online betting being illegal the Asian market was growing rapidly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Olivert will be here soon to tell us all about China.

[kevstreet]

I love our country, but the government is a [censored] joke. It's getting worse! After this I feel like running right out and payinig my taxes on the money I EARNED this year, can't wait for April 15th.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have insight into the Asian market/legality on this? I did a quick search for articles but most were rather old. What I did find was sportsbook-oriented and said that despite online betting being illegal the Asian market was growing rapidly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Olivert will be here soon to tell us all about China.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh God no. The words "China, Online, Asia,MGM, WPT, (WPT's CEO), Poker" are probably scanned for by him every day to post his theory about how a company barely solvent is going to take over the world.

[lzfsb3]

I have not read all of the posts about this but has anyone asked and answered about just mailing certified check or money order to poker site and if that would be acceptable to keep playing?
Also, any discussion on Legal Challenge to this. Will sympathetic judge declare it bad law and stop it? Cripes, judges are always stopping things that I believe they have no reason to stop so it is probably too much to hope for that they would stop something I really want them to.

Don't dismiss U.S. market so fast in favor of Asian market. Our NGP is still enormous and that comes from people making good money.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Good news then. The UK banks are going to be loving this! The other advantage of having a UK bank is you can totally dispose of Neteller etc and just deposit from and withdraw to your bank account's debit card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone know about Canadian banks which are more accessable for most US players and, I believe, also don't put you through the hassle of funding through an e-wallet.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have insight into the Asian market/legality on this? I did a quick search for articles but most were rather old. What I did find was sportsbook-oriented and said that despite online betting being illegal the Asian market was growing rapidly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Olivert will be here soon to tell us all about China.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he only posts in the Televised Poker forum. He has no thoughts on anything important. LOL

[DavidNB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good news then. The UK banks are going to be loving this! The other advantage of having a UK bank is you can totally dispose of Neteller etc and just deposit from and withdraw to your bank account's debit card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone know about Canadian banks which are more accessable for most US players and, I believe, also don't put you through the hassle of funding through an e-wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I deal thru a Canadian bank. I use neteller linked to my savings account. Very fast to deposit the money and they don't even wait for it to clear.

[nation]

All,

What would happen if Party banned US players from playing? Would our funds be confiscated or would we be unable to access them to withdraw?

Should I withdraw now or do I really have 270 days?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

What would happen if Party banned US players from playing? Would our funds be confiscated or would we be unable to access them to withdraw?

Should I withdraw now or do I really have 270 days?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important question I haven't found any clear answers on. When the regulations are promulgated, will we be unable to cash out? Sure we might have some more time to play, but will our money be taken at the end of that period?

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All,

What would happen if Party banned US players from playing? Would our funds be confiscated or would we be unable to access them to withdraw?

Should I withdraw now or do I really have 270 days?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important question I haven't found any clear answers on. When the regulations are promulgated, will we be unable to cash out? Sure we might have some more time to play, but will our money be taken at the end of that period?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows whether the poker sites would keep your money except the poker sites, and they certainly aren't going to tell you. I doubt they would keep it, but what could you do about it if they did? Go to Gibraltar or Costa Rica or wherever and sue them?

Again, the 270 day thing is widely misunderstood here. The 270 day period is only for promulgating regulations. The bill will become law when the president signs it in a week or so, at which time it will become illegal for a poker site to accept American players, which is why Pacific Poker has already said that it will no longer allow Americans to play there.

I believe that the other poker sites will do the same thing very soon. Others disagree. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I don't think I will be.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good news then. The UK banks are going to be loving this! The other advantage of having a UK bank is you can totally dispose of Neteller etc and just deposit from and withdraw to your bank account's debit card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone know about Canadian banks which are more accessable for most US players and, I believe, also don't put you through the hassle of funding through an e-wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I deal thru a Canadian bank. I use neteller linked to my savings account. Very fast to deposit the money and they don't even wait for it to clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

David (or any American out there who uses Canadian banks), do you have any recommendations for which bank to go through in Canada if we want to open an account up there for online poker purposes? I had heard Bank of Montreal mentioned somewhere as a possible option, but I'd be interested in learning about others. I live in upstate New York, near Ithaca, but my grandmother lives 10 minutes from the Canadian border, outside Niagara Falls, and when my wife and I go up to visit her in a couple of weeks we're going to take a little trip over the border and open an account. Any banks that have branches in Niagara Falls would be ideal, although I am willing to travel to St. Catharine's, Hamilton, or even as far as Toronto if need be.

--Scott

[argybargy2002]

I'm no expert of course. But you fellas have a pretty strange system of government. How on earth can legislation that safeguards your ports also include legislation on internet gambling. Wow. Time for another revolution I think.

[TruckeeSlick]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no expert of course. But you fellas have a pretty strange system of government. How on earth can legislation that safeguards your ports also include legislation on internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

A congressional bill includes whatever amendments a majority of congresscritters vote to add. They don't have to be related at all. It's a common procedural
trick under our byzantine parlamentary rules.

As to most of the posts here people seem to assume banks are just dying to help evade the ban and judges are just dying to find a way to rule it unconstitutional the way they do with death penalty verdicts. They aren't.

[Reef]

How many days until Bush signs this thing?

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
How many days until Bush signs this thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard predictions that it might happen today or might happen Wednesday. It will probably happen after you've made the final table of a MTT that you were playing for 5 hours.

[linuxrocks]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no expert of course. But you fellas have a pretty strange system of government. How on earth can legislation that safeguards your ports also include legislation on internet gambling. Wow. Time for another revolution I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not an american, but I am living here for past 6 years, so I know about the system. It's a strange thing to attach very different bills, but if you think about the overhead of government and the likelyhood of passing a bill, it's so much easier to lump together a bunch of bills. See the logic ?

Also, any senator can oppose this attachments and lobby against it. Nobody tried that and didn't want to, because as widely acknowledged if the bill came to the senate it was going to pass with a lot of majority. It's all about politics and playing to conservatism.

[argybargy2002]

I have to say I'm not sure of the logic, except as a way of getting marginal legislation through by attaching it to some very popular or important legislation that absolutely has to go through. That way if you oppose the add-on you look either unpatriotic or silly or whatever. Anyway sorry for highjacking the thread. I was just trying to feel superior lol.

[Hellheart]

I'm not going to worry about my money on Pokerstars. Hopefully they'll continue serving US customers even if banks stop transactions to and from. I've been steadily gaining and am being very careful with my bankroll, slowly moving up the blinds.

The advantage with withdrawal is that many poker sites will send checks. While an electronic deposit would be out of the question, a bank refusing to process an actual check would cause problems...and if that occurs, I might simply deposit in a bank in Canada or somesuch and do a transfer.

Oh, and the US government would be horribly stupid to prevent withdrawals. That would go far beyond pissing off all the Americans who cannot obtain the money they rightfully own, which would certainly not bode well for the current regime. As far as the poker sites, the reputation hit from the bigger poker sites if they still Americans' money (who would trust them after that?) is enough to keep the more reputable ones from preventing withdrawal themselves.