Neteller Workaround? (Not Bad News)

[Jeffage]

I cashed out a few grand before all this hoopla was about to go down. It hit my bank today - I noticed the transaction was categorized as an "E-Check" rather than the usual which didn't include the E-check wording. Possible workaround since banks apparently aren't response for stopping "checks"? Just a random musing.

Jeff

[Joe Tall]

I find that very interesting, Jeff. Nice add.

[DMoogle]

[ QUOTE ]
I find that very interesting, Jeff. Nice add.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. If this is true, then there may be a chance that Party comes back (a very small chance, but a chance nonetheless) because they said they were looking for other legal depositing options. That's what they'd get for stating that they were leaving so early.

[Jeffage]

Yea, I'm sure others have cashed out recently - check your bank statements. But this is a definite change in how the transaction is listed. I also saw a Dow Jones article earlier where the Neteller spokesman said he doesn't see this legislation as a problem for his company. I'll try to find it.

Jeff

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find that very interesting, Jeff. Nice add.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. If this is true, then there may be a chance that Party comes back (a very small chance, but a chance nonetheless) because they said they were looking for other legal depositing options. That's what they'd get for stating that they were leaving so early.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they need "legal" ways that they can satisfy shareholders. Workarounds that simply circumvent the "intention" of the law won't fly for a public company.

[Jeffage]

Couple days old...

Neteller Vows to Stay in the U.S.


DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
October 11, 2006 12:31 p.m.

A Neteller PLC executive said the British company, which handles payments for online gambling companies and others, will continue to operate in the U.S., despite the recent passage of antigambling legislation.

"We are staying in the U.S.," said Bruce Elliott, Neteller's executive vice president, marketing and sales, told a online gambling conference in Barcelona. "I don't think we have a very big problem."

The remarks come despite the surprise passage of legislation in Congress late last month that would forbid Internet casino companies from accepting U.S. financial transactions. The legislation is designed to prohibit U.S. banks and credit card companies from processing payments for illegal online gambling. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation Friday.

Neteller, which had 2.3 million customers at the end of 2005, generates around 85% of its earnings in the U.S. and Canada, with the remainder coming from Europe and Asia. Neteller said Oct. 2 that it was studying the impact of the law.

Some British Internet gambling companies, including PartyGaming PLC -- the world's largest online gambling group by market capitalization, which generates 76% of its revenue from the U.S. -- and 888 Holdings PLC said they planned to stop taking bets from U.S. customers if the bill becomes law.

Many online gambling sites don't deal directly with U.S. consumers, but instead work through online intermediaries like Neteller, which transfers money from bank accounts to online businesses for a fee. For example, when a U.S. gambler sets up an account, the money is first sent to Neteller, which in turn deals with the gambling site.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I cashed out a few grand before all this hoopla was about to go down. It hit my bank today - I noticed the transaction was categorized as an "E-Check" rather than the usual which didn't include the E-check wording. Possible workaround since banks apparently aren't response for stopping "checks"?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Banks aren't responsible for stopping checks because they're not responsible for stopping any form of payments. Cashouts via EFT are perfectly fine.

Deposits into unlawful gambling sites are prohibited under the UIGIA, whether by check or EFT or cash or any other form of payment.

The regulations to be promulgated by the Treasury and Federal Reserve in 270 days or so may prohibit banks from making deposits into gambling sites by EFT without prohibiting paper checks. But calling an EFT an "e-check" won't make a difference.

[Dementia]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. If this is true, then there may be a chance that Party comes back (a very small chance, but a chance nonetheless) because they said they were looking for other legal depositing options. That's what they'd get for stating that they were leaving so early.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never played Party, but if I were you guys I wouldn't even consider putting my funds back there after they pulled out so quickly. Plus the software there is disgusting.