Collected thoughts on the next 270 days

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

There are basically two axes to this problem. On the one axis, you have the outbound (foreign-based) and inbound (US-based) side of the transaction. On the other axis, you have voluntary enforcement and involuntary enforcement.

Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account. Note that this is different from the side of the transaction that involves NETELLER and the US bank. The former clearly involves a transaction with a gambling site, whereas the latter arguably does not.

The catch, of course, is that a foreign-based payment processor is no more obligated to follow US law than a foreign-based poker site like PokerStars. Which brings us to...

Outbound side -- Voluntary enforcement

Firepay has already withdrawn from the US market and all signs are that NETELLER will as well. However, both of these are publicly-traded companies. If there's one thing we learned from the initial round of fallout involving the poker sites, it's that these foreign companies are going to split themselves between US-friendly destinations and those that won't take American action, and that the correlation between this split and the public/private status of the company is near perfect.

Thus, what we need is for a privately-held analog of NETELLER to emerge. ePassporte is probably in the best position to take NETELLER's action and supposedly is going to be added by PokerStars within a couple of weeks. However, I think we'd all feel more comfortable if there were one or two new alternatives to emerge. This almost certainly WILL happen sooner or later, but the timing could be important. In particular, if NETELLER pulls out before ePassporte or other alternatives are fully supported by the poker sites, we could have a scenario where it's basically impossible to deposit money into a poker site for a matter of weeks or months, and that could set the games back by years. If they're smart, by the way, sites like PokerStars will not only begin to support ePassporte, but create incentives like deposit bonuses for American bettors to transfer their action over there in advance of the regulations.

There's also the prospect of further voluntary enforcement from the poker sites themselves. However, I believe this is the last thing we need to be worried about at this stage. Pokerstars, FullTilt and the like are already violating US law, and they have decided that they are comfortable with so doing. Nothing in the publication of the regulations themselves is likely to change this. In fact, the poker sites are probably our biggest allies at this point.

Inbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

There is further ambiguity about whether the new regulations will require US banks to block transactions from sites like NETELLER. The expert opinion on this question has been relatively optimistic so far, but we really won't know until the regulations themselves are drafted.

Inbound side -- Voluntary enforcement

One final prospect is that regulations themselves will be lax or at least extremely ambiguous, but the banks will take it upon themselves to enforce them vigorously. Banks tend to be conservative businesses, and so this threat needs to be taken seriously. On the other hand, there are a couple of favorable points on this issue. Firstly, there are apparently some material technical barriers to blocking transactions through any mechanisms other than credit cards or wire transfers. If it's a matter of turning on a switch to block transactions from NETELLER or ePassporte, the banks might do it even if the law does not require them to. If it's a matter of creating a whole new system to identify blocked transactions, however, the banks are not likely to be as zealous. The second factor, related to this, is that the regulations contain an "out" clause that explicitly relieve the banks of their obligation to block transactions if the regulators determine that the technology to do so does not exist.

Summary

The best-case scenario is basically that ePassporte takes the place of NETELLER -- I think we're almost certainly going to lose NETELLER -- the regulations are lax, and it's more or less business as usual. This might lead to another hiccup or two in game quality but probably not more than that. I think there is roughly a 50%-70% chance of this scenario taking place, but that is a very rough guess.

Beyond that, there is not much middle ground, but rather varying degrees of worst-case scenarios. All of these are likely to involve some degree of cat-and-mouse games between the customer, the bank, the transaction processor, and the poker site, and all of them are likely to have some material near- and long-term adverse impacts on game quality.

There are a few other angles to consider such as the impact on advertising, potential enforcement actions by the Department of Justice, and of course the potential for new legislation to be passed, either further restricting access to games or moving in the direction of regulation. However, I hope this paints a pretty good picture of the near-term situation.

[5thStreetHog]

Another well written post nate,i think you summed it up pretty well.

[I Hate Frist]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[whangarei]

VNH. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
and of course the potential for new legislation to be passed, either further restricting access to games or moving in the direction of regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the wannabe do-gooders out of power in Congress, I would put the possibility of further restricting access to games at close to zero. Agree?

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Another well written post nate,i think you summed it up pretty well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
if NETELLER pulls out before ePassporte or other alternatives are fully supported by the poker sites, we could have a scenario where it's basically impossible to deposit money into a poker site for a matter of weeks or months, and that could set the games back by years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Help me out and tell me what I'm missing here.

Why is a third party processor so important? What's wrong with eChecks?

eChecks are immediate, they have no processing cost, and it is possible that regulations may not include checks and ACH type payments because of the cost of implementation and tracking by banks.

What am I missing? Why does everyone think we need a Netteller or ePassport type option? And why would it be impossible to deposit without them?

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]

Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account. Note that this is different from the side of the transaction that involves NETELLER and the US bank. The former clearly involves a transaction with a gambling site, whereas the latter arguably does not.

The catch, of course, is that a foreign-based payment processor is no more obligated to follow US law than a foreign-based poker site like PokerStars. Which brings us to...


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that some people’s confusion surrounding this stems from their not being any regulations. I realize you said, “will almost certainly make…” so I know you understand that. My question (combined with a lack of ignorance on how our laws and bills move forward) is, “who will develop these regulations? The new Dems? The Justice Dept?”

[ QUOTE ]

Outbound side -- Voluntary enforcement

Firepay has already withdrawn from the US market and all signs are that NETELLER will as well. However, both of these are publicly-traded companies. If there's one thing we learned from the initial round of fallout involving the poker sites, it's that these foreign companies are going to split themselves between US-friendly destinations and those that won't take American action, and that the correlation between this split and the public/private status of the company is near perfect.

Thus, what we need is for a privately-held analog of NETELLER to emerge. ePassporte is probably in the best position to take NETELLER's action and supposedly is going to be added by PokerStars within a couple of weeks. However, I think we'd all feel more comfortable if there were one or two new alternatives to emerge. This almost certainly WILL happen sooner or later, but the timing could be important. In particular, if NETELLER pulls out before ePassporte or other alternatives are fully supported by the poker sites, we could have a scenario where it's basically impossible to deposit money into a poker site for a matter of weeks or months, and that could set the games back by years. If they're smart, by the way, sites like PokerStars will not only begin to support ePassporte, but create incentives like deposit bonuses for American bettors to transfer their action over there in advance of the regulations.

There's also the prospect of further voluntary enforcement from the poker sites themselves. However, I believe this is the last thing we need to be worried about at this stage. Pokerstars, FullTilt and the like are already violating US law, and they have decided that they are comfortable with so doing. Nothing in the publication of the regulations themselves is likely to change this. In fact, the poker sites are probably our biggest allies at this point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see some signs that they are thinking of going. I don’t take this to mean that they are going for sure though. In fact, I think they are looking at every avenue they can to continue to do business as usual. It is my pure, blatant speculation that when you read and agree to their new terms of service, they are covering themselves. The terms of service seem to say, “what you do with your money is on you, we’re just pushing it to wherever you tell us to, and we don’t have the means to determine who is sending what to where on every transaction.”

[ QUOTE ]

Inbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

There is further ambiguity about whether the new regulations will require US banks to block transactions from sites like NETELLER. The expert opinion on this question has been relatively optimistic so far, but we really won't know until the regulations themselves are drafted.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[ QUOTE ]

Inbound side -- Voluntary enforcement

One final prospect is that regulations themselves will be lax or at least extremely ambiguous, but the banks will take it upon themselves to enforce them vigorously. Banks tend to be conservative businesses, and so this threat needs to be taken seriously. On the other hand, there are a couple of favorable points on this issue. Firstly, there are apparently some material technical barriers to blocking transactions through any mechanisms other than credit cards or wire transfers. If it's a matter of turning on a switch to block transactions from NETELLER or ePassporte, the banks might do it even if the law does not require them to. If it's a matter of creating a whole new system to identify blocked transactions, however, the banks are not likely to be as zealous. The second factor, related to this, is that the regulations contain an "out" clause that explicitly relieve the banks of their obligation to block transactions if the regulators determine that the technology to do so does not exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quite true. But, in dealing with banks (as we all have) I have found that they do anything in their power to make more money (one time I had money in pending accounts, and….okay, we won’t go there). If they have to spend one cent a day (forever) to enforce regulations, they’ll spend millions to figure out how to not enforce regulations.

[ QUOTE ]

Summary

The best-case scenario is basically that ePassporte takes the place of NETELLER -- I think we're almost certainly going to lose NETELLER -- the regulations are lax, and it's more or less business as usual. This might lead to another hiccup or two in game quality but probably not more than that. I think there is roughly a 50%-70% chance of this scenario taking place, but that is a very rough guess.

Beyond that, there is not much middle ground, but rather varying degrees of worst-case scenarios. All of these are likely to involve some degree of cat-and-mouse games between the customer, the bank, the transaction processor, and the poker site, and all of them are likely to have some material near- and long-term adverse impacts on game quality.

There are a few other angles to consider such as the impact on advertising, potential enforcement actions by the Department of Justice, and of course the potential for new legislation to be passed, either further restricting access to games or moving in the direction of regulation. However, I hope this paints a pretty good picture of the near-term situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the best-case is that Neteller doesn’t go away. I feel it’s a “flip” as to whether they do or not. I detect you feel that it’s Yea – AA Nay - JJ.

If they don’t go away, their familiar face will continue to attract fish that wish to deposit. (I’m a fish/donk myself though, and I have no intention of leaving.)

[ThunderEagle]

Nate, I have a question about these regulations.

Is anyone currently working on them? In all of the information I have seen around here, I haven't seen anything other than speculation on what the regulations will be. Aren't we a good 30 days into the 270? Has there been any leaks from the actual regulation drafters yet?

[KennyBanya]

Even if we have ePassporte and/or Neteller, isnt the hardest part going to be getting our profits in to our bank accounts?

I am thinking my bank may not accept a check from Full Tilt, UB, ePassporte or Neteller because they traffic in online gaming.

Am I way off on this?

Peace,

KennyBanya

[Suigin406]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another well written post nate,i think you summed it up pretty well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

yea...thank you for your hard work as usual...

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[infinite_loop]

Yeah, I don't see how Neteller would be subject to involuntary enforcement under the law itself. This would have to come from some regulatory specification that does not fall under the scope of the law. Any such specification would be a pragmatic political tool spawned by a recognition of the "spirit of the law," which is a floating abstraction. Such enforcement has no concrete basis.

The law is the law. Anything else is political, and thus based upon the whims of the individuals in power. I don't rule out such a political action. But to assume its certainty is to assume the federal government is reaching monumental stages of entanglement with the economy. I simply believe economic forces are still powerful enough to prevent such a sweeping application of an unjust law. I could be wrong. And if I'm wrong, America is in trouble.

[MiltonFriedman]

You are not missing anything, in my opinion.

There are private companies which process payments via echecks, as well as private companies moving into Neteller's space.

If the Regs exempt echecks from Banmk strict scrutiny, which is VERY likely, then you are on the money.

[MiltonFriedman]

Overall, a good summary. However, do not confuse deposits and cashouts.

"Thus, what we need is for a privately-held analog of NETELLER to emerge."

They are springing up like toadstools as we speak. The issue tho is that their role would be no more legal than that of Neteller for deposits. (I disagree with you Nate, the key link in the deposit chain which is affected is from the player to Neteller .... but the bottom line is the same, Neteller will be gone soon.)

As for cashouts:

You wrote "There is further ambiguity about whether the new regulations will require US banks to block transactions from sites like NETELLER."

This is not something to worry about. The Act says NOTHING about anything except deposits. Sites can and will easily get US players their cashouts. Banks have no reason to screw around with that cashflow and it would be impossible to track as it could originate literally from anywhere as an ordinary check.

[MiltonFriedman]

You are.

It is, save perhaps for the recent elections.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

(3) DESIGNATED PAYMENT SYSTEM.
The term 'designated payment system' means any system utilized by a financial transaction provider that the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, jointly determine, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

(3) DESIGNATED PAYMENT SYSTEM.
The term 'designated payment system' means any system utilized by a financial transaction provider that the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, jointly determine, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]Am i the only one who has seen this phrase? Heard Frist and others mention Neteller by name? Or seen Netellers "We Fold!!!" press release?

[5thStreetHog]

I agree with Milton,Neteller will soon be gone.

[solucky]

Seems noone is frightend that the US simple block the IP.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a moot point. Neteller is a publicly traded company. They're not going to risk having shareholders think they're doing something illegal. It's the same thing with all the publicly traded poker sites.

[5thStreetHog]

True.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems noone is frightend that the US simple block the IP.

[/ QUOTE ]This has been debated.Most tend to think this will not happen.Im not 100% convinced,although i dont believe it will.It would not stop anyone here from playing,but would have a horrible effect on casual players even more so that the worst case banking scenario.

[othercents]

[ QUOTE ]
VNH. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
and of course the potential for new legislation to be passed, either further restricting access to games or moving in the direction of regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the wannabe do-gooders out of power in Congress, I would put the possibility of further restricting access to games at close to zero. Agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

do-gooders?? I think most people understand that this was done by Las Vegas casino lobbyists. The restrictions will continue until the Las Vegas Casinos believe that they are not loosing anymore money from people playing online instead of at their casino.

Has anyone thought of just driving to Canada or Mexico and making a deposit outside of the US? You could just use cash for the deposit right into your account, or maybe even cashiers checks. This would definitely be the low tech way of getting money into your account.

You could also open a bank account outside of the US and just do fund transfers between those to accounts. From that point on you would be free to do whatever.

Other

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
VNH. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
and of course the potential for new legislation to be passed, either further restricting access to games or moving in the direction of regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the wannabe do-gooders out of power in Congress, I would put the possibility of further restricting access to games at close to zero. Agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

do-gooders?? I think most people understand that this was done by Las Vegas casino lobbyists.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just not true. The UIGEA was part of the American Values Agenda (http://speaker.house.gov/library/misc/060627americanvalues.shtml) meant to pander to the Christian right. The AGA had recently (past few years) taken a neutral stance on IG, and are now likely to lobby for an IG study bill.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate, I have a question about these regulations.

Is anyone currently working on them? In all of the information I have seen around here, I haven't seen anything other than speculation on what the regulations will be. Aren't we a good 30 days into the 270? Has there been any leaks from the actual regulation drafters yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vetting process in which the regulations need to be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days before going into effect. So we'll have at least some advance warning. There may also be a requirement for public hearings on the regs - not sure about this.

I'd be surprised if substantive work has started on the regulations yet, though I really have no idea. I also have no idea how much we'll know in advance. My guess is that there will be some leaks here and there once work begins in earnest, but I don't know.

[mmcd]

It seems like just before the regs. go into effect would be a perfect time for neteller to go private. I don't know a thing about how costly/complicated/drawn such a transaction would be under the securities laws in the U.K.or wherever, but it seems to me if the company stays public, it's business will take a big hit, but if gets taken private, it will be business as usual with the added benefit of decreased government regulation/oversight.

Any of you finance guys have an opinion on the liklihood of this happening?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

(3) DESIGNATED PAYMENT SYSTEM.
The term 'designated payment system' means any system utilized by a financial transaction provider that the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, jointly determine, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused, there is nothing in the Act making 'designated payment systems' illegal. How could regulations do that?

[DpR]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like just before the regs. go into effect would be a perfect time for neteller to go private. I don't know a thing about how costly/complicated/drawn such a transaction would be under the securities laws in the U.K.or wherever, but it seems to me if the company stays public, it's business will take a big hit, but if gets taken private, it will be business as usual with the added benefit of decreased government regulation/oversight.

Any of you finance guys have an opinion on the liklihood of this happening?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were to be involved in taking them private, I would wait until after they announced they would leave the US market, or at least until after I though that assumtion was being made in the valuation.

I do not see any reason it couldn't happen.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a moot point. Neteller is a publicly traded company. They're not going to risk having shareholders think they're doing something illegal. It's the same thing with all the publicly traded poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, they said they will comply but not because they think the law or regulations would make their actions illegal.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

(3) DESIGNATED PAYMENT SYSTEM.
The term 'designated payment system' means any system utilized by a financial transaction provider that the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, jointly determine, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused, there is nothing in the Act making 'designated payment systems' illegal. How could regulations do that?

[/ QUOTE ]You are wrong and confused.This bill diectly targets payment systems,with the use of terms specifically designed to include neteller type services and puts the weight on them to "identify block or otherwise prevent"all restricted transactions.Neteller is outside the reach of american law,but as mentioned,they are a public company and have stated they will fully comply as if they were an american based service.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a moot point. Neteller is a publicly traded company. They're not going to risk having shareholders think they're doing something illegal. It's the same thing with all the publicly traded poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, they said they will comply but not because they think the law or regulations would make their actions illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]It absolutely does.

[5thStreetHog]

Btw,im not trying to be a dic*,i read it like that,but im not an expert.But im smart enough to listen to what real experts in this area have said as well.So what i have stated is not just my personal opinion,but one that seems accepted across the board.Its true,how much they will enforce this part of the bill is still up for debate,but i think its safe to say the tools for them to do so are there.

[infinite_loop]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outbound side -- Involuntary enforcement.

The new regulations will almost certainly make it illegal for a company like NETELLER to process payments from a US bettor from his NETELLER account into a poker account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. Neteller is not in the betting and wagering business. The new law criminalizes acceptance, by a betting business, of a financial instrument in relation to unlawful internet gambling (a restricted transaction). How could regulations make Neteller (or any financial transaction provider) illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

(3) DESIGNATED PAYMENT SYSTEM.
The term 'designated payment system' means any system utilized by a financial transaction provider that the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, jointly determine, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused, there is nothing in the Act making 'designated payment systems' illegal. How could regulations do that?

[/ QUOTE ]You are wrong and confused.This bill diectly targets payment systems,with the use of terms specifically designed to include neteller type services and puts the weight on them to "identify block or otherwise prevent"all restricted transactions.Neteller is outside the reach of american law,but as mentioned,they are a public company and have stated they will fully comply as if they were an american based service.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it targets whoever they feel like targetting. And conceding based on the fact that they are a publicly traded company is not involuntary enforcement.

A transaction involves two parties. Transferring money to Neteller from a bank account only involves the bank and Neteller, neither of which are in the "business of betting or wagering." And Neteller does not fall under the scope of this law. So transferring money from a bank account to Neteller to a poker site will not be involuntarily restricted unless some other political action not defined by the law is used. That could happen. But again, it will be based on whatever the powers that be feel like doing.

[5thStreetHog]

Im not arguing that a transaction from your bank to neteller will become illegal,but neteller to a gambling site clearly will.And for the record,neteller apparently thinks so as well.But fair enough,like i said,im not an expert,im just going off of how i read it and how more informed people like Prof. Rose and others have interpreted this section of the legislation.Your last sentence "it will be based on whatever the powers that be feel like doing",i think we can both agree on this.I guess we will just have to wait and see,and hope that they dont aggressively pursue any aspect of this idiotic law.

[5thStreetHog]

Btw,"conceding based on the fact that they are a publicly traded company is not involuntary enforcement",agreed.But was not the reason they conceded was to avoid possible involuntary enforcement.Obviously they are outside of U.S. control,so that term itself has to be taken with a grain of salt,but its clear they felt sure they fell under the letter of this law,and that they would be breaking U.S. laws by continuing to work with gaming sites and U.S. players in the near future.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not arguing that a transaction from your bank to neteller will become illegal,but neteller to a gambling site clearly will.

[/ QUOTE ]

The illegality applies to the acceptance by the 'gambling site' of the transaction involving unlawful internet gambling, and it's in place now if they accept checks, credit, eft's, whatever.

Neteller may or may not voluntarily follow forthcoming regulatory requirements designed to stop a restricted transaction to a 'gambling site'; those requirements won't make Neteller or the transaction illegal.

[5thStreetHog]

Ok,i just thought that it clearly stated that they must identify block or otherwise prevent restricted transactions,or face the pre-stated punishment for not trying to do so(within reason,also outlined in the bill).But im just an idiot lol,and thats why i enjoy the legislation section of this forum,i find i learn alot from people more educated on these matters.So i will defer to you guys on this one,thanks.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok,i just thought that it clearly stated that they must identify block or otherwise prevent restricted ransactions,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a 'designated payment system' can be required to do this by regulations and there is mention of 'regulatory enforcement'.



[ QUOTE ]
i learn alot from people more educated on these matters

[/ QUOTE ] Likewise, and that is why and how we can make things better.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I hope this paints a pretty good picture of the near-term situation.


[/ QUOTE ] It does.



[ QUOTE ]
There is further ambiguity about whether the new regulations will require US banks to block transactions from sites like NETELLER.

[/ QUOTE ] They will affect 'restricted transactions' and your 'inbound' transaction is not prohibited.