a question about banking and the internet bill

[mikeh1975]

suppose you have three different banks.do you think there is a good chance that while maybe one bank and another bank might block gambling transactions but then maybe there's that one different bank where maybe they don't have all the resources or the time and the transactions might still be able to go through? i kept thinking maybe there is that one (probably not bank of america) that might slip by......

[ChexNFX]

I have been thinking the same thing about the smaller banks that may not have the resources, like you just described. Anybody know?

[Uglyowl]

Exactly right, but don't go too too small as they will not even deal with ACH, wires, etc.

[mikeh1975]

the reason i ask this is because i wonder if maybe if maybe some banks will be more agressive than others.very surprised this hasn't been discussed more often.......

[Sniper]

Your expectation should be that all banks will comply with the regulations...

[Hock_]

There is almost certainly going to be no leeway for banks in the regulations that come out. The regs will prescribe exactly what banks MUST do to comply with the LAW. Banks don't have any choice in the matter.

[Berge20]

A lot of the practical impact does depend on what the regulations are. Certainly, if the official regulations aren't very strong, it is possible that larger banks may choose to take additional steps to protect themselves from potential liability (not unlike some of the poker sites have done)

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly, if the official regulations aren't very strong, it is possible that larger banks may choose to take additional steps to protect themselves from potential liability (not unlike some of the poker sites have done)

[/ QUOTE ]

This misunderstands the legislation. The only obligations on the banks are those imposed by the regs. Nothing in the legislation itself places any burden on them whatsoever. The only potential liability banks face is if they improperly block a transaction that shouldn't have been blocked. And the law specifically provides a safe harbor from such liability so long as the banks are acting according to the regs. SO, the banks have every reason NOT to go any further than the regs require, but obviously they must do whatever the regs tell them to. Which means that banks will do EXACTLY what the regs say -- no more, no less.

Now, there may be some flexibility or ambiguity depending on what the regs ultimately say, but that's not likely to be an issue of how diligent a bank wants to be in following them.

[Beavis68]

credit unions may be a good choice.

[mikeh1975]

i'm not experienced with credit unions.how would they be a good choice?

[Beavis68]

I said "may" I have little to no insight, but someone was talking about small banks, credit unions are pretty small but still table.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not experienced with credit unions.how would they be a good choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure he is getting at the fact that credit unions are generally smaller since they are restricted in their "field of membership" and what business activities they are allowed engage in.

There are a ton of local small community banks though as well.