Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

Just got an e-mail from Sportsbook.com. The title was "It's business as usual..." so you can imagine what most of it says.

But the last paragraph really caught my attention.

" And when you’re cashing in your V-chips, select the Debit1 option. Instead of a check, we’ll send you a cool ATM card you can use for cash at the supermarket, gas station, liquor store—anywhere you can pay with an ATM card. Now that’s news you can use. And your next withdrawal is even faster as we just credit your account online and the cash is there for you. No checks, no FedEx or DHL, no waiting—choose the Debit1 option on your next withdrawal. "

This seems like a decent idea.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

But can you add to this ATM card to get $$ back in the site?

Indy

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

[ QUOTE ]
But can you add to this ATM card to get $$ back in the site?

[/ QUOTE ]

omg... it's the perfect easy workaround we've all been looking for!

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

Now this is what I like to see - sites exploring new options!

I don't see how you could use this for deposits though, considering that in most cases if you want to deposit to you regular bank account you have to do it at your own bank's ATM, so it wouldn't work as a funding source and also would probably be very easy for the banking system to identify and shut down.

But for cashouts - I love it. Although I'm not particularly concerned about being able to continue to get cashouts from Neteller. I think that will continue even if funding into accounts is more difficult.

Anyone have info on what kind of fees are being charged for this? Most merchants charge $0.50-$1 to process ATM transactions, but are there other fees imposed by sportsbook to use this method?

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

so very much all you can get is spending the winning $$ on shopping?
this will work ok for small player.
Big fulltime/big time player will not able to do this. B/c fulltime/ big time player need to get they income weekly to pay their bill not just for shipping.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

Funding debit cards is EASY! Every heard of NetSpend / AllAccess??? I have a card. There are 3 ways of funding it.
(1) Go to a check-cashing place and give them cash in return they put money on the card.
(2) Buy a "refill kit" which is a card with a code. You call Netspend and enter the code, and the money is added to your card (Which by the way is the easiest way for the poker thing because we can buy these refill kits online at regular merchants).
(3) Transfer money from your bank account or PayPal account online.

I'm sure these methods could be applied to poker sites in a way which makes it easy for the average fish to fund their account.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

if the ATM card signs on to any of the international processing networks, you could withdraw cash at any ATM anywhere (generally) for a usually-reasonable fee ($1 - $3 usually).

This would in fact be a perfect workaround for the sites. Open each player a discrete bank account, with a partner reputable foreign bank (Bank O' Scotland, for example) and issue the player an ATM card. Player can then withdraw funds at most any ATMs, and can likewise deposit there.

Not to mention the player probably gets an online site for Internet Banking where they can transfer money, etc - possibly even Billpay.

As I said in the ZeeJustin thread, and has been said many other times elsewhere by a lot of people: i think people are overreacting on the payment processing side of the house. Its really not going to be that hard for people to work around that aspect of this bill.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

There'd be no problem with that as long as the foreign bank is willing to openly violate US law. And that goes back to how aggressive the feds will be at enforcing this law.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

[ QUOTE ]
There'd be no problem with that as long as the foreign bank is willing to openly violate US law. And that goes back to how aggressive the feds will be at enforcing this law.

[/ QUOTE ]
The law the foreign banks would be "openly violating" would be banking regulations requiring that transactions be coded and screened. Maybe the U.S. banking industry is going to roll over and spend their own money doing this but I don't see many overseas banks doing so. Quite possibly I just don't understand how international banking works but this sounds pretty unlikely.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

Debit1 is issued by a Canada-based credit union, NYCCU Bank. There's more info on the Debit1 FAQ, including a claim that you soon will be able to transfer cash from your card to your bank account.

https://www.debit1.com/DebitOne/FAQ.htm

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

[ QUOTE ]
There'd be no problem with that as long as the foreign bank is willing to openly violate US law. And that goes back to how aggressive the feds will be at enforcing this law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that US law only applies to US banks, "violate US law" is actually the wrong terminology here.

But I get what you're saying... and you're right. you'd need a foreign financial institution, and ideally a reputable one, willing to make a stand.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There'd be no problem with that as long as the foreign bank is willing to openly violate US law. And that goes back to how aggressive the feds will be at enforcing this law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that US law only applies to US banks, "violate US law" is actually the wrong terminology here.

But I get what you're saying... and you're right. you'd need a foreign financial institution, and ideally a reputable one, willing to make a stand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, given the language of the text, this law would Extraterritorial in its application, and while the banks wuld not be subject to arrest until they hit US soil due to the fact it is not a crime in in their present location, the US Government could nab then on a visit and could freeze/sieze any assets within the borders of the US.

Edit: Better http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf#search="extraterritorial%20application%20l aw

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

There aren't any penalties or legislative consequences for banks, even US banks, in the legislation. they'd certainly not be subject to arrest / siezure.

As with everything legislative re: financial services, its all up to the industry regulators: in this case the OCC for US Banks.

There's not going to be corresponding "extraterritorial" financial services legislation by the OCC, they definitely don't have that jurisdiction...

Also, i don't believe "extraterritorial" would apply to corporate entities wholly owned and operated outside the US. From the PDF you linked:

To what extent does international law permit a nation to exercise extraterritorial
jurisdiction? The question is essentially one of national interests. What national
interest is served by extraterritorial application and what interests of other nations
suffer by an extraterritorial application?

The most common classification of these interests dates to a 1935 Harvard Law
School study which divided them into five categories involving: (1) the regulation
of activities occurring within the territory of a country; (2) the regulation of the
conduct of its nationals; (3) the protection of its nationals; (4) the regulation of
activities outside a country which have an impact within it; and (5) the regulation of
activities which are universally condemned. Legislation may reflect more than one
interest or principle and there is little consensus of the precise boundaries of the
principles.


All that being said, of course, the gov't can always do whatever it wants with this, and let the courts figure it out afterwards [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

let's confine this to a sportsbook hypothetical to avoid the "is poker covered" issue in this discussion.

Funding such a card for cashouts is no big deal and is not banned by the Act.

On the deposit side, this has solved nothing I am afraid. Stored value cards are included under the Act. Buying them or reloading them will inevitably require an electronic transfer of some sort. So, while this may be harder to detect, it is not a solution.

(I currently believe that the Regs we are waiting for will have many such areas, where Banks are excused from detection efforts .... That would make those methods available, but they would still be illegal.)

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

Doesn't SportingBet own Sportsbook.com and Paradise Poker? Does this make it all the more likely Paradise will still accept US players?

___1___

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

You are assuming away the problem in that case.

Sorry
 

Again, NONE of these 3 easy funding methods would be legal under the Act, if the site is covered by the Act..... so this is in no sense a solution.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

[ QUOTE ]

On the deposit side, this has solved nothing I am afraid. Stored value cards are included under the Act. Buying them or reloading them will inevitably require an electronic transfer of some sort. So, while this may be harder to detect, it is not a solution.

(I currently believe that the Regs we are waiting for will have many such areas, where Banks are excused from detection efforts .... That would make those methods available, but they would still be illegal.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I see nothing in the act that would restrict transfer from a US bank account, via wire or ACH to a Bank of Scotland bank account, in my opinion. This is the general consensus of most financial services organizations, including the ABA. For one quick example, see here:

We're not talking about a stored value card, but an actual active bank account held outside the country, most likely a limited account captive to the gambling site in question.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

Performity,

Wouldn't this method expose the high limit players with $10K or more in an offshore bank account to severe scrutiny? I ask this due to current IRS regs regarding offshore money belonging to American citizens?

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

I dont understand the concept. How is this dodging the loops?

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

Definitely would, no question.

Not saying its a perfect solution, by far. But it sounds like it would possibly be a potential workaround for average players.

But all that said, I'm still of the opinion that third party payment processors such as Neteller won't be affected by this act (see my posts in the ZeeJustin thread), which is going to make the "problem" of depositing and withdrawing under this law pretty much a non-factor, if that's indeed the case.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

I am not disagreeing with you. Methods such as ACH likely will be available in practice because Banks will not be required to police them .

The problem is they will neverheless be illegal, if the gambling activity being funded is covered. In fact, the LAST thing you would want is a "captive" branded card. You want a regular, plain vanilla financial tool, like a debit card.

Re: Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't SportingBet own Sportsbook.com and Paradise Poker? Does this make it all the more likely Paradise will still accept US players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or follow suite and shut down.

Re: Sorry
 

I'm glad to hear that debit cards are easily loadable, I'd very much like to investigate loadable debit cards.

However, TruePoker CEO, which part of the process and which parties are violating the Act?

1) LOADING PROCESS

a) The party processing the "load" to a debit card. How could they know what you intend to use those funds for, given you can use this debit card anywhere?

b) The bank backing the debit card. Again, how can they know what you intend to use the funds for.

c) You. Even if so, can never be enforced/prosecuted.


2) DEPOSIT PROCESS

a) The bank issuing the debit card. They need the code the transasction as gaming. Fine, done. But it will still clear, it is a foreign bank that allows gaming transactions. They would have to know that (i) the debit card holder is a U.S. citizen/resident and (ii) is *CURRENTLY RESIDENT IN THE U.S.*

b) The gaming company accepting the transaction? Probably, doesn't care.

c) You. Even if so, can never be enforced/prosecuted.


You are missing the fact that gaming transactions between foreign accounts/banks and foreign gaming companies are perfectly legal; and that they lack sufficient information (location of the debit card end-user) to block transactions even if they were required to do so. They do code transactions as gaming, whatever.


For example, I use BAC San Jose in Costa Rica. I deposit into PokerStars, Party Poker, etc. Why shouldn't I, I am NOT a U.S. resident. When I visit the U.S., is BAC San Jose supposed to know that and block my deposits?! Which assumes they even have the capacity written into their system to "code" my account as "might visit the U.S.".