Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

I didn't see this posted yet...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020201664.html

I won't repaste the whole article because someone will probably bitch at me about copyright [censored], but this is an interesting snippet.

Neteller, which had provided payment services to more than 80 percent of worldwide gaming merchants, watched its business swell after PayPal and parent company eBay agreed to leave the business and forfeit $10 million to settle civil charges three years ago over financial transfers to offshore and online gambling firms.

Now, however, with the arrest of two of its founders, the British Web site is scrambling to exit the U.S business. Neteller is besieged with requests from frustrated bettors who want to recoup billions in deposits and winnings. The money is being held in trust accounts while the company holds conversations with the Justice Department about the status of its executives and other board members.

"The answer is, it's a bit confused at the moment," Neteller spokesman George Cazenove said. "I'm sure they will get their money back. You've got to give Neteller a bit of space."

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Much, much better than the USA Today article.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Yea. I think that's the first quote I've ever seen from a NETELLER spokesperson.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Pretty much what I expected was happening...
Neteller thread

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

If that's the holdup, we are on much safer footing than we were a week ago IMO.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Actually appears to be a smart move by Neteller, since the money they are holding from US accounts is a huge source of leverage against the DOJ. Sounds like this could be heading towards a settlement something along the lines of Neteller pays out all U.S. accounts and agrees not to conduct any further gaming business with U.S. in exchange for DOJ agreeing not to prosecute any other Neteller execs. Could be a while, though.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

BTW, to anyone thinking 'but this means that anything beyond the initial deposit is forfeited': you're almost certainly wrong. Example: Ryan Daut quite legally goes to the PCA and wins 1.5 million, which is paid to his Pokerstars account. The money is then cashed out to Neteller. Is the DOJ able to confiscate any of it? Of course not, because it was all legal. Furthermore, the DOJ is not interested in confiscating money from US bettors (most of whom aren't committing a crime to begin with) nearly as much as stopping the offers of sports betting sites.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually appears to be a smart move by Neteller, since the money they are holding from US accounts is a huge source of leverage against the DOJ. Sounds like this could be heading towards a settlement something along the lines of Neteller pays out all U.S. accounts and agrees not to conduct any further gaming business with U.S. in exchange for DOJ agreeing not to prosecute any other Neteller execs. Could be a while, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure trying to blackmail DOJ in the end will work beautifully for the CURRENT execs.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually appears to be a smart move by Neteller, since the money they are holding from US accounts is a huge source of leverage against the DOJ. Sounds like this could be heading towards a settlement something along the lines of Neteller pays out all U.S. accounts and agrees not to conduct any further gaming business with U.S. in exchange for DOJ agreeing not to prosecute any other Neteller execs. Could be a while, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure trying to blackmail DOJ in the end will work beautifully for the CURRENT execs.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not blackmail, it's a bargaining chip.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]


It's not blackmail, it's a bargaining chip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the bargaining chip (our money) is stolen. It does not belong to them; they just transfer it for us. They have illegally taken possession of it. It is theft.

If you give me your car for a day and I do not return it as agreed but continue using it – I have stolen your car.

If I tell your big brother I will return you your car as soon as your big brother does me a favor, I am blackmailing you both.

They are digging their own grave with this “bargaining.”

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except that the bargaining chip (our money) is stolen. It does not belong to them; they just transfer it for us. They have illegally taken possession of it. It is theft.

If you give me your car for a day and I do not return it as agreed but continue using it – I have stolen your car.

If I tell your big brother I will return you your car as soon as your big brother does me a favor, I am blackmailing you both.

They are digging their own grave with this “bargaining.”



[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG!
The bargaining chip is forcing the DOJ to take the legally inconsistant position that Neteller is required to transfer funds which the DOJ says Neteller conspired to break the law by transferring in and out of prohibited gambling sites.

This is what I would be advising Neteller to do. Make the DOJ either be the heavy here with millions of Americans'smoney and (Billions of Dollars?), make the DOJ take a legally inconsistant position that may cripple their prosecutions, or get them to grant immunity for Neteller if they will return the money and agree not to conduct this business in the US again.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]


WRONG!
The bargaining chip is forcing the DOJ to take the legally inconsistant position that Neteller is required to transfer funds which the DOJ says Neteller conspired to break the law by transferring in and out of prohibited gambling sites.

This is what I would be advising Neteller to do. Make the DOJ either be the heavy here with millions of Americans'smoney and (Billions of Dollars?), make the DOJ take a legally inconsistant position that may cripple their prosecutions, or get them to grant immunity for Neteller if they will return the money and agree not to conduct this business in the US again.

[/ QUOTE ]

DOJ will never request “transfer from poker site to player,” but might find a way to charge NT with taking illegal possession of the players’ money, and lying about being unable to pay. By the way, even if their untrue statements are not directed at the Feds, but the Feds read them in the course of their investigation, they are lying to the Feds, which is a separate crime, because they should know that the Feds might read them.

From the DOJ point of view facilitating Internet gambling is a crime. Your “they agree not enter the US market again” means “If you ignore our past crime we promise not to commit that crime in the future.” Things just do not work that way.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
From the DOJ point of view facilitating Internet gambling is a crime. Your “they agree not enter the US market again” means “If you ignore our past crime we promise not to commit that crime in the future.” Things just do not work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do all the time. Think Pinnacle as a recent example.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

At least this article shows that our money is still there, which is good news considering all the panic about Neteller doesnt have the money. right now, the only question is when we can get it.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Well, I hope I am wrong, for the sake of my money.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are digging their own grave with this “bargaining.”


[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG!
The bargaining chip is forcing the DOJ to take the legally inconsistant position that Neteller is required to transfer funds which the DOJ says Neteller conspired to break the law by transferring in and out of prohibited gambling sites.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a bad theory. Neteller saying tongue in cheek "I guess we better not transfer the rest of this money, otherwise we will violate the law another X million times." Or at least getting "permission" first.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

They will never get “permission” from DOJ. All it can do is to turn some of the public opinion for NT, which is so trying to pay, and against DOJ, which does not let them.

However, since it is a scheme to benefit NT at the cost of its customers, public opinion might just as much turn against NT.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

NETELLER probably wants to avoid sending out a million checks, then dealing with some sort of nightmare if the DOJ finds a way to block those funds from being cleared. It needs to be clear that everything will get through and that it is legal to return the money.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It's not blackmail, it's a bargaining chip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the bargaining chip (our money) is stolen. It does not belong to them; they just transfer it for us. They have illegally taken possession of it. It is theft.

If you give me your car for a day and I do not return it as agreed but continue using it – I have stolen your car.

If I tell your big brother I will return you your car as soon as your big brother does me a favor, I am blackmailing you both.



[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to the Do(I)J, whose position (sadly, backed by legal position) is that they can confiscate material wealth even tangentially involved in crimes by claiming that the WEALTH committed the crime, and is therefore not the legal property of the innocent party who happens to possess it at the time.

Don't believe me? Look up drug forfeiture laws.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ited+the+crime

Among the links:

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/...efing/3_13.htm

[ QUOTE ]

The property is presumed to be "guilty" and, because it is property, not a person, none of the usual constitutional guarantees of due process apply. It is up to the owner of the property to file legal action to recover the property which often costs more than the value of the property.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

In a massive legal fiction, the property is considered to have committed the crime. Therefore, the property may be presumed guilty --even if the owner had no part in the alleged crime -- and held until the owner can prove the property is "innocent". This is exactly the reversal of the protections afforded to people. People who have had their property seized usually find that the DEA is conducting extortion -- in many cases, the people who lost their property are required to pay ransom in order to recover it -- even when those people are innocent and they had no part in any crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, just who is it that is stealing money?

Jester

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Only one small difference...

Using drugs is illegal. Playing online poker isn't.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Everyone can rest easy, a neteller spokesman said "I'm sure they will get their money back. You've got to give Neteller a bit of space."

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Hahaha, obv no one would think to question a spokesperson who says everything is a bit confused.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

"I'm sure they will get their money back. You've got to give Neteller a bit of space."
Okay, I don't know about you all but I think this statement is very telling. Sounds like he's not entirely sure everyone will be getting paid. If it were me and I was wanting to ease nerves, I would say: "Everyone will be getting their money back. It is just going to take some time".
Now, the "give Neteller some space" comment...that is some F'd up BS. Neteller needs to give us some damn answers, then we'll give them some space.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

I had an ex-girlfriend who said she needed some space once, but I never got her back.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Only one small difference...

Using drugs is illegal. Playing online poker isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you. Not according to the DOJ.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only one small difference...

Using drugs is illegal. Playing online poker isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you. Not according to the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DOJ has never said that playing online poker is illegal.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

slight difference though man. In this case the DOJ doesn't have the funds and there is no way in hell they will get them. That being said, the DOJ can't confiscate the funds. There's no way netteller is going to turn over all the funds in their control to them. Therefore, the DOJ doesn't have that leverage here. If they are obstinate, they are basically just screwing over a bunch of americans who haven't committed any illegal acts. It's that simple at least to me. I don't have any skin in this game because I saw this coming a few months ago and cashed everything out.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Looking on the bright side, if Neteller turns over the billions to the DOJ, the [censored] will hit the fan and that will be the end of the American Taliban in Congress.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Looking on the bright side, if Neteller turns over the billions to the DOJ, the [censored] will hit the fan and that will be the end of the American Taliban in Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ thinking mainstream America will even notice.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

I don't like the whole "I'm sure they will get their money back" line either.

It kinda sounds like your wife/girlfriend saying, "I'm sure the baby is yours." That's when it's time to call the Maury Povich show.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only one small difference...

Using drugs is illegal. Playing online poker isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you. Not according to the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DOJ has never said that playing online poker is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

why are people are so convinced of this? the DOJ obviously thinks online poker is illegal. even the article this thread is about suggests so.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm sure they will get their money back. You've got to give Neteller a bit of space."


[/ QUOTE ]

Would 8x10 feet be a large enough bit?

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I'm sure they will get their money back. You've got to give Neteller a bit of space."


[/ QUOTE ]

Would 8x10 feet be a large enough bit?

[/ QUOTE ]

6 feet by 2 feet by 18 inches fully enclosed in pine with luxury upholstery might be better

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
If that's the holdup, we are on much safer footing than we were a week ago IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

... and then I woke up.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yea. I think that's the first quote I've ever seen from a NETELLER spokesperson.

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously a talented schmutter merchant:
'Britain has become a combination of a giant golf course and a giant call centre.'
George Cazenove, owner of the eccentric second hand clothing shop Bertie Wooster, regrets being forced out of business.

This same George Cazenove is also the 'spokesman' for Dragon Oil, http://www.dragonoil.com/media.htm

and Deutsche Land PLC
http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta....L&it%3Dle

And Sterling Energy PLC, and NIKANOR, etc etc

George works for (is associate director) for company called Citigate Drew Rogerson, 3 London Wall Buildings, London EC2M 5SY

Wanna Speak to George directly?
Tel: 020 7638 9571
Email: [email protected]

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

Online Poker is pretty much for certain NOT illegal in ALL US states - the old DOJ position that the Wire Act covered ALL types of gaming was lost in 2 seperate US Courts of Appeal - in all the recent DOJ actions the underlying crime alleged to have been committed was sports betting (a clear violation of the Wire Act), not even casino betting, much less poker. And it does make a difference - but I am too tired to repeat the analysis here, there are plenty of threads in this forum making it plain. In sum, as an attorney, I will tell you that playing poker online is NOT a crime IN AT LEAST SOME STATES. If the DOJ were to take money from folks in those states, it would be the DOJ who is violating the law. The problem for Neteller is that they clearly did knowingly send money to sportsbetting sites and thus clearly assisted violating the wire act with THOSE transfers.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

It appears the DOJ wants to confiscate all U.S. based money in Neteller to finance their war on internet gambling.

This will be +EV for them and help finance the spread of Democracy to various non-evangelical countries around the world.

It's a win win for the U.S. Govt.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Online Poker is pretty much for certain NOT illegal in ALL US states - the old DOJ position that the Wire Act covered ALL types of gaming was lost in 2 seperate US Courts of Appeal - in all the recent DOJ actions the underlying crime alleged to have been committed was sports betting (a clear violation of the Wire Act), not even casino betting, much less poker. And it does make a difference - but I am too tired to repeat the analysis here, there are plenty of threads in this forum making it plain. In sum, as an attorney, I will tell you that playing poker online is NOT a crime IN AT LEAST SOME STATES. If the DOJ were to take money from folks in those states, it would be the DOJ who is violating the law. The problem for Neteller is that they clearly did knowingly send money to sportsbetting sites and thus clearly assisted violating the wire act with THOSE transfers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, Neteller clients transfered money to sportsbetting sites. Neteller did not know which clients were going to do so. Neteller made one method of depositing money with sports betting sites. But paper checks were another method. Neteller clients did not violate the Wire Act by placing sports bets. So how is their money involved in an illegal act. I don't think that Neteller ever touched any assets belonging to a sports betting site. Thus, IMO, form what I know about the facts set forth in the complaint, the case against the Neteller founders is problematic at best under the Wire Act; but big in its impact on the internet gambling industry.

Re: Interesting Washington Post Article About NETELLER
 

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only one small difference...

Using drugs is illegal. Playing online poker isn't.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



According to you. Not according to the DOJ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The DOJ has never said that playing online poker is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be relevant it Neteller only processed gambling transactions for poker, but it does a whole lot more processing than just poker-- some of which the DOJ expressly does consider illegal. In addition, most of the poker sites were also tied to sportsbook/casino sites. Neteller can very fairly claim not to know what to do with the money and request for guidance by the DOJ.

If you don't think that Neteller and the DOJ are jockeying for legal position with your (our) money as a bargaining chip you are not applying your common sense to everything you have heard.