[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
adios, I think we are basically in agreement over what is likely to occur, and on understanding that we really won't know until the Regs at least start being discussed.

That said, I want to comment on this section of your post...

[ QUOTE ]
I would guess that Neteller is anticipating some sort of regulation that U.S. banks can't do any direct transactions with any entities that do direct transactions with entities that run "gambling" sites. Seems complicated doesn't it? In other words, I'm guessing that Neteller is anticipating the regulations to state that if an e-wallet has direct transactions with a "gambling" site, U.S. banks will not be able to do direct transactions with that e-wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my opinion, that the Regs won't have to prohibit transactions with e-wallets for us to see Neteller remove itself from I-Gaming transactions. At this time, I fully expect that Neteller will act as if it is a bank subject to the Regs... and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites, then Neteller will pull out of those transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe but aren't the banks restricted from doing business with Internet sites now? Don't know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part of Hock's response basically answeres this question...

[ QUOTE ]
The part about sites accepting unlawful internet wagers was effective immediately upon the signing of the legislation. That's why Party and the others pulled out right away. But the part about screening and blocking transactions is not -- all the statute says is that the Fed must draft regulations directing financial institutions about what they must do. Again, nothing in the statute requiring financial institutions to do anything, only directing the Fed to draft regs, which will then define the financial institutions' obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why the public poker sites had to pull out of the US immediately, but Neteller can wait for the Regs before taking action.