[SamG]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a while, banks wouldn't cash Bodog checks. And Stars' main check processor pulled out on them.

I don't know much about the industry, so let me ask: why can't banks simply start blocking 3rd party check processors that are known to do business with internet gambling sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 1)they likely won't be required to, 2)it'd take them too many resources, and 3)nobody is paying that much attention to *withdrawals*, it's the deposits that the legislation focuses on (and ewallets, of course, get screwed by this.)

[/ QUOTE ]
adanthar, i hope you're right, and i've heard others say make these points as well. but...

1) even if they aren't required to, do we know they won't? banks already voluntarily stopped processing neteller EFTs, for instance. maybe some banks go out of their way to stop gambling transactions to protect themselves legally?

2) i don't see how the process couldn't be easily automated. the bank scans the code at the bottom of a check -- they do this anyway right? -- sees that it is from a blacklisted check processor and rejects the transaction. again, i don't know much about this industry, but surely most of the work during check processing is already automated? and they must already have a process in place to guard against counterfeit/bad checks, yes?

3) why then are neteller withdrawals blocked? why were bodog's checks not honored? why does click2pay no longer let americans make EFT withdrawals? why do electronic withdrawals from poker sites no longer work? it looks to me like people *are* paying attention to withdrawals, not just deposits.

also, how do we know if these 3rd parties who currently issue checks for poker sites won't pull out (like chexx)?

i want to remain optimistic, but recent events have soured my outlook. incidentally, the UIGEA is looking like it's going to be a remarkably effective law -- much more effective than an outright ban on internet gambling (like in washington state).