[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, even assuming SWIFT won't let the feds search through their database for info on individual wire transfers, will that prevent the feds from telling US banks "we ask for you to voluntarily agree not to send wires to or accept wires from this particular desination, (e.g. Pokerstar's bank)."?

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming that Stars and FT are using reputable banks ourDOJ would be asking major US banks to refuse to do business with a bank based on what under no circumstances could amount to a percent of a percent of a percent of all financial transactions that 80-85% if the banks in the network agree are legitimate. And they also wouldn't have a way of knowing which account number(s) at which bank(s) would be poker sites or anything of the sort as they do not legally have access to those records. And, again, banks have no interest in finding this out themselves because 1) it hurts their bottom line and 2) they give two pisses.

[ QUOTE ]
Banks are very risk-averse and the subpoenas served on Deustche bank and other banks has no doubt got their attention.

[/ QUOTE ]
Blanket statements like this are neither true nor serve any nformational purpose. Not all banks are equally risk averse and many reputable banks know the are harboring large sums of ill-gotten money.
[ QUOTE ]
So I would imagine that, however secretive individual wire transfers may be, the Feds could easily pressure banks into just not permitting transfers at all to or from poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]Why would a bank not under US Jurisdiction agree to not accept wire transfers from the US for a customer of theirs while knowing the US cannot access the records of whose account that is and that the governemt ruling over them believes not to be a crime?