Stars Update #2 - Page 6

Sniper · #51 10-09-2006, 11:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They are probably technically 'breaking the law' just as much now by accepting deposits as they will be after the bill is signed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, the new bill does not change anything, with regard to the legality of anything.

The Bill is designed to provide enforcement mechanisms...

jaypoker420 · #52 10-10-2006, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take that bet if you care to offer it.

Neteller will not shut off the US business the day the Safe Ports Act is signed by President Bush, and I'll spot you an additional 5 business days.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they? As other posters have said, they handle a HECK of a lot more than Internet gambling transactions. It's the 2nd most used method on EBay for one.

Edit: At least it USED to be, I haven't Ebayed in some time.

iH8poker · #53 10-10-2006, 01:20 AM

For the record, I didn't think online poker playing was illegal (unless you live in one of the states that specified it as such, though not clearly legal either)? BTW, for that matter, I thought sports betting was ok too, but that's probably not true, just hoping.

maurile · #54 10-10-2006, 02:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This may be quibbling but I believe that the new law will make it illegal for them to accept wagers. I do not think it is illegal for them to accept a deposit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the opposite. The new law doesn't cover wagers; it covers deposits.

maurile · #55 10-10-2006, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While again I have no reason to believe that stuff about Barclay's terminating their relationship with neteller (and that would only matter if neteller can't find another banking relationship), Barclay's might be worried that they would be identified as the financial institution funding gambling sites, with neteller being viewed as a super account aggregator or something while Barclay's is the real underlying bank. However even then, that is just the same as if you transferred funds from a US bank to a canadian one you had, and then from that one to a poker site. That other bank is still one step removed, not on US soil, and thus not subject to the transactions prohibitions of the legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I worked in a bank for a few years in the 80's. Banks do not like gray areas. If their counsel feels that having a company is primarily focused on only gambling transactions, they will close the relationsship with the "rogue" company.

[/ QUOTE ]
All the banks will have to do is follow the regulations promulgated by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Banks will not have to decide on their own whether Neteller is "focused only on gambling transactions."

maurile · #56 10-10-2006, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Technically, the new bill does not change anything, with regard to the legality of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Change the last "anything" to "gambling." The new bill does make certain money transfers illegal that were not previously illegal.

fatshaft · #57 10-10-2006, 03:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While again I have no reason to believe that stuff about Barclay's terminating their relationship with neteller (and that would only matter if neteller can't find another banking relationship), Barclay's might be worried that they would be identified as the financial institution funding gambling sites, with neteller being viewed as a super account aggregator or something while Barclay's is the real underlying bank. However even then, that is just the same as if you transferred funds from a US bank to a canadian one you had, and then from that one to a poker site. That other bank is still one step removed, not on US soil, and thus not subject to the transactions prohibitions of the legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I worked in a bank for a few years in the 80's. Banks do not like gray areas. If their counsel feels that having a company is primarily focused on only gambling transactions, they will close the relationsship with the "rogue" company.

[/ QUOTE ]
All the banks will have to do is follow the regulations promulgated by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Banks will not have to decide on their own whether Neteller is "focused only on gambling transactions."

[/ QUOTE ]I worked in banking also, but I would agree with Maurile, NEteller is a massive company in it's own right, and Barclays will not be shutting them down until; these regulations are written, afetr that they may take a different view, I've also worked in the IoM and believe me they get very paranoid over there, not just grey areas, but those that aren't bluey white Persil clean tend to get the red card from them.

fatshaft · #58 10-10-2006, 03:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I've done some research on Wikipedia and it looks like the Isle of Man (where Stars is based) is in a different category than Gibraltar (where Party is based) in terms of its relationship with the United Kingdom. Whereas Gibraltar is a British territory, the Isle of Man is not technically part of the UK but instead something called a "crown dependancy".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate, I thought Stars was HQ'd in Costa Rica with operations in Isle of Man. So isn't the important jurisdiction wrt extradition Costa Rica? Also, I was under the impression that extradition is not an issue if the other country does not consider IG illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of this is a little unclear. Stars is owned by an Israeli who lives in Canada. It operates out of the Isle of Man, although I believe that they still may technically be contained within a Costa Rican holding company (not sure). All over the map, quite literally.

[/ QUOTE ]Stars are licensed and operate from IoM now, they still have some support staff in Costa Rica, but they are IoM domiciled, as are Neteller.

whangarei · #59 10-10-2006, 04:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My opinion unfortunately is that Neteller will cease US business as soon as the bill is signed into law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that this is against every single thing they have said, why do you feel this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly because of reports like this:

http://www.majorwager.com/index.cfm?...how_column=289

Neteller's bank accounts at Barclays rumoured to be shut down if Bush signs

The are rumours abound that Barclays will be shutting down Netellers accounts when and if President Bush signs the Internet Gaming Prohibition Bill. Sources have told MajorWager that Neteller has decided to cease US operations should Bush sign the Bill. Neteller was contacted and has yet to respond to these rumours at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what to say about that, other than it's a very poorly written PARAGRAPH from a source that means absolutely nothing. I'd say it could be true, but if we believed every article that looked as unprofessional as that, we'd all be in trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it looks like Firepay is pulling out of the US market ( Firepay to block US gamblers). ZBT, given the liklihood of Neteller following suit, what effect will this have on Stars' decision?

suzzer99 · #60 10-10-2006, 05:46 AM

A couple quick thoughts. No Poker-only site executive has been arrested or targeted yet as far as we know. Every in-depth article I've read on this bill (including a pretty good one in The Economist) says poker is a potential grey area for the wire act of 1961.

So let's say there's some possibility that when the final regs are written, they specifically exempt poker sites or are worded in such a way as to obviously exempt poker sites. NOW I REALIZE this is a very long shot. But I don't think anyone can say for sure it's an impossibility (although I'm sure many armchair politicians in this thread will anyway).

So given that, wouldn't a poker site be doing a huge disservice to themselves, players, even shareholders, by pulling out before they see the regs? Like several others have said, this bill really doesn't change anything about the il/legality of what a poker site (not bank) was doing before it passed. Why pull out the day of the bill signing, before they have any clue what enforcement will look like and still a ghost of a chance to argue that poker isn't covered?

UNLESS they have received some kind of crystal clear message from our govt the the effect of - pull out now and we won't extradite. But that would be going against the grain of the way our govt generally likes to do business. They're much more into sending mixed-messages then springing a trap someday when they feel like it.