Interesting Funding Idea from Sportsbook.com

[Performify]

[ QUOTE ]
There'd be no problem with that as long as the foreign bank is willing to openly violate US law. And that goes back to how aggressive the feds will be at enforcing this law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that US law only applies to US banks, "violate US law" is actually the wrong terminology here.

But I get what you're saying... and you're right. you'd need a foreign financial institution, and ideally a reputable one, willing to make a stand.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There'd be no problem with that as long as the foreign bank is willing to openly violate US law. And that goes back to how aggressive the feds will be at enforcing this law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that US law only applies to US banks, "violate US law" is actually the wrong terminology here.

But I get what you're saying... and you're right. you'd need a foreign financial institution, and ideally a reputable one, willing to make a stand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, given the language of the text, this law would Extraterritorial in its application, and while the banks wuld not be subject to arrest until they hit US soil due to the fact it is not a crime in in their present location, the US Government could nab then on a visit and could freeze/sieze any assets within the borders of the US.

Edit: Better http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf#search="extraterritorial%20application%20l aw

[Performify]

There aren't any penalties or legislative consequences for banks, even US banks, in the legislation. they'd certainly not be subject to arrest / siezure.

As with everything legislative re: financial services, its all up to the industry regulators: in this case the OCC for US Banks.

There's not going to be corresponding "extraterritorial" financial services legislation by the OCC, they definitely don't have that jurisdiction...

Also, i don't believe "extraterritorial" would apply to corporate entities wholly owned and operated outside the US. From the PDF you linked:

To what extent does international law permit a nation to exercise extraterritorial
jurisdiction? The question is essentially one of national interests. What national
interest is served by extraterritorial application and what interests of other nations
suffer by an extraterritorial application?

The most common classification of these interests dates to a 1935 Harvard Law
School study which divided them into five categories involving: (1) the regulation
of activities occurring within the territory of a country; (2) the regulation of the
conduct of its nationals; (3) the protection of its nationals; (4) the regulation of
activities outside a country which have an impact within it; and (5) the regulation of
activities which are universally condemned. Legislation may reflect more than one
interest or principle and there is little consensus of the precise boundaries of the
principles.


All that being said, of course, the gov't can always do whatever it wants with this, and let the courts figure it out afterwards [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[TruePoker CEO]

let's confine this to a sportsbook hypothetical to avoid the "is poker covered" issue in this discussion.

Funding such a card for cashouts is no big deal and is not banned by the Act.

On the deposit side, this has solved nothing I am afraid. Stored value cards are included under the Act. Buying them or reloading them will inevitably require an electronic transfer of some sort. So, while this may be harder to detect, it is not a solution.

(I currently believe that the Regs we are waiting for will have many such areas, where Banks are excused from detection efforts .... That would make those methods available, but they would still be illegal.)

[___1___]

Doesn't SportingBet own Sportsbook.com and Paradise Poker? Does this make it all the more likely Paradise will still accept US players?

___1___

[TruePoker CEO]

You are assuming away the problem in that case.

[TruePoker CEO]

Again, NONE of these 3 easy funding methods would be legal under the Act, if the site is covered by the Act..... so this is in no sense a solution.

[Performify]

[ QUOTE ]

On the deposit side, this has solved nothing I am afraid. Stored value cards are included under the Act. Buying them or reloading them will inevitably require an electronic transfer of some sort. So, while this may be harder to detect, it is not a solution.

(I currently believe that the Regs we are waiting for will have many such areas, where Banks are excused from detection efforts .... That would make those methods available, but they would still be illegal.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I see nothing in the act that would restrict transfer from a US bank account, via wire or ACH to a Bank of Scotland bank account, in my opinion. This is the general consensus of most financial services organizations, including the ABA. For one quick example, see here:

We're not talking about a stored value card, but an actual active bank account held outside the country, most likely a limited account captive to the gambling site in question.

[Wake up CALL]

Performity,

Wouldn't this method expose the high limit players with $10K or more in an offshore bank account to severe scrutiny? I ask this due to current IRS regs regarding offshore money belonging to American citizens?

[john voight]

I dont understand the concept. How is this dodging the loops?