What would ensue if gov't seized nt funds w/o plans of returning them?

[Mondogarage]

That's easy, djoyce. Those aren't the bank's funds, those are customers funds being transferred through the bank. No one has seized NT's actually operating funds.

[Petomane]

$55 million has already been "frozen", "seized" whatever, so it's already happened. People are talking semantics here, discussing the legalities of this and that hypothetical situation. The fact is, people's bankrolls are gone -possession is 99% of the law.

Has anyone received an e-mail from Neteller explaining when their funds will be released?

[crashjr]

Does anyone actively dispute what I have posted so far? Yes, it is a contrarian view, but I can support it with fact and I am not to be summarily dismissed.

So. . . .

Anyone?

[TheOpus]

So, does this sounds familiar to anyone?

From April, 2002
Sportsbook owners were shocked at a decision in the New Jersey courts this week which empowered the US government to seize funds from Intercash Financial Services, a New Jersey company acting as a middleman for sports bets placed by Americans on Internet gambling sites operated from offshore locations in Britain. These foreign betting companies enticed US players to their online sites by ensuring them that they could safely place their wagers, outside of the confines of US legislation.
The New Jersey ruling by 3rd Circuit Judge Theodore A. McKee affects British companies and citizens but the law will not apply to them directly. He found that the government had only to prove that the intermediary company in New Jersey was violating State law by promoting gambling.
Intercash Ltd. based on the Isle of Man and American Sports Ltd. located in England had argued that since all wagering transactions took place in England, there was no violation of US law. -Casinomeister

And, in the end, the DOJ got the forfeiture of the funds, the decision was appealed and the DOJ won. Yes, there are slight differences between this case and the Neteller fiasco, but generally speaking, they are extremely similar scenarios.

[iceman5]

Slight differences? Online sports betting is illegal. Online poker isnt.

Thats a BIG difference.

[okietalker]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys realize there is a BIG difference between seizing funds and forfeiting them? The DOJ can sieze funds it thinks might be illegal, but it takes a COURT OF LAW to transfer (forfeit) those seized funds to the government. In that Court of Law the DOJ has the burden of proving that the funds are illegal gains and subject to forfeiture. How they going to do that? Think Pokerstars will give the DOJ a list of its players and their winnings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not trying to be negative Skallagram, as I appreciate your posts very much, but didn't Neteller's statement say they were cooperating with the USDOJ with regards to records, forensic accounting and such?

Seems to me they may be in the process of getting the "required info" to confiscate all our monies at this very moment.

Just my opinion.

[Skallagrim]

I have posted before that Neteller giving up its info COULD mean some trouble for anyone who "forgot" to declare significant poker winnings on their taxes. But no one would do that on purpose right?

As to getting enough info to forfeit the money, the Feds have to prove the money was obtained in one of a specified number of illegal ways. Playing internet poker is not one of those ways. Money that could be proven was obtained by internet sportsbetting MIGHT be the subject of an action (the Wire Act specifically does not apply to bettors though), as I am sure some overzealous DA might devise an arguable theory. All that assumes they can find exactly how much went in AND how much came out, and FROM WHERE AND HOW it was obtained.

[TheOpus]

Online poker is not illegal, correct. In the case that I cited, the argument against the USDOJ being able to seize funds was that the business was based in England, therefore all of the wagering went on in England and it wasn't breaking US law. Apparently that didn't matter because all the gov't had to do was prove that the company promoted gambling by acting as the middleman (ie, payment processor). And that was enough for the funds that were seized to be forfeited.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the USDOJ and their actions against the Neteller guys. But their situation is similar enough to the one of Intercash that, unfortunately, I'd be prepared for a similar outcome.

[JPFisher55]

The funds seized in the Intercash case belonged to the company not to its customers. Also, Intercash had a subsidiary based in US with offices in NJ. The statute that it was convicted under was not the Wire Act but a related law that bans aiding unlawful gaming while in the US. Ms. Shullman has an article about this law at Cardplayer and how it might relate to the Neteller case.

[mikeroddick]

This is definetly the beginning of da end