UIGEA Fallout! Don't Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Network

[BruinEric]

My guess is that the weight of monitoring international wire transfers in detail is more significant than blocking certain identified accounts or transfer recipients. But I'll defer to those with more knowledge.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that every bank in the US shut out Neteller in one afternoon, yeah?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? Is my sarcasm detector dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

January 16th NACHA released this. NETeller hasn't done an ACH/EFT to an American bank account since that date exactly. Do you need more?

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
Couple of points:

1. UIGEA only deals with funding of "unlawful gambling" sites, not withdrawals from.

2. Poker is still a grey area at worst.

Yes, this has turned into a pain in the ass for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of points:

1. While in letter of the law you are right, but the ACHs and banks are treating it as both, so both are impacted equally and nearly shut down.

2. While the DoJ's actual cases only deal with sports betting, everyone is treating it as if any online bet is illegal, so poker sites get lumped right in with the lepers as far as financial institution are concerned - untouchable.

I don't see how this is going to get straightened out when the regs come out. I just don't see anyone backtracking on the voluntary steps they've already taken to insulate themselves from online gaming. *sigh*

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ could repeal the first amendment too. Geez is fascism here already?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP, and the answer is yes.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]

My information is from finextra which has a vested interest here and European based banks do a significant portion of all SWIFT traffic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good catch. My description was a little misleading. Bank wires do travel on a network that is less willing to participate in the DOJ's witch hunt. That being said, a US citizen would need to initiate a transfer via a US bank (unless they had a foreign bank account in which case the argument is moot). If the DOJ supplies a list of recipient accounts that US banks should ban from transferring funds to it has the same effect as an ACH/EFT blockage.

And the DOJ could be sneaky about it and put eWallets and gaming companies on the same list as known money laundering accounts. The bank wouldn't even know why it was supposed to block the transactions other than the account turned up on a list.

And if we want to get real, real technical MoneyGram and Western Union are bank wires as well. They're anonymous bank wires though.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
Good catch. My description was a little misleading. Bank wires do travel on a network that is less willing to participate in the DOJ's witch hunt. That being said, a US citizen would need to initiate a transfer via a US bank (unless they had a foreign bank account in which case the argument is moot). If the DOJ supplies a list of recipient accounts that US banks should ban from transferring funds to it has the same effect as an ACH/EFT blockage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Umm and how would they acquire and maintain that list? One of the key components of the SWIFT network is that it maintains near absolute data privacy. SWIFT has agreed to let the monitoring of its transactions under excepionally restricitve conditions and with very reliable safeguards about the US maintaining their safeguards.

Swift's explanation of US DoJ access to their financial records

[ QUOTE ]
Can the data be used for any purpose?
No. Important restrictions apply to how the UST can access and use the data. The UST cannot simply browse through the data. They are only allowed to see data that is responsive to targeted searches in the context of a specific terrorism investigation. Data searches must be based only on persons, entities or related information with an identified connection to an ongoing terrorism investigation or other intelligence that the target is connected to terrorism.

The UST cannot search the data for any other purpose such as ‘economic espionage’ or for evidence of any non-terrorist related crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or any other criminal activity. As a result, the UST accesses only a minute fraction of the data that SWIFT is required to provide. A record is made of every single search.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emphasis mine, clearly. In short, if you read those pages, is pretty clear that SWIFT isn't agreeing to expand US subpoena power as they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain. Billman, you have either been somewhat grossly and intentionally trying to mislead people in this thread into hysterics or, contrary to your earlier assertions you don't indeed know everything you claim to about banking in general and the likelihood of moving money to and from sites becoming infeasible specifically. Others can decide how they feel about that.

[Rigel]

[ QUOTE ]


Emphasis mine, clearly. In short, if you read those pages, is pretty clear that SWIFT isn't agreeing to expand US subpoena power as they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain. Billman, you have either been somewhat grossly and intentionally trying to mislead people in this thread into hysterics or, contrary to your earlier assertions you don't indeed know everything you claim to about banking in general and the likelihood of moving money to and from sites becoming infeasible specifically. Others can decide how they feel about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the post. It sounds like Billman knows enough to advance the discussion on this issue considerably, but I appreciate your info about the SWIFT network. But am I correct in understanding the only banks use the SWIFT network- not ewallets? So click2pay and epassporte will be going away for US customers with the passage of the regs but we'd still be able to wire money from our local bank- correct?

And another thing- do poker sites even accept regular bank wires as a means of deposit? I've never wired money to a poker site and it would certainly be less convenient than using an e-wallet.

[Rigel]

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)."?

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

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm and how would they acquire and maintain that list?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I have no doubt billman will jump in here, but assuming PokerStars would accept wire transfers, exactly how difficult would it be for the DOJ to aquire their SWIFT number or bank routing number? Put it on a list, and there you have it. I guess I'm not understanding your point. (Not that I really want to believe billman either, btw)

[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?