Neteller Update...

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
\As I've stated several times, I'm fairly certain that the U.S. government will try to make U.S. banks quasi regulators. How far will U.S. banks have to go to make sure that the money leaving the bank is not going to a "gambling" site? I'm sure the U.S. government would like to put as much responsibility as they possibly can on U.S. banks for making sure it's not going to a "gambling" site. I'm also fairly certain U.S. banks will try and have that responsibility limited as much as possible. BluffThis's workaround I think is probably going to be viable more or less. It's just a question of how many people want to jump through the hoops so to speak IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
My emphasis in bold: This ignores at least the last four decades of federal regulation of the banking sector. The Federal govt. even under Carter has shied away from increasing expenses and regulation for banks. The banking lobby in this country is mammoth; its niave to expect that they will deliberately increase their own expenses at the cost of their bottom line.

PS If somebody could link me to Bluffthis! workaround I would appreciate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you totally about the banking industry and the lobby. In fact Sniper posted a link to some statements by Bernanke about not being careful to not have the banks incur too many costs. It wasn't about the UIGE law specifically but to me it's clear that Bernanke, the guy who heads up the key organization in developing the new regulations, that he doesn't want to impose a great deal more overhead on the banks. However, I'm fairly certain (could be convinced otherwise) that the current DOJ would like to do exactly that. I'm fairly optimistic that the new regulations for the banks won't really change things all that much. From my understanding U.S. banks refuse transactions with "gambling" sites now. Obviously the new law seeks to put more responsibility on U.S. banks to make sure that money leaving the bank doesn't go to internet gambling.