|
|
#11
10-01-2006, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Withdrawals are not covered
[ QUOTE ]
The ONLY thing that is covered is money flowing TO a site: Section 5363 simply forbids persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" to "knowingly accept" ... (credit cards, checks, efts) "in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling" [/ QUOTE ] Ah - but isn't EVERYONE along the chain in some form or fashion "engaged in the business of betting or wagering...etc"? The person placing the bet, the person or institution facilitating that act (banks, Neteller, Poker site)? ---Leavenfish 
|
|
#12
10-01-2006, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Withdrawals are not covered
How is Neteller covered? Its not in the business of accepting bets and wagers. Its in the business of money transferring.
it seems to me that transferring from your bank to NT would not be restricted so your bank shouldnt be involved unless you tried to do a electronic check transfer directly to the poker site. Now Neteller, if considered a financial institution would be covered by the law and would be prohibited from transferring money to the poker site......if they choose to abide by the law.
|
|
#13
10-01-2006, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Withdrawals are not covered
[ QUOTE ]
How is Neteller covered? Its not in the business of accepting bets and wagers. Its in the business of money transferring. it seems to me that transferring from your bank to NT would not be restricted so your bank shouldnt be involved unless you tried to do a electronic check transfer directly to the poker site. Now Neteller, if considered a financial institution would be covered by the law and would be prohibited from transferring money to the poker site......if they choose to abide by the law. [/ QUOTE ] they will abide by their interpretation of the law or challenge the law, they wont act in any fashon that counsel advises is a clear violation. Their announcement tomorrow will be very interesting, and key to how the sites will proceed.
|
|
#14
10-01-2006, 11:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Withdrawals are not covered
I agree that Neteller and Firepay will not be affected by this law. They do not do business in the US. Through their banks, they complete EFT's with the US banking system. These companies are merely the payee or payor of the EFT, not the bank completing the EFT.
For the US govt. to their EFT's, they have to ban EFT's from foreign banks doing business with these two companies. Doing so would probably violate other international banking treaties and protocols. In fact, it will be difficult to prevent deposit into a poker website by check or withdrawal by check. Currently, US banks do not have any person examine a check when processing it. I recently had an unsigned check go all the way through the system. When I asked my bank about this, they told me that no one in the depositing bank or disbursing bank reads the check. To have someone review each check to be sure that an Internet Gambling Website is not involved would probably be prohibitively expensive. In addition, banks have to meet deadlines when processing checks. Such examination of each check cannot be done within these deadlines. In my opinion, this bill will only ban wire transfers, cashiers checks, credit and debit card transfers involving Internet Gambling Websites. Who uses such methods now? So I do not think that the normal online player will be greatly affected, except by his or her fear. It will affect those persons employed or associated with all the Poker Websites. I anticipate lots litigation from those parties.
|
|
#15
10-01-2006, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Withdrawals are not covered
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that Neteller and Firepay will not be affected by this law. They do not do business in the US. Through their banks, they complete EFT's with the US banking system. These companies are merely the payee or payor of the EFT, not the bank completing the EFT. For the US govt. to their EFT's, they have to ban EFT's from foreign banks doing business with these two companies. Doing so would probably violate other international banking treaties and protocols. In fact, it will be difficult to prevent deposit into a poker website by check or withdrawal by check. Currently, US banks do not have any person examine a check when processing it. I recently had an unsigned check go all the way through the system. When I asked my bank about this, they told me that no one in the depositing bank or disbursing bank reads the check. To have someone review each check to be sure that an Internet Gambling Website is not involved would probably be prohibitively expensive. In addition, banks have to meet deadlines when processing checks. Such examination of each check cannot be done within these deadlines. In my opinion, this bill will only ban wire transfers, cashiers checks, credit and debit card transfers involving Internet Gambling Websites. Who uses such methods now? So I do not think that the normal online player will be greatly affected, except by his or her fear. It will affect those persons employed or associated with all the Poker Websites. I anticipate lots litigation from those parties. [/ QUOTE ] There may be no jusrisdiction for the US to ban an offshore intermediary like Neteller, but that is clearly their intent. The definition of financial institution on page 220 would absolutely prohibit a US based clone of Neteller. Neteller is clearly a "payment network utilzed to effect a credit transaction, EFT.....or a participant in that network, or other participant in a designated payment system'
|
|
#16
10-01-2006, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Withdrawals are not covered
Intent and ability are two different things. Yes, Neteller and Firepay will be violating this law by assisting in EFT's with Internet Gambling Sites. So their employees will not be able to live or travel in US. But US cannot enforce this law against these two companies.
|
|
#17
10-01-2006, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Withdrawals are not covered
OMG, IS THIS BILL GOING TO PASS? SOMEONE TELL ME WHATS GOING ON? AM I GO TO JAIL FOR PALYING SIT AND GOES?
|
|
#18
10-01-2006, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Withdrawals are not covered
Im not sure what your point is re intent vs ability. Your second sentence seems to agree with what I said, without reference to intent vs ability.
The law rarely (if ever) considers intent in determining whether a crime has taken place. It may consider intent in assessing penalties once the person has been convicted. For a Neteller type intermediary to claim that passing funds to an offshore bank that deals with gambling sites and other legal purchases didnt "intend" to be part of a network that accomplishes the end of getting money into a site wouldnt hold water.
|
|
#20
10-01-2006, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anyone understand the law (laymans terms)?
Milton:
I do not think that it is a tortured interpretation to think that B of A is prohibited from "knowingly accept"ing a withdrawal from a payment processing site typically used by internet gamblers to process payments to and from online gambling sites. The "in connection with" language is not, IMO, limited to deposits. I am taking an especially careful view because in addition to being an online poker player, I have been an open and vocal critic of the adminsitration (mainly for Iraq, secondarily for tax policy and other stuff), and I do not want to be vulnerable to harassing enforcement based mainly on a desire to accomplish some other end than enforcing the legislation.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
