Paper checks (Uh oh)

[chigger]

[ QUOTE ]
I just requested a check from UB. I'll update when I get e-mail or the check from them....

[/ QUOTE ]


Don't count on being able to withdraw by check soon after you deposit. Here is my response to there e-mail saying my withdrawal was canceled because I didn't play enough. Obviously alot has changed since I depoited over aweek ago.



Leslie,

Your note is incorrect as I have played some since depositing. And it was not "immediate" but rather about a week later. It was not my intention to with draw the money so soon, I plan to continue playing some more, however as I'm sure you are aware Neteller and other payment processors are closing to US customers. This has made me uneasy about the amount of money I have online and I would like to move some of my money (not all) that I have in my Ultimate Bet account into my savings account until this situation becomes more clear and is resolved. Surely you can understand my uneasiness regarding online payment processors an I would like the my request to send MY money honored. If you are concerned about fraud I would be happy to provide ID / utility bills, ect. to prove the legitamacy of my request.

Please reply and let me know if this explanation is satisfactory or if you need some further verification such as ID.




From: "deposithelp@bet21.com" <deposithelp@bet21.com>
Reply-To: deposithelp@bet21.com
To: XXXXXXXX.com
Subject: No Subject [#XXXXXX]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:03:03 +0000 (GMT)

Dear Chigger,

Please be advised that your withdrawal has been subject to a random security verification. We have noticed that you are requesting a withdrawal in the amount of $XXX.00 and this amount is not related to game-play. Upon verification of your account, you have deposited then withdrew immediately without playing.

In order to minimize fraudulent activity, please provide us with an explanation of the circumstances of this activity so we may proceed with your withdrawal request.

Your withdrawal# XXXXXXXXX has been cancelled until we receive your reply.

Thank you,

Leslie
Accounts Department

[wyndam]

it would be very easy for a bank to not cash checks from a certain source since all info for that check is contained in the routing #s on bottom of check. all he bank would have to do is tell its computer to watch out for that coresponding routing # and bam-o we are [censored]...

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

it would be very easy for a bank to not cash checks from a certain source since all info for that check is contained in the routing #s on bottom of check. all he bank would have to do is tell its computer to watch out for that coresponding routing # and bam-o we are [censored]...

[/ QUOTE ]

Banks want you to deposit money in them. The UIGEA does not place any restrictions on the banks for receiving funds from internet gambling, just on transferring funds to facilitate internet gambling. I really doubt banks would say, "Sorry, your money is no good here."

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA does not place any restrictions on the banks for receiving funds from internet gambling, just on transferring funds to facilitate internet gambling. I really doubt banks would say, "Sorry, your money is no good here."

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this has been the general concensus, but it appears from this recent NACHA Bulletin that it is not at all the case...


[ QUOTE ]
Knowingly originating or processing ACH entries on behalf of companies that are directly involved in, or companies that facilitate, illegal Internet gambling involves legal risk for ODFIs and merchant processors.

NACHA reminds financial institutions that (i) they should know their customers and (ii) they should not be originating for companies doing illegal business. Also, in the case of financial institutions processing entries that are received through a third-party service provider, the financial institutions should know their customer's customer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[KurtSF]

Why haven't I seen this before! Thanks curious.

Um, are we [censored]??

On a related note, it amuses me how all their legislation and cracking down is having EXACTLY the opposite effect they intended.

Don't want the money going to/through shady organizations? Well, now all the above-board ones are running scared and shady is all that's left.

Don't want the money leaving the US? Well now you've completely blocked Americans from accessing the money and its stuck overseas.

WTG my government!!

[piranha]

I read through this thread quickly but a few things caught my attention.

I worked in major US banks including Bank of America for six years on their retail side. Checks have microencoding on them that allows them to be swiped or scanned and all the pertinent information taken off them by computer. So, it's not a difficult task to flag a check or group of checks as "Do Not Cash", it's an update to their software. That being said I think it would be very difficult for banks to identify which checks are coming from gambling sites. If the checks are drawn on a foreign bank, say the Bank of Scotland with no mention of a gambling site on them, it will be tough to identify. Even if they are able to identify it, Poker Sites could change banks or check issuers and it would again be up to the banks to identify the checks as gambling proceeds.

Also, the banks have publicly stated that they do not want to play a large part in enforcing this legislation. After 9/11 hundreds of banking regulations were re-written per the governments request at a huge expense to the banks. They are weary at this point and have made it clear they want the government to be responsible for enforcing the legislation. Whether that's a good or bad thing remains to be seen.

[curious123]

Thanks for weighing in piranha, this is the kinda insight we need.

[Rednax]

[ QUOTE ]
Checks have microencoding on them that allows them to be swiped or scanned and all the pertinent information taken off them by computer. So, it's not a difficult task to flag a check or group of checks as "Do Not Cash", it's an update to their software. That being said I think it would be very difficult for banks to identify which checks are coming from gambling sites. If the checks are drawn on a foreign bank, say the Bank of Scotland with no mention of a gambling site on them, it will be tough to identify.

[/ QUOTE ]
But isn't the real issue and problem that the DoJ is seemingly going after foreign banks? The problem will not be depositing a check drawn on the Bank of Scotland, the problem will be that the Bank of Scotland will no longer handle ("facilitate") business with PokerStars.

[blackize]

Curious123,

This does apply to EFTs, but in the context of the thread I was speaking of paper checks. ACH entries aren't involved.

[curious123]

You're right blackize, I keep losing my bearings amidst all the confusion. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] I am keeping an eye on the DOT, FinCEN, etc. websites to see if anything on paper checks (or anything else related) pops up, but haven't come across anything yet.