|
|
|
|
#1
06-02-2007, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: National City closing my account due to online gaming
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer [/ QUOTE ] obv I think that these agreements have been extensively tested and will hold up. It's not like checking accounts are new and uncharted territory for banks. 
|
|
#2
06-02-2007, 12:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: National City closing my account due to online gaming
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I am not a lawyer [/ QUOTE ] obv I think that these agreements have been extensively tested and will hold up. It's not like checking accounts are new and uncharted territory for banks. [/ QUOTE ] You're right, it is obvious I am not a lawyer. A lawyer would just assume that if something is written down it must be right. That's why law school only lasts a couple of weekends.
|
|
#4
06-02-2007, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: National City closing my account due to online gaming
[ QUOTE ]
isnt there a law against moving sums over ten k in multiple moves to avoid reporting? or is that 5k? [/ QUOTE ] This is what jman was referring to with the term "smurfing". However the banks are only required to make CTRs (Currency Transaction Reports) on *cash* transactions. There is no issue with or need to "structure" transactions made by wire or check, as there is an automatic paper/electronic trail. The reason this happened is that many banks are taking a hyper compliance stance, which is more worrisome to us than any actual regulations might be. And like the others have said, don't tell the truth and make something up, as a player isn't breaking the law by playing or cashing out, and thus has no obligation to let the truth be used against him when the bank even if they knew the source of OP's funding, wouldn't be breaking any regulations by accepting same, as long as they checked against any blacklists (in the future post-regs).
|
|
#5
06-02-2007, 01:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: National City closing my account due to online gaming
oh, one more thing: contracts are suppose to be within the public interest. It is at least questionable that allowing a bank to, arbitrarily, close an account when the account holder has not broken any laws is within the public interest.
Then again maybe not. My point is that sometimes industries try to get away with things that they know won't hold up if tested. I don't think it is wise to just assume that something is right just because it is written down, especially if it seems to be unfair or otherwise faulty. A much better course of action is to obtain the advice of a real lawyer.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
