Interesting Conversation with bank guy about implementation of UIGEA

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Checks are specifically covered by the legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]Not "checks from poker sites".

[/ QUOTE ]

While the wording of the UIGEA says that checks from poker sites are legal, what are the banks going to do? That's what you have to ask.

[questions]

I think if true, these regulations WILL make it more difficult for some people, further restricting the pool of players.

[Uglyowl]

I don't fully believe the original poster's source. There are many things that don't jive here.

[BluffTHIS!]

Ugly,

The only thing that doesn't jive is the belief of many that the regs will be terribly effective. Any enforcement is based on some type of blacklist of either codes, bank account names, etc., and will be sure to be updated relatively slowly. So all the sites have to do, with the aid of friendly private foreign banks that don't give a rat's ass about the IUGEA (but also do a large legit biz in other non-gamling areas making it harder to target them), is to constantly create new accounts to payout with, with codes that won't or can't be blocked. Sure it's a lot of effort, but the sites, especially the sports books, have a huge incentive to do that.

If the DOJ's preferred method of threats and intimidation fail to eliminate all sites currently in the US market and the money transfer methods they rely on, then all they are left with are those blacklists which can easily be defeated.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Checks are specifically covered by the legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]Not "checks from poker sites".

[/ QUOTE ]

Checks to poker sites aren't either, are they? As a practical matter I doubt banks could effectively cut off either.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not part of bill, but i keep hearing rumors, hopefully from trolls, having probs cashing checks. Also, sites are having to switch processors, so hopefully thats not because banks are cracking down on the checks originating from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The myriad of threads I've seen on this always turn out to be something else. I have yet to receive a check from a poker site (one is in the mail though) so I'm not sure how the payor is identified on the check, but as I understand it it is probably the check processor's, not the site's name. Certainly the bank account is the check processor's. If a check processor is cutting checks for other businesses and banks start refusing checks cut by that processor they'll be heading down an extremely slippery slope. Since the UIGEA only covers sending money to poker sites I can't imagine any bank refusing a check based solely on being from a check processor that cuts checks for poker sites without some legitimate business reason that has nothing to do with the money coming from poker. They have no legal requirement to do so and no sound business reason to do so. In fact it would be bad business to turn down deposits.

[MiltonFriedman]

From this conversation, it appears "compliance" might be limited to tramsactions coded 7995, the mark of the Beast to the Evangelical Right. This is strictly a credit/debit card coding and would not touch ACH transfers. If so, that is good news .

It is troubling but unsurprising that NO ONE on our side has had input into the Regulations being written, despite the APA requirement of a public notice and comment period. I hope that some enteprising counsel out there recognize that failure to comply with the APA is grounds for enjoining the Regs .... failure includes getting private input from only one side.

As for cashouts FROM a poker site, those are NOT covered by the UIGE Act, but a bank can refuse the business anyway. The key is NOT to bee too obvious, and please do NOT post here WHICH bank your cashout checks are drawn on ..... Have SOME clue about the US you are in post-UIGE.

Also, why NOT tell us what bank this tool worked for, so we can avoid it ?

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Checks are specifically covered by the legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]Not "checks from poker sites".

[/ QUOTE ]

While the wording of the UIGEA says that checks from poker sites are legal, what are the banks going to do? That's what you have to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hell would the banks do something that costs money that they don't have to do?

[Jay Cohen]

My sources tell me otherwise. My sources tell me the regs will actually be delayed. But who knows?

They do have to have a period for public comment, usually it is about 60 days. Then they can go with them as written or make modifications.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
It is troubling but unsurprising that NO ONE on our side has had input into the Regulations being written, despite the APA requirement of a public notice and comment period

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression is that the PROPOSED rule will be issued in early July (or earlier), which would then start the notice and comment period.