Anyone care to comment on this? Checks exempted? - Page 2

iceman5 · #11 10-02-2006, 10:14 PM

They are reporting a comprinise to the bill that was signed..I have no idea is the report is right or not..Just passing it on

coolyank123 · #12 10-02-2006, 10:16 PM

will it be legal to withdraw by echeck method which is directly connected to a US bank account?

Dornkirk · #13 10-02-2006, 10:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, the Act itself expressly says, "any check". Section 5363(3).

[/ QUOTE ]

okay now I am really confused. So you are saying Bluff Magazine is incorrect with what they said?

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Here's another link saying checks are exempted. End of 1st / Beginning of 2nd Page.
Reuters

vinyard · #14 10-02-2006, 10:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now in 270 days, Regulations may be formulated under Section 5364 (3) which say ... something like 'Checks are really hard to prevent, so do you best to block any which say "Sports Beting Co." as the payee ... otherwise, any other checks are exempt" ... and leave it at that.

[/ QUOTE ]
No offense because I am rather thrilled you are staying open as a site but you are confusing the enforcement with the regulation. Yes its illegal to use a check to fund an account but the Treasury has no intention of enforcing the check provision. I basically told this forum there it was highly unlikely that the banking industry would stand for having to proactively go through checking accounts checking for gamblind deposits and withdrawals. Unfortunately, that post didn't spark any discussion (not a single response), but it looks like I might have been right. Now there would be nothing in the bill itself (its an enforcement issue not a regulation one) but its now three times today that a story has said that banks have been told they don't have to worry about looking for checks just CCs. Its tough to explain how good of news this is to any player but especially a pro. But, yeah there is no way the banks were going to pay for that overhead on free checking.

I use check by phone to pay some bills occasionally and my bank (WaMu) processes it at the start of business on the next business day at the latest. That's not perfect but its pretty good.

[ QUOTE ]
That will not help any person engaged in the business of betting or wagering, which falls under Section 5363. Their knowing acceptance of such a check in connection with participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling would still be prohibited.

[/ QUOTE ] Prohibited but not enforced. You should consider finding new legal counsel.

Hendricks433 · #15 10-02-2006, 10:24 PM

wtf. This is the shadiest thing Ive ever seen. It says "unlawful". Online Poker isnt fricken illegal so how can they block transfers. Also my bank alreadh blocked transfers to poker sites anyway so does this bill do anything other than freak out the sites. I dont understand why the sites are freaking out and blocking access to US Players other than publicly traded companies. This bill is so vague and shady. So i guess they need to ban alchol since youth abuse that and credit cards.

TruePoker CEO · #16 10-02-2006, 10:24 PM

A bit confused perhaps. The Act says "NO CHECKS", but the Regs could exempt checks from what Banks need to scrutinize. I won't speculate on the effect of such a regulation, but I would really welcome its formulation.

However, acceptance of checks would still be illegal, if the Site is covered by the Act.

(My other posts pretty much spell out why I do not think the "poker-only" business model is covered.)

Jeffage · #17 10-02-2006, 10:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some banking industry officials had worried that the new law would make them responsible for blocking payments by check as well as credit card payments, a requirement they had said would be unworkable. But those concerns were allayed when lawmakers agreed to a provision allowing the Treasury and the Fed to exempt checks from the requirement.

Experts said the system would not be fool-proof, but would bar the vast majority of bettors.

"I suspect some smart enterprising person out there will find a way to (get around) it. But for your average person who wants to get out there and bet on college football, you're not going to do it," said one lobbyist.

Ireland agreed. "I think this puts in place a broader blocking system that's going to be harder to get past for the Internet (gambling) sites," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're in business.

Jeff

TruePoker CEO · #18 10-02-2006, 10:28 PM

I can only read what the Act itself says about sites' acceptance of checks and possible exemption from bank compliance Regulations yet to be written.

The language is very clear on the difference between what was passed last week and what might happen in the future.

Nate tha\\\' Great · #19 10-02-2006, 11:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I think we're in business.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

The general theme that the regulations were tailored to be lax to reflect the concern of banks is clearly favorable.
As Mr. K. and others have speculated, it appears that voluntary enforcement may prove to be the more important issue.

Silent1 · #20 10-02-2006, 11:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, the Act itself expressly says, "any check". Section 5363(3).

[/ QUOTE ]

okay now I am really confused. So you are saying Bluff Magazine is incorrect with what they said?

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Here's another link saying checks are exempted. End of 1st / Beginning of 2nd Page.
Reuters

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at:
"I suspect some smart enterprising person out there will find a way to (get around) it. But for your average person who wants to get out there and bet on college football, you're not going to do it," said one lobbyist.

from that link. These people are so daft. It is precisely this kind of action that educates the so-called "average person" and makes them above average and, perhaps, eventually experts.

I can't wait for the anti-internet-anything congress buffoons of the previous generation to get out of circulation. In some years there will be a bunch of internet geeks in the senate. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]