|
|
#31
09-30-2006, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [Same caveat as my "Summary post" -- this should not be considered legal advice] [/ QUOTE ] all the same, I'll withdraw my rather substantial (to me) chunk of money and deposit and play relatively small amounts on a 'need to' basis. ---Leavenfish [/ QUOTE ] The word deposit is the problem here. If you want to keep some for 'need to' reasons then you may not want to withdraw it all cause you may not be able to put it back in. 
|
|
#32
09-30-2006, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
Its effin great that a hole christians are letting me know what I can and cant spend my money on. Beautiful.
|
|
#34
09-30-2006, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It has nothing to do with Neteller "complying" with the US Government. If if the US bans the banks from dealing with Neteller then Neteller has no reason to bother dealing with US citizens. There would be too much confusion for it to be made worthwhile. Also, I'm sure that they aren't exactly looking to become an enemy with the US Government, which they certainly would become if they started helping Americans illegaly. Not to mention the entire ordeal of dealing with Americans and foreign bank accounts and what not is a huge hassle and probably not worthwhile for them. [/ QUOTE ] the whole point is that there is no reason to believe the bolded section will take place. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong again.
|
|
#36
09-30-2006, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
but to EFTs that deal almost exclusively in gambling transactions [/ QUOTE ] can we get the exact wording on this from the bill, because neteller is not in the buisness of accepting bets or gambling. Gambling transactions occur on party poker when you are at the tables, the gambling is finished before you cash out. Im just curious what the bill says.
|
|
#37
09-30-2006, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] but to EFTs that deal almost exclusively in gambling transactions [/ QUOTE ] can we get the exact wording on this from the bill, because neteller is not in the buisness of accepting bets or gambling. Gambling transactions occur on party poker when you are at the tables, the gambling is finished before you cash out. Im just curious what the bill says. [/ QUOTE ] Read it yourself: http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/t...43_portscr.pdf
|
|
#38
09-30-2006, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
Overview NETELLER operates a secure online funds transfer service. One of the leading service providers in the industry, the firm has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. A NETELLER account acts as an e-wallet that enables customers (individuals who open NETELLER accounts) to load, withdraw and transfer funds. Customers can instantly transfer funds to/from any merchant website that supports NETELLER's online payments system, and to/from other NETELLER customers. [/ QUOTE ] Neteller may be used for transfering to and from casinos but that is not their only buisness. It seems that if the US tried to block it that Neteller or Firepay could file a WTO case, because their buisness is online electronic transfers to any merchant or peer to peer transfers, it seems like the US would be cutting off their business and the WTO could come into play. Not only that, the US would have to know which neteller transactions came from, say Party poker. I can not assume that Neteller and the Banks would just be like: [censored] it this is to much of a hassle, WE WILL BAN ALL EFTS. targeting a specific company to ban EFTs from seems like it could definitly cause problems and if enforced could very well not hold up.
|
|
#40
09-30-2006, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
However, all we really need is for some Neteller like company that does enough non gaming business not to get classified as a gaming interest. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't really help. As soon as a company gets large enough that gaming business is not important, it is far easier to jetison gaming business than fight for it against the Feds. PayPal is your number one example.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
