Neteller Update...

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone who says that Neteller's statements are tantamount to saying that it's going to disappear are just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are misunderstanding what Neteller is saying, and the comments posted here.

No one is saying Neteller is going to "disappear"... however, Neteller is saying that its business is likely to be significantly changed by the Regs.

If you have an i-gaming backroll, it is important to stay on top of these statements...

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]

No one is saying Neteller is going to "disappear"... however, Neteller is saying that its business is likely to be significantly changed by the Regs.

If you have an i-gaming backroll, it is important to stay on top of these statements...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever the optimist, "likely to be significantly changed" could be something like a spin-off of their US facing business into a private company. Of course the simplist interpretation though is that they will bail like Firepay.

[MagCFO]

I'm in this business, so trust me I hope neteller stays around. But, from what they are saying and what I am hearing, they won't be.

The arguments about the actual wording of the law, and how e-wallets are exempt, etc is just wishful thinking.

Here's the thing.

Neteller has warned shareholders that there business my be significantly changed. Also, they have said they will comply with the laws, which unlike someone tried to post, HAVE been written.

The law is, financial instituation can not do business with gaming sites. Neteller says they will comply as if they were located in the US.

So do you think if Neteller was located in the US, they would be legal? Uh, no.

I'm done with the subject, but you guys feel free to continue trying to figure out who neteller will still be around, although they've already said they won't be.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
adios, I think we are basically in agreement over what is likely to occur, and on understanding that we really won't know until the Regs at least start being discussed.

That said, I want to comment on this section of your post...

[ QUOTE ]
I would guess that Neteller is anticipating some sort of regulation that U.S. banks can't do any direct transactions with any entities that do direct transactions with entities that run "gambling" sites. Seems complicated doesn't it? In other words, I'm guessing that Neteller is anticipating the regulations to state that if an e-wallet has direct transactions with a "gambling" site, U.S. banks will not be able to do direct transactions with that e-wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my opinion, that the Regs won't have to prohibit transactions with e-wallets for us to see Neteller remove itself from I-Gaming transactions. At this time, I fully expect that Neteller will act as if it is a bank subject to the Regs... and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites, then Neteller will pull out of those transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe but aren't the banks restricted from doing business with Internet sites now? Don't know for sure.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing to me although this is a non-lawyer's opinion. Either RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE the law makes Neteller facilitating transactions to the sites remaining in the US market illegal or it does not. It isn't the regs that define what is legal, but how the law can be enforced. So whether or not the regs are effective in carrying out the legal intent of the law or not doesn't matter as far as just the question of legality. Even if Neteller were to exit the US market later, they would still have broken the law right now. Just like a bank robber who stopped robbing banks and later says since he stopped he shouldn't be considered a robber right now. And ditto for the sites still in the US market who might withdraw later.

Neteller has a good reputation for honesty and security, and if they don't want to have their business gutted or undergo the risk of the DoJ having a contrary legal interpreation than them pre or post regs, then they should be seeking to change their coporate domicile to a friendlier place, and probably as well to take themselves private again. Otherwise some other concern will rise up to fill the void and take that business.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not how this statute works, actually. The part about sites accepting unlawful internet wagers was effective immediately upon the signing of the legislation. That's why Party and the others pulled out right away. But the part about screening and blocking transactions is not -- all the statute says is that the Fed must draft regulations directing financial institutions about what they must do. Again, nothing in the statute requiring financial institutions to do anything, only directing the Fed to draft regs, which will then define the financial institutions' obligations. The statute also says that financial institutions can't be held liable as long as they follow those regs and provides the Fed with an out to exempt categories of transactions that the Fed deems to be "impractical" to screen or block. So right now financial institutions not only have no obligation to screen and block, they can actually be held liable if they do screen and block (a non-unlawful internet gambling transaction by mistake).

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Neteller has warned shareholders that there business my be significantly changed. Also, they have said they will comply with the laws, which unlike someone tried to post, HAVE been written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which post states that the laws haven't been written?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
adios, I think we are basically in agreement over what is likely to occur, and on understanding that we really won't know until the Regs at least start being discussed.

That said, I want to comment on this section of your post...

[ QUOTE ]
I would guess that Neteller is anticipating some sort of regulation that U.S. banks can't do any direct transactions with any entities that do direct transactions with entities that run "gambling" sites. Seems complicated doesn't it? In other words, I'm guessing that Neteller is anticipating the regulations to state that if an e-wallet has direct transactions with a "gambling" site, U.S. banks will not be able to do direct transactions with that e-wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my opinion, that the Regs won't have to prohibit transactions with e-wallets for us to see Neteller remove itself from I-Gaming transactions. At this time, I fully expect that Neteller will act as if it is a bank subject to the Regs... and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites, then Neteller will pull out of those transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe but aren't the banks restricted from doing business with Internet sites now? Don't know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part of Hock's response basically answeres this question...

[ QUOTE ]
The part about sites accepting unlawful internet wagers was effective immediately upon the signing of the legislation. That's why Party and the others pulled out right away. But the part about screening and blocking transactions is not -- all the statute says is that the Fed must draft regulations directing financial institutions about what they must do. Again, nothing in the statute requiring financial institutions to do anything, only directing the Fed to draft regs, which will then define the financial institutions' obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why the public poker sites had to pull out of the US immediately, but Neteller can wait for the Regs before taking action.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
Which post states that the laws haven't been written?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no law directing financial institutions to screen and block i-gaming transactions. Period. That's what the regs WILL do . . . in some way, shape, or form. See my response to BluffThis elsewhere in this thread.

[metsandfinsfan]

isnt neteller used on the horse racing sites? So wouldnt banks still allow trans to neteller

[sublime]

for those that understand the market better than i.

neteller should be looking for a buyer in a 'e-gambling welcome' country right now, right?