270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

And their reason for jettisoning it would be what exactly? And their need to fight the feds comes from where exactly?

There's going to have to be some kind of method for classifying the recipients of the payments. Sites that are not primarily gambling or used to fund gambling aren't going to be classified against. Yes, this is an assumption on my part but the ones to promulgate the regulations would have to have their heads so far up their asses they're actually inside out in order for it to be otherwise.

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paypal was US based and forced into showing its paperwork.

[CharlieDontSurf]

What happens if Party has race horse betting on their poker site?

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
Banks didnt lobby against it cuz they didnt want to piss off christians and they dont give a [censored] about degenerates.

Very simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, right. Like Christians would suddenly stop using banks if that happened.

They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that and they will have a significant word in the writing of the actual regulations. So if they discover that it's too burdensome, they'll castrate the bill during the regulation process.

[Silent1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5395928.stm

EU fighting US dirty tricks

After 9/11, US authorities demanded that airlines should provide personal passenger data for all inbound flights.

But the subsequent US-EU agreement was ruled illegal by the highest European court in May of this year. Saturday was the deadline for a new deal.

...

================================

This is a not an unrelated topic. In addition to be a protectionist trading partner (gambling is ok if you do it in a B&M but not ok if you visit an off shore site), the US is also abusing post 9/11 anti terrorist activities. The BETonSPORTS CEO was identified and captured because his name came up on air line list provided to the US. BETonSPORTS may not have been the nicest betting site, but BETonSPORTS clearly had nothing to do with terrorism either.

The US is so keen to use any available means to charge business people with wire fraud -- BETonSPORTS, Conrad Black, and many many others. Why? It is a money grab, to no doubt finance the IRAQ and terror wars. At least, UK/EU business people might see it that way (US terorising UK/EU business people). These kind of EU/US disagreements could well lead to a broader trade war fought in the WTO.

I am betting that PartyGaming will get very strong support in the business community and ultimately from the government once Blair is flushed out of office [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that and they will have a significant word in the writing of the actual regulations. So if they discover that it's too burdensome, they'll castrate the bill during the regulation process.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that the banks have the ability to dictate the regulations that they will be subject to, huh? LMAO You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just pulling this crap out of your rear-end.

[E.Z.]

didn't read the entire thread but surely you can fund a online horse racing site with neteller?? if that's the case then how can banks shut off neteller as some think

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
It would not surprise me if some banks decided, on their own, to stop accepting EFT transactions from neteller.


[/ QUOTE ]

i would be tremendously surprised if this were the case.

as stated before not only does the bill not say that recieving funds is a no-no, common sense says it would be beyond dumb for a bank to refuse funds unless told to do so, which wont happen since that is money that cant/wont be taxed by the US.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They did lobby against it, but not very strongly because it's not going to cost them a lot of money. If it would've taken significant money out of the banks' hands, they would've fought to the death against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that and they will have a significant word in the writing of the actual regulations. So if they discover that it's too burdensome, they'll castrate the bill during the regulation process.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that the banks have the ability to dictate the regulations that they will be subject to, huh? LMAO You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just pulling this crap out of your rear-end.

[/ QUOTE ]



Nice job being wrong and arrogant about it. Pretty much every heavily regulated industry plays a HUGE role in the rule-making process.