URGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

[IHateCats]

I'm curious, is this just for public consumption or are you really this naive?

The bill won't list companies by name, that will be done somewhere in the executive branch and even Neteller's other business won't help, it could just be designated as a gambling finance website and banned just as easily as direct transfers to the gambling sites themselves. It's an absolutely trivial matter for the Treasury dept to find out what banks neteller are using and either block them or send them letters saying unless they drop neteller all bank transfers to them will be blocked.

If the language of the bill is left vague, it likely doesn't help us since in the current administration, the Justice Deptartment can and most likely will take a very broad view and pursue this aggressively.

[younghov17]

so this bill is basically already passed because theres about a 1% thance this wont get voted thru tonight. im going to play 24 7 from now until [censored] goes down

[BluffTHIS!]

Cats,

They may not actually be able to do as you suggest with neteller. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in the legislation forum. For one thing neteller is a non-US based middleman, not an actual gambling site. So DoJ can't effectively come down on them like they do paypal or any site that has a legal US subsidiary (why Ladbrokes doesn't accept US customers). Furthermore, unlike gambling sites based on little Antigua, Neteller is based in the UK which has an effective way to levy retaliatory trade santions if the WTO gives them the greenlight to do so. Now DoJ doesn't give a rat's ass about the WTO and has shown that by lying and saying the US is in compliance when it's not. But they only get away with it because the WTO allowing Antigua to levy trade sanctions can't hurt the US. If you want more info on the WTO thing search past threads in the legislation forum.

[orange]

When does everyone think that this bill will actually be implemented? How long do you think we have to play until its not safe anymore? experts chime in?

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

Cats,

Western Union.

[IHateCats]

I'm fully aware of all of this but WTO complaint processes take several years to go anywhere, they aren't really binding for years past that especially against the US because of it's leverage and it's unlikely the the UK government would pick a fight with the US over this in the current enviornment on behalf of a bank or two over this issue. Sure legally they could but it's highly, highly unlikely as a matter of practical politics.

Equally as a matter of practial politics, the current Justice/Treasury departments have shown themselves very willing to push the envelope on plenty of controversial issues that satisfy it's right wing base. Will they? I don't know either but saying that there isn't any way that they could target Neteller is completely inaccurate, they could quite easily and relatively effectively go after Neteller.

[IHateCats]

I haven't tried it personally but I though Western Union already banned transfers to gambling sites & I'm sure they'd step up policing if this bill passes. Obviously no system will be leak proof but they only have to stop the casual gamblers to throttle the whole industry well.

[BluffTHIS!]

Cats,

I'm no lawyer, but if I transfer $$ to a bank in Zurich, and then from my account there to an entity providing an illegal service, that bank to my knowledge cannot be held liable as the entity can, and the customer (me) might, unless if actively encourages transactions to the illegal entity. Now that doesn't mean they can't be forced to provide records of transactions though. But even now wrt sports betting which is clearly illegal in the view of the wire act, US customers aren't targeted but only the site operators.

Or just focusing on a domestic level: if I use my bank account to write checks to a drug dealer, that bank isn't on the hook unless it encourages same. Now domestically, DoJ might be able to include them in a RICO case if they can show tons of drug dealers taking checks from their customers. *Might*. But none of this is certain.

The bottom line is that we have to wait to see what the actual language is, whether it can be enforced to cutout all middlemen, or at least ones able to be used easily by average jog, and whether banks will be scared enough *if technically possible* to take even more pro-active measures. We just don't know.

[Pudge714]

Slim Pickens posted this in STTF could any one confirm the accuarcy of this?
[ QUOTE ]

1) It's an authorization bill, not appropriations.

2) There's all sort of other crap in there, like outfitting all US ports with radiation detectors by next year, that's way more important and just as unlikely to happen.

3) The US can't regulate international commerse, no matter how badly it wants to.

4) The fish don't know and don't care. Nothing on CNN or Fox News says a thing about the internet gambling language. The sites have a huge financial interest to protect and if anyone makes a material threat to their buisness they'll come out with both barrels blazing.

I could go on...

[/ QUOTE ]

[IHateCats]

I haven't tried it personally but I thought Western Union already banned transfers to gambling sites & I'm sure they'd step up policing if this bill passes. Obviously no system will be leak proof but they only have to stop the casual gamblers to throttle the whole industry pretty well.