Bank is threatening to close my account if I continue “Online gambling

josh3336 · #1 05-21-2007, 05:38 PM

Hey guys on the 19th of April I requested a bank wire transfer from Epassporte, a bunch of things went wrong but finally last Thursday I was told I would be receiving the wire within 3 business days. I thought today was the big day and that I would be finally receiving my wire. Instead of receiving the wire I received a call from the Anti Money Laundering Department of Commerce Bank. The lady I spoke with told me that the wire was rejected because it was from an Illegal Gambling Institution and she told me that I had two options. One was to close my account and the second was to go on a sort of probationary period where I had limited abilities and my account would be monitored for one year. I told her I was dealing with Epassporte which is not an Online gambling institution and I do not know why there is a problem, she continued to say that it was a gambling institution and that I had to stop any such activity. She told me that Internet Gambling was outlawed and that she was just doing her job to protect me, I asked her protection from what and she had no answer. During the conversation she had a very condescending tone and really just acted unprofessional in my opinion. She also told me that if I opened up an account at any other financial institution the result would ultimately be the same.

As far as I knew the bettor was not acting in an illegal manner when gambling online, is this true? Also how could she say epassporte is an Internet Gambling Institution, as far as I knew they were a diversified company?

So what is my play here?

BluffTHIS! · #2 05-21-2007, 05:42 PM

Your play is to find another bank and then to be as discreet as possible regarding your transactions there. Alternatively, you can just get a check from a site itself, as they know they have to keep changing account names/banks to stay ahead of blacklists.

bonds · #3 05-21-2007, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So what is my play here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, get a different bank?

Dignam · #4 05-21-2007, 05:46 PM

ING direct. Go nuts.

josh3336 · #5 05-21-2007, 05:52 PM

In order to close my account would I just get a cashier check for the balance remaining in my account? If this were a large sum would depositing it into another institution raise the chance of an audit? (I pay taxes I just don’t want to go through the hassle.)

BluffTHIS! · #6 05-21-2007, 05:56 PM

josh,

Yes a cashiers check is the way to go, and no it won't trigger an audit. It is mainly cash transactions, and the reports they generate, that are more likely to incur scrutiny.

Edited to add: note that you could just open a new account and then write a regular check. But you would have to wait for it to clear when a cashier's check will clear overnight, or at least be honored immediately in most cases in the same locality.

meleader2 · #7 05-21-2007, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
josh,

Yes a cashiers check is the way to go, and no it won't trigger an audit. It is mainly cash transactions, and the reports they generate, that are more likely to incur scrutiny.

Edited to add: note that you could just open a new account and then write a regular check. But you would have to wait for it to clear when a cashier's check will clear overnight, or at least be honored immediately in most cases in the same locality.

[/ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS!, what are you thoughts on this whole thing. the UIGEA is not supposed to stop checks from coming from poker sites, yet here is a 2nd example (HSBC being the first) of a bank saying NO to poker site checks.

is this going to become the norm, or just a bank's interpretation of the UIGEA?

josh3336 · #8 05-21-2007, 06:08 PM

It is not a poker site, it is a second party wire from epassporte.

meleader2 · #9 05-21-2007, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a poker site, it is a second party wire from epassporte.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you even see my point fly over your head or were you looking at the ground?

BluffTHIS! · #10 05-21-2007, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BluffTHIS!, what are you thoughts on this whole thing. the UIGEA is not supposed to stop checks from coming from poker sites, yet here is a 2nd example (HSBC being the first) of a bank saying NO to poker site checks.

is this going to become the norm, or just a bank's interpretation of the UIGEA?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have discussed this ad nauseum in the legislation forum, and mainly what you are seeing with these examples is the proclivity of banks to take pro-active measures in excess of that which is required. When the actual regs come out in July, and the banks know exactly what is and isn't required of them, I think you will see things settle down.

Also note that unlike some total pessimists, I believe the regs will be mostly ineffective, as the sites, with the aid of friendly and willing banks *that also have large non-gambling site related business*, can easily defeat such blacklists by getting new accounts made for them each month with ABC Corp on the checks.

Nonetheless, these types of hyper-compliance by the banks and the sites themselves are a bigger threat to the ability of US players to continue to be able to play than are any actual regulations imposed on them.