National City closing my account due to online gaming

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I know though, the banks aren't supposed to send money to online gambling businesses. I don't believe that there is anything covered by UIGEA regarding an individuals receiving of funds from such businesses.

Welcome to the new RedScare/McCarthy-ism, with rampant over-zealousness at it's best.

[/ QUOTE ]


This isn't really just about the UIGEA, the fact that he recieved two 8k transfers so close to each other probably made the bank worry about smurfing.

[Jestocost]

[ QUOTE ]
I am pretty sure if that is the only case they are closing your account you would have a good case in court, you should contact an attourney right away and give him all the facts and see what he thinks, especially if you pay taxes than it is all legal income, you can sue the hell out of the bank for breach of contract at least, maybe there is grounds for discrimination lawsuite as well

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the fact that the account agreement gives the bank the right to close the account at any time for any reason, this is a great plan.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am pretty sure if that is the only case they are closing your account you would have a good case in court, you should contact an attourney right away and give him all the facts and see what he thinks, especially if you pay taxes than it is all legal income, you can sue the hell out of the bank for breach of contract at least, maybe there is grounds for discrimination lawsuite as well

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the fact that the account agreement gives the bank the right to close the account at any time for any reason, this is a great plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a lawyer, but in contracts, doesn't things have to be fairly even on both sides. I don't see the considerstion for the account holder that balances the clause that you site. I am just wondering if that part of the agreement would hold up if tested. (?)

[Jestocost]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer

[/ QUOTE ]

obv

I think that these agreements have been extensively tested and will hold up. It's not like checking accounts are new and uncharted territory for banks.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer

[/ QUOTE ]

obv

I think that these agreements have been extensively tested and will hold up. It's not like checking accounts are new and uncharted territory for banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, it is obvious I am not a lawyer. A lawyer would just assume that if something is written down it must be right. That's why law school only lasts a couple of weekends.

[Beavis68]

isnt there a law against moving sums over ten k in multiple moves to avoid reporting? or is that 5k?

[tangled]

oh, one more thing: contracts are suppose to be within the public interest. It is at least questionable that allowing a bank to, arbitrarily, close an account when the account holder has not broken any laws is within the public interest.

Then again maybe not. My point is that sometimes industries try to get away with things that they know won't hold up if tested. I don't think it is wise to just assume that something is right just because it is written down, especially if it seems to be unfair or otherwise faulty.

A much better course of action is to obtain the advice of a real lawyer.

[otctrader]

[ QUOTE ]
They are closing my account. I called to find out WTF was going on and talked to a manager who only knew vague details, but said online gambling is against their policies

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the big deal, yeah this sucks, but move on - it's not like your money was confiscated. Once you mentioned gambling, the bank had no choice; if they're audited down the road by the Feds and it comes out that they facilitated net gambling transactions, they will be boned much harder than losing your business.

Lawsuit? You'll be laughed out of court - besides UIGEA offers immunity to banks for doing this kind of policing as far as I know, so even if your withdrawal was legit, you won't get a dime from them - best scenario, they reopen your account - but why?

Bottom line, go deal with a bank that's not crawling up your ass over every transaction, and thanks for posting so we can add this one to the s* list.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
isnt there a law against moving sums over ten k in multiple moves to avoid reporting? or is that 5k?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is what jman was referring to with the term "smurfing". However the banks are only required to make CTRs (Currency Transaction Reports) on *cash* transactions. There is no issue with or need to "structure" transactions made by wire or check, as there is an automatic paper/electronic trail.

The reason this happened is that many banks are taking a hyper compliance stance, which is more worrisome to us than any actual regulations might be.

And like the others have said, don't tell the truth and make something up, as a player isn't breaking the law by playing or cashing out, and thus has no obligation to let the truth be used against him when the bank even if they knew the source of OP's funding, wouldn't be breaking any regulations by accepting same, as long as they checked against any blacklists (in the future post-regs).

[AAAA]

it was just a delay. it worked when i tried later. i was able to get withdrawal.