What happens to withdrawal ability after the 270 days has passed?

[Bogglor]

I read an alarmist post on another site and have yet to find anything definitive on this. Basically the poster's argument was that yes, we can withdraw from sites now via checks and in some cases, bank wires now, but when the 270 day window is over and all US based financial institutions are allegedly compliant, it's going to be nigh impossible to get your money out of anywhere.

Now, this struck me as a bit histrionic, but does this argument hold any merit at all? I'd imagine that once all the measures are in place (if it ever even happens) that all of the current payment processors the sites have in place will be blacklisted and it'll be a whole new circus of shenanigans as they try to get new ones, etc. etc. etc.

Apologies if this was addressed in another thread somewhere; if so please link it in your reply. I'm curious and apprehensive about the long-term future of the current withdrawal methods.

[KurtSF]

There is nothing definitive on this.

(1) As written the legislation ONLY covers getting money TO "illegal" gambling sites. You should always be able to withdraw.
(2) On the other hand, the law not being in place did not stop folks like Party or the ACHs from abandoning the US and NETeller, so who knows what financial institutions will do voluntarily.
(3) The law only covers illegal gambling, and online poker, except for a very few jurisdictions, is not illegal, so it shouldn't be affected at all.
(4) On the other hand, see #2.

[Bogglor]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing definitive on this.

(1) As written the legislation ONLY covers getting money TO "illegal" gambling sites. You should always be able to withdraw.



[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I understand that the letter of the law doesn't prohibit withdrawals.

[ QUOTE ]

(2) On the other hand, the law not being in place did not stop folks like Party or the ACHs from abandoning the US and NETeller, so who knows what financial institutions will do voluntarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

And herein lies the problem and the root of my question. I think that with what we've seen from our current examples, it's far easier for these institutions to simply cut the cord than it is for them to code any type of system that allows one type of transaction (a deposit to customer account from banned ACH xxxxxxx) and bans another (a withdrawal from customer's account to a poker site using banned ACH xxxxxxx). And even if the implementation were easier, once again, the example that's been set is companies going far above and beyond the call of duty to make sure there are no holes in their compliance.

Sounds like something I heard in sex-ed class all those years ago..."abstinence is the only 100% effective method of contraception". [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Since there's nothing official on this, I guess the other forum poster has a point. I've been waiting to take some money off the sites but have been wanting for the hysteria to die down in the hopes that my withdrawals won't take months to process. But I guess its better to do that now than during the hysteria generated from another cashout holocaust.

Thanks for your input.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing definitive on this.

(1) As written the legislation ONLY covers getting money TO "illegal" gambling sites. You should always be able to withdraw.
(2) On the other hand, the law not being in place did not stop folks like Party or the ACHs from abandoning the US and NETeller, so who knows what financial institutions will do voluntarily.
(3) The law only covers illegal gambling, and online poker, except for a very few jurisdictions, is not illegal, so it shouldn't be affected at all.
(4) On the other hand, see #2.

[/ QUOTE ]

KurtSF has pretty much summed it up with one exception: the UIGEA itself exempts paper checks from the regulations. So as long as the site is willing to send you one, this will always be a valid method of withdrawing.

[Bogglor]

[ QUOTE ]

KurtSF has pretty much summed it up with one exception: the UIGEA itself exempts paper checks from the regulations. So as long as the site is willing to send you one, this will always be a valid method of withdrawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the institution processing the paper check is another line in the chain for US banks to blackball, yes?

ie:
Pokerstars -> Check Processor -> Your bank

I'm imagining that all of the legitimate check processors will either refuse to do business with offshore gambling sites, creating a need for another check processor to take the action (similar to what we have going on here now). Is there any risk of US banks refusing to deal with these check processors as well, even though the UIGEA doesn't explicitly cite them? It just seems like its going to require a cycle of poker sites forever coming up with new, unblacklisted check processors...? I probably should have a look at the check thread, hmm.

[poorolrich]

Well, since the 'rules and regulations' have not been posted yet I guess we will have to 'wait and see'.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
KurtSF has pretty much summed it up with one exception: the UIGEA itself exempts paper checks from the regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find this exemption in the Act. Anyone tell me where to look?

[Skallagrim]

Oops, my bad ... the UIGEA exemption provisions do not specifically say checks. They say "any method which would prove too costly or impractical" which every banking expert I have read says was put there to exempt at least paper checks because it would be hugely expensive and impractical for banks to scan and identify every paper check in the US so they could block the 1 out of 10 million that might be internet gambling related.

In other words it has been assumed for so long that the regs would exempt at least paper checks that I assumed it was in the statute specifically. Thanks for calling me on this one Perma.