NETeller Make A (non) Statement

[wEbMaStEr]

Basically not really saying anything other than, they are monitoring the situation to see where they stand.

http://investors.neteller.com/neteller/upload/PressreleaseSafePortActFinal2oct067am.pdf

[vyni]

I have grave concerns of how the US plans to determine what transactions, through services such as neteller, would be deemed illegal.

There's no reasonable means, without the third parties cooperation, for US institutions to know what the purpose of transaction are for. This is the basic problem in enforcement, which has made all the proposed legislation almost laughable.

So the question becomes, will the US try impose some rule for these third parties outside of US jurisdiction... and should those parties not cooperate/accomodate our government, will US institutions barr all transactions with those parties?

Neteller, firepay, and others are all also used for other services. For many site operators, these services are an alternate service from paypal or commercial merchant services (which can be costly). eBay/PayPal stand to make a lot of money from all of this.

If forign services that participate in poker/casino transactions do not bow to the US government, it's almost safe to assume that those entities will be declared 'illegal' and US institutions forbidden for accepting/processing transactions with those services. The text clearly states "the district courts of the United States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain restricted transactions by issuing appropriate orders in accordance with this section, regardless of whether a prosecution has been initiated under this subchapter". I'm very concerned about how this was worded, and its intended purpose. I believe our government is venturing further down a dangerous road...

[shorn7]

Vyni-

I think that what the US will do is put pressure on the US financial institutions with respect to monitoring transacations that many banks will simply not allow EFT's to Neteller, Firepay, et. al. The way the bill reads (and I am no lawyer, but have read the entire bill), it appears that the JD can prosecute on a "look through" basis meaning that if you do business with a Neteller and that entity does business with gambling sites, then you can be liable as well. That is the part that scares me the most.

Bottom line though, I don't think we have enough information yet to determine exactly how this will all shake out. But, all in all it certainly does not bode well for the health and profitability of the online game.

Shorn

[lwestatbus]

I have not seen anything in the bill that affects our ability to play online with funds already on deposit with a site or with Neteller, et al. So I'd be interested in anyone's informed opinion as to where we stand with respect to existing accounts.

It seems to me that you only have a problem when you lose all of your money and need to deposit more or when you want to withdraw. Now I don't know how many of us (or rather you) make so much money online that we do withdraw regularly but it will be a long time before I feel the need to pull a lot of money out. If I happen to pull a Moneymaker and win enough to make withdrawal practical I think I'll be able to figure out some way to get to it. If nothing else, this act may raise a generation of sophisticated money launderers.

Having said all of this, I went ahead and withdrew my winnings, $500 over eighteen months, from my site and from Neteller. I've left my original deposit in place with my site and will continue to play until the risk of a knock on the door by the Poker Police becomes a realistic expectation.

Like other posters, I believe that the practical impedements to detecting the source/destination of a deposit/withdrawal to/from a gambling site will be high. Blanket inclusion of transfer institutions that do service gambling sites would be easier to implement though certainly unfair.

GL to all of us.

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

Anyone heard any new developments on this story?

I'm still anxious about putting any money online until I have a better idea of how stable the industry is going to remain. I feel better knowing Stars will continue to operate, but that won't mean anything unless Neteller remains open and legal for US residents.

[flafishy]

I doubt that at some point there won't be a Neteller or some other service that enters the arena if Neteller does withdraw.

But even if there is not, you would always have the option of depositing/withdrawing by check. Obviously, that would take more time and require some planning but it will always be an option with or without Neteller.

[Alaskadude]

...If nothing else, this act may raise a generation of sophisticated money launderers...
GL to all of us.

I've brought this exact point up elsewhere. This will be just like Prohibition and will create criminals out of heretofore law abiding citizens.

I have not read the entire act yet but does it even reference paper checks? If not, I don't see any big problem. Just send a check/money order and wait for the money to post. I requested a check from Stars earlier this year and it arrived in about a week. If paper checks are still legal, all they've done so far is slow things down.

[UrAteUp]

I doubt that at some point there won't be a Neteller or some other service that enters the arena if Neteller does withdraw.

But even if there is not, you would always have the option of depositing/withdrawing by check. Obviously, that would take more time and require some planning but it will always be an option with or without Neteller.

Wouldn't a check be hard to get into your poker site? I mean the bank would know right away what it is for and most likely refuse to allow it to be cashed. Just my thoughts. Anyone else with thoughts on checks?

[vyni]

I believe the poblem the banks would have with paper checks is that nothing is manual anymore: checks are scanned an proccessed. The equipment (likely) doesn't recognize the hand written receiver of those funds. I say doesnt here, not can't.... the technology for this to be done has existed but would cost the banking industry millions (if not billions) to implement it as a standard.

That's my understanding of the check situation.

[Alaskadude]

I read an article somewhere where the banks had said that if the act passed, there woulnd't be much problem tracking and blocking electronic transfers as the technology was pretty much already in place. The banks did say however that there was no way they could track checks as it would be too labor intensive and the costs would be prohibitive.

[Pokerfarian]

Certainly not a definitive answer, but...

I have accounts with small, local and reasonably conservative bank.

Opened an account at pokerstars, tried to deposit with:
2 Credit cards
2 Personal checking accounts
Denied, Denied, Denied, Denied

Tried to deposit into my existing but unused Full Tilt account:
2 Credit cards, including the one I used when I joined Full Tilt
2 Personal checking accounts
Denied, Denied, Denied, Denied.

I signed up for Netteller on Saturday. My bank account still does not show that micro deposit they make to verify the account. I will ask the bank on Wednesday if there is a reason.

Sing it with me boys:
"From the land of the free
and the home of the brave"