That's fine, but Id say Im pretty done with e-checks. Bank accounts closures are going to skyrocket, IMO

EDIT: Actually I just got an e-check withdrawal from Tuesday and my online memo didnt change and doesnt include the site name, FWIW

Have paper checks changed, too?

idk lg, i used to think kind of the same, didnt think e checks would be long for this world. I just really dont think they are going to go after individuals receiving cashouts that hard. It costs money for them to do such things, i just dont see them doing it for cashouts regardless of how they come. Deposits might be a different story of course.

who is "they" and "them?" are you referring to the DOJ?

LG is referring to the banks not accepting your business

yes im also talking about the banks.

we've already seen evidence of banks trying to close accounts, come June 1st it could become a very serious issue (which is bs since the law clearly states payouts aren't illegal)

Yes there have been a like a dozen account closures and half of them were questionable and could have been closed due to different reasons. Lets just assume that the entire dozen were all closed because of poker, still that number is an incredibly small sample of the total number of cashouts/deposits going through on the regular.

I also believe that not much will change in regards to june 1st. Most banks, i know one of them for certain (gf's bank where she is an auditor) have already implemented UIGEA procedures. I dont think banks are waiting for this magical date to suddenly start cracking down. Maybe some are, but i contest that the major banks have been implementing their UIGEA enforcement for some time now.

I agree with the June 1st assessment for the most part (we'll see incremental changes), but we've also had a number of cases where accounts weren't closed but banks asked about transactions. Once its says "PStars" and "FullTilt" on the payments, more of those turn into closures IMO.

Also easier for the DOJ to ramp up pressure if they can identify processors so easily.

yea you're probably right, no need to argue semantics.

The interesting part will be whether the banks will care and abide by the law that basically states cashouts are not to be affected.

Also will they go after a lot of individual accounts, or mostly look for commercial accounts doing processing for the sites.

What do you mean by account closures? You mean if they see "Stars" or "Tilt" on the eChecks that they will close your bank account or reject the check or something else?

No one knows anything about if paper checks have changed?

First off no one will close your account right away. You usually will get a warning from the bank either by mail, or they will call you from the accounts department to try and find out what the deal is.

checks afaik are the same, some 3rd party processor in canada or wherever. Pretty sure the sites wont directly send checks unless **** really hits the fan.

People have had accounts closed for doing gambling transactions. They have been sporadic at best to this point.

what should you say if the bank questions you about where a poker transaction came from? do you just deny it? or are you pretty much screwed already and they are closing down your account no matter what you say?

Since this appears to just be Stars any potential meaning of something signficant I theorized was wrong. Ideally the heading would have said site (or Poker Stars) instead of sites.

my echeck from 4/7 shows up ****
echeck from 4/21 shows up ****** [variant of site name]

seriously? DO NOT POST PROCESSOR NAMES

FWIW I checked with a friend who recently withdrew via echeck from Full Tilt and asked him what the description said. I'm not going to post the verbiage here, but will say that it is a processor name (different than has been reported for Stars) and there is nothing indicating 'Full Tilt'. It appears this has only changed at Stars (at least as of last week).

My last 2 poker stars echeck cashouts in the last few weeks both said in the email sent to me that it would say poker stars on the bank statement. But it showed the 3rd party name both times anyway insead of Poker stars.

can't the Feds just make a full tilt account and deposit/withdraw and see them anyway?

They were not that smart till you just gave them an idea. lol

There is no need for us to help or confirm the results of those investigations. Also, it appears sites use multiple processors, so there's a risk that posts here would identify a processor that could otherwise have slipped through the cracks of an investigation. And, of course, the main thing is that posting processor names adds exactly zero value to the forum.

Try negative value.

If you post the name of a processor, you are a certified *****.

Of course. My point was that there is nothing at all to be gained by posting them.

Is it not our (players) job to protect the processors from the JD's rogue use and loose interpretation of laws?

Yes of course, but let's no forget who the real A-holes are. It's the f-werds who see forfeiture dollar amounts with lots of zeros at the end, and at the expense of our liberty.

But the flip side is, if you are cashing out all the time, she might be totally impressed with what your apparent job is.