I agree with all of this. I simply said some banks will try to stop doing business with online poker players and online casino gaming enthusiasts. We know this because some already are.

I don't think banks will spend this time and effort if they aren't required to by the Federal Reserve. Also, they'll lose overblocking protection if UIGEA is delayed in its entirety.

Oh my question was whether the PPA/iMEGA has thought of approaching processors and suggesting they structure transactions to look like companies an average american might receive paychecks from in the hopes that an average american gets a paycheck or two blocked. Thats enough to overturn any law if it gets in the news.

I understand what your saying but it not likely to work. The banks are going to know the diff. between a third party processor GMCxxx acount for example and the real accounts that GMC uses. Most company's issue paychecks with the company's name on it using known company accounts doubt the banks would be confused by a processor with a similar name.

I don't think the royal bank of scotland transmits enough information aside from account number and company name for it to be as trivial as it seems. Most importantly I'm pretty sure small banks with cheap security staffs whos workloads are tremendous already aren't going to know which ones are GMC account numbers and which ones are echecks account numbers. Especially on international transfers.

Again I think a banking industry consultant needs to be called in but I don't think they are using some super high tech process to find out which checks are gambling checks. I think if we can either get them to start overblocking American paychecks, or if we can stop even a tiny bit of international trade the situation becomes unenforceable.

The point is only a niche cares about poker or online gambling yet this regulation has the potential to hurt people outside the niche. Let's let them hang themselves for casting a net too wide.

It's not likely to matter because banks are very unlikely to block deposits coming from a processor (either check or ACH) without a specific reason to do so. One reason is if the transaction is coded as related to online gambling (only pertinent to electronic transactions including credit/debit cards). Another reason *might* be if a specific bank account was red-flagged because someone (DOJ?) let them know it was an account that handled on-line gambling withdrawls.

Think back to the discussion when the final UIGEA regulations were first published. The onus to uncover and stop the transactions is with the bank who opens the commercial account for the payment processor or the bank with the relationship with the offshore bank where the transaction enters the US banking system. Not with every bank the funds might be destined for.

What I think this means, at least in theory, is that a processor could open an account and truthfully say that they were only going to process transactions for poker accounts with players in states where the predominance clause is the law or *maybe* only those that specifically outline on-line gambling. If the bank or its lawyers are convinced this is legal then we're home free unless (or until) the DOJ comes knocking on their door. As it stands now, especially given the ASC case, convincing a bank lawyer of this is doubtful. Successful litagation in a few states on the issue would probably change that.

FYP.

There is a huge gap bewteen theory and practical reality:

Your first statement is simply wrong, banks are VERY likely to refuse business whiich might be tied to any legal risk activity. A number of banks for example simly refuse to accept any business which invoolves receipt of overseas wire transfers. It does not fit their "risk profile".

You also fail to appreciate the nature of "legal advice" in banking ..... NO banking lawyer is going to sign off on a business plan which carries legal risk, ..... unless the fees earned by the bank are huge, by which I mean core business/housing market huge.

Finally, what about the players' own banks ? Will they process deposits ot this hypothetical processiing company ?

This reply may not be exactly related to this current UIGEA/PPA situation but has anyone ever thought of approaching the legalization of online poker from this legal strategy ? :

If I were a professional poker player and became disabled and "home bound" could I not, along with other disabled poker players, file a class action lawsuit against the US government ? The basis of the suit would be that it violates the " American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whereby the discrimination comes in the inability to travel to casinos and play poker (practice their profession) the same as non-disabled Americans are capable of doing.

As to the first statement quoted, possibly. However if you were to collate all of my statements on banks in all my posts it would be clear that I consider banks extremely conservative and risk adverse. With auditors constantly visiting from multiple government agencies and an entire department in a bank of any size devoted to compliance with regulations I agree that finding a bank to knowingly open an account for processing i-gambling transactions right now would be virtually impossible.

But as with any large industry there is going to be some individual businesses that will be willing to accept more risk than others. I think with a fairly clearcut court victory in the scenario I laid out that it would be possible to find a bank willing to take on the business.

As for the last statement quoted - the player's banks are under no obligation under the UIGEA to vet these transactions. Doing so 100% would be impossible. I'm not going to claim it would never happen, but IMO this would not be a big issue.

Which banks have successfully stopped even a notable minority of online gambling business going through their bank?

The reg aren't fully in effect yet. We'll know more in a few months if they go into full effect.

Also, banks don't have to successfully stop a large minority to protect their interests. They just have to pick off the low-hanging fruit and report it. Some are successful at that today.

We have a handful of random, one off calls, mostly about wires, a minority of those with account closures, the rest with vague "yeah, dont do that" warnings.

I would say zero banks have been "successful" at it. I would postulate that zero banks will be "successful" at it in the future with regards to wiring money and receiving paper checks. If I am wrong, which banks have been successful?

I guess I'd better clarify. I wasn't suggesting that banks will be successful at blocking players. In fact, I don't think they will be. Rather, I commented that some banks may wish to go after all ends of online gaming to keep from doing business with them.

Yeah, I agree, its going to be a blanket policy and, once that's in place, its going to be a bitch to get poker exempted from it. I mean, we're even seeing that with Canadian credit cards at this point.

I just think the main thing banks are going to be able to do is make sure that the next Account Services doesnt set up shop with an account. Since e-checks need a US account, I think they are in trouble, which is real bad news since that's the prime deposit method. I'll be pretty damn surprised if banks are able to start blocking paper checks and wires en masse.

I read your post to say there were specific banks that had been notably more aggressive and/or successful with their approaches and I dont see that yet.

I agree with all that. Of course, credit card companies don't want our business (too many charge backs), while ewallets do. The UIGEA delay bill will help the whitewall issue substantially.

Some banks have closed online poker players' accounts, and I imagine more will if UIGEA goes into full effect. That's all I was saying.

TE, credit card companies do not want online gaming business. However, foreign credit card processors do want the business of online gaming sites. Therefore, the foreign credit card processors hide the true nature of the charge by making it appear to be a normal purchase. Online poker sites are starting to use these credit card processors because the less expensive ewallets left the industry. I suspect that these processors are less expensive than the remaining ewallets and echecks are problematic. In the past, online poker sites used Neteller, FirePay and Epassporte for deposits rather than these card processors because those ewallets were less expensive. Now that these ewallets left the US market or are no longer in business, the card processors are the least expensive deposit option.

Players get hit with cash fees with these processors a lot. At least I have when I used it in the past. So they are far from a panacea, but I agree they are going to be hard to stop.

I do wonder, though, if at some point that type of behavior by existing sites makes it less likely they get licensed in the future. Not like the Bodog's of the world, but the pure poker sites.

wait wait wait. i cant play online poker and live in nevada?

Legally, no. It has never been enforced. There is a reality series on the G4 network right now about a group playing online poker while in Vegas.

My all access visa cards works just fine.

that is ridiculous, the hypocrisy in this country is absurd.

sigh...I hate this country sometimes

You should move to canada :d

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/online...ir-on-g4-2501/

"Executives at G4 discussed the legal ramifications of airing a show surrounding online poker prior to giving it the go-ahead to film next week. Despite murky laws like the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) on the books, Civiello told Poker News Daily that the topic was well-researched: “We vetted the concept through our legal department because there is a lot of confusion around this. You have people introducing legislation to completely ban online poker and you have people introducing legislation to allow it. It’s something we looked into.” The G4 venture will mark one of the first times that online poker has ever been featured on television. One of the most recent occurrences was in November, when CBS News program “60 Minutes” investigated the scandals on Ultimate Bet and Absolute Poker."

intresting how g4 isn't concerned about future legality. maybe that is because it only has to do with withdrawls and not actual playing? There is a large base of america playing regularly enough; it makes sense to do the show because there is an even larger population mystified by it.

The future of online poker is not in peril in the U.S. Didn't our govn't ban Napster and dling music online?

Didn't our govn't attempt prohibition in the 1920's?

yea that worked well.


Have we not learned our lessons from our past.

^^^ It's not about lessons, it's about money. The UIGEA wasn't about curbing gambling or the funding of terrorism, it was about protectionism of B&M casinos. The pleasing of the religious right in the process was just ancillary.

Which could be a good thing, as I'm not positive, but I think part of why Prohibition was repealed was because of the need for tax revenue in a down economy. Sound familiar?