Title says it all, come December, even in the worse case scenario....

How would banks go about stopping bank wires and to a lesser extent paper checks? If someone would please enlighten me I'd greatly appreciate it.

I've read most of the threads on his forum and can't quite understand why the majority have a pessimistic outlook.

Basically, if someone could explain what will change come December in layman's terms that would be great.

Some say,and they might be correct, that foreign wires and checks will be fine because they are sent direct from foreign banks and US banks wont block these transactions. I am not sure about this myself.

I may be wrong but I can imagine the DOJ finding out (like they do now with US processors) the account #'s being used to send these payments. The DOJ may not be able to seize them but could inform the US banks and tell them not to process wires and/or checks originating from these accounts. Then the sites would have to change banks,accounts and foreign processors to keep ahead of the DOJ and US banks. Not saying they would stop them all but I can see the DOJ being a big pain in the ass to sites even using foreign accounts. I guess we will just have to wait and see how it play's out.

Blocking paper checks would be very expensive. IMO the banks would litigate before being forced to screen them. The current UIGEA regulations exempt them.

I suppose banks could screen international bank wires. However, refusing to honor a bank wire from a foreign bank risks extensive damage to the international banking system. Under the UIGEA regulations US banks are supposed to coordinate with the foreign banks to screen UIG transactions. However, what if foreign banks do not cooperate?

This is why Prof. Nelson Rose believes that the UIGEA regulations are toothless.

The current UIGEA regulations also explicity authorize (and declare as legal) payments FROM gambling sites to US players. Judging by the SDNY case, some parts of the law simply don't matter to the DOJ, so who knows what they'll decide to do. Apparently the law is something that can be selectively applied and ignored.

I think withdrawals will pretty much function as they are now. The bigger problem, as I see it, is how is Joe Sixpack going to deposit on Friday night when he doesn't have anything better to do than play poker.

Credit Card. For the first time since I started playing online poker in 2005, they have worked and on 3 sites. IMO, the online poker sites decided to use credit card processors that would dodge the coding system because all the easy and cheap (for them) e-wallets stopped servicing the industry.

But how long can that realistically last? It would be great if they were able to skirt around things until something gets done with litigation or legislation, but I think that's pretty optimistic. I don't mind be optimistic though. Things like cc processors having to dodge the coding system just adds to my frustration. I could use my credit card right now to play bejeweled for real money. The bank would know exactly where the money was going and wouldn't care. The gov't couldn't care less that I was doing it either. It's just ridiculous and hypocritical.

It's lasted a long time for online sports books.

There is a BIG difference between banks inspecting checks and wire transfers and banks blocking ones KNOWN to be "gambling related."

The UIGEA regs are pretty clear on letting banks pass on having to investigate individual checks and wires.

But we have also seen a fair number of reports of banks investigating transactions they think are "unusual" or "suspicious." Usually they are looking for fraud and drop the matter when the transaction is verified by the account holder. But not always. Some banks go further and want to know the nature of the transaction. Then things can get bad, and accounts can get closed.

Also, it is not past the FBI/DOJ to notify banks of specific foreign or domestic accounts they have identified as "gambling related." I doubt the FBI/DOJ will invest a lot of resources in doing this, but they will invest some (see the Account Services case).

To one extent or another, expect an increase in blocked checks and wires, and expect an increase in accounts being closed. How much of an increase, and the odds of it happening to any one player (i.e., "you") is anyone's guess.

Skallagrim

Banks already have to block wires from certain individuals and a couple of locales. This is a pain, but it is certainly not impossible. I don't see it happening industry wide because someone has to keep the list and it cant be the gov't or legal challenges are a possibility. Banks do have the ability to do this even now.

Checks on the otherhand, forget about it, this is pretty much completely automated and would reverse decades of progress and would a huge uproar from banks and no more free checking accounts offered from banks if this was a requirement

I love it, not only has the UIGEA accomplished basically nothing it set out to do aside from being a giant pain in the ass, it has the potential to ruin the international banking system and/or set back decades of the industry's progress.

****ing idiots.

In a perverse way, having the UIGEA be somewhat effective but cripple the international banking system isnt the worst outcome. Its probably the only way the law gets repealed outright.

Good thought, very imaginative. I agree, but what a price to pay for repealing the UIGEA.