I was just sent a copy of a bank statement which had the announcement (below) prominently displayed:

My own banks haven't sent me anything, but I'll post their notices when I receive them. I expect this response is likely what either the California Bankers Association or the American Bankers Association has come up with. (California Bank & Trust is a regional bank here in Orange County.)

While I have some thoughts on what this will mean for online gambling, I think that others have already given good guidance.

This is an example of the overblocking by banks that we fear that the UIGEA regulations will cause. However, IMO, the banks cannot stop paper checks because the cost of monitoring them is too high. Still this is likely to kill any echeck methods and crimp bank wire transfers.

I hope this is going to lead to people continually coming out to support us and getting off their lazy asses to support our cause instead of thinking "meh status quo is cool with me, and if others get it legalized thats awesome, but I'm too lazy to do anything myself"

By overblocking you mean that their statement doesn't allow for accounts used to process transactions for legal internet gambling? For example I might want to setup an account to process transactions for a new internet based fanatasy sports league and couldn't under this policy.

Crazy. Let's hope this doesn't begin to spread like those California wildfires.

Yes, and that's just one example. Plus the bank seems to be saying that they won't accept any deposits for payouts from gambling sites - which are perfectly legal under the UIGEA. That's huge. The other threads have all been ancecdotal, i.e. "my bank called me and wants to know what the deposits are from". This is the first outright instance of a stated bank policy of blocking all transactions related to internet gambling, afaik.

"Status quo" just fell apart. Anyone still think we shouldn't do everything we can to back the federal licensing bills (even if they have a few things we don't like)?

Can a regulated bank refuse to accept deposits that do not violate any law and don't come from unlawful activity? I understand they may be misinterpreting the law (which is clearly one way - to gambling sites, not from) but that should be very short term if customers inform them.

Something seems to be going on with checks.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28.../index192.html

check out the last few pages (today's posts) seems many are having checks they deposited in the bank months ago being re-deposited back to stars. Not sure if this is UIGEA related or not or if this is a prob with a specific processor but even checks aren't always safe.

My post above was meant for JP comment, LOL messed up

A bank can refuse to do business with anyone they want, for any reason. So, Yes, they can refuse to accept lawful deposits if they choose to do so.

No. Banks are licensed by the government. Things like deposit acceptance and loan approvals are regulated in the US and they cannot arbitrarily make up rules. Hence I think my question is reasonable.

To the people that think they will still sneak paper checks through yea you might for awhile but sooner than later they will find out where they are comming and then you will be crying about your account getting closed.

To the people that think...... err I mean thought that UIGEA would be ignored and the banks would ignore a federal law I hope you start waking up.

It's so funny that people acutally think that nothing will change if we "just leave things alone" and that banks will ignore a federal law. As well thinking that "it's to much trouble for them to weed out online poker transactions" is a joke I hope some of you start waking up and see this. All they have to do is know that the processor sending the check is dealing with online poker and they can close your account as per their policy. It's not hard to do and I wouldn't even be suprosed if the fed's don;t start providing banks with a list of said processors. This is a classic case of that point it's hard for them to stop the transactions so now instead of ignoring the law like so many of you thought they are over regulating their customers in an attempt to follow the law.

I'm sorry sir but you are wrong they have the right to deny you service at their place of business if the so wish. This includes them thinking you might break the law by sending money to a online poker site after all if you are recieving deposits you very well could try to make a deposit at some point. So instead of risking their ass they will simply not do business with you at all and not worry about the possibibilty of sending money to an online poker site.
Any business can refuse to do business with you. Casino's are regulated the state gov. and card counting is not against the law but if they suspect you of card counting they can refuse you the right to come to their property and patronize them.

Spadebidder, there are plenty of federal laws covering what banks can and can't do with respect to specific transactions and specific policies.

Not one of these laws or regulations requires a bank to do business with you if it does not like your business. If a bank decides "no gambling transactions, and that includes poker" there is nothing you can do to alter this decision.

Skallagrim

And there have also been a few reports lately of banks closing accounts and flagging them for fraud activity from people who deposited PAPER CHECKS into their accounts, not even echecks. People who think they will always at least have paper checks to fall back on are wrong.

I'm not sure they are saying that, at least not in the statement of policy quoted in the OP. (What they actually do might be another story.) If the policy consisted of just the first paragraph quoted then I'd agree. But the 2nd paragraph is talking about organizations and commercial accounts. Which of these pertains to a player?

The question is reasonable. Unfortunately, the answer is straightforward. UIGEA gives banks the right to overblock. And, if there were any questions at all, they could simply reply that the DoJ says it's all unlawful.

Moreover it makes sense for the banks to "overblock" as you guys are calling it. People who are involved in legal internet gambling transactions are likely also to be doing illegal internet gambling transactions. After the UIGEA goes into effect, the risk of noncompliance is presumably much greater than the cost of losing a few customers.

Another reason for it to make sense for banks to overblock is that they are not in the business of determining what is legal and what is not. It's not like they are going to put together legal teams to go through local, state, and federal laws to make these determinations. Also, there's little upside but a lot of downside to accepting questionable transactions.

The paper check problem seems to be with a Poker Stars payment processor. I really don't believe posts about banks closing accounts due to paper check deposits and I am dubious about those concerning wire transfers. IMO, something else is involved.

However, general policies like this one that overblock every Internet gambling transaction, legal or not, whether or not the bank can discover personal account transactions involving Internet gambling or online poker and other potential problems caused by the UIGEA regulations are the biggest reasons why IMO, the PPA should initiate litigation over the legality of online poker now and not later. It won't make much difference for quite a while, but IMO such litigation is really the only practical defense that online poker players have to the UIGEA and its regulation overblocking. The only other possible remedy is that so many fantasy sport, horse racing and lottery transactions get blocked that so many state governments, voters and businesses complain so much to their politicians that some legislation actually occurs. I think this is a much longer shot than litigation. However, even a victory in litigation may not prevent overblocking, but it could give banks enough legal cover to look the other way or accept online poker transactions.

Hopefully, the banks will release these kind of general policies, not really try to discover online gambling transactions, especially in personal accounts, and not enforce them unless they are sure that an account has online gambling transactions associated with it.

Russ probably just has a business account, so the bank notice was geared towards business accounts (blocking all gambling related transactions, including deposits). The same bank might give similar notice to their non-business customers reworded for such.

If this wasn't clear from my op, I do not bank at California Bank & Trust. A client (who has nothing to do with gambling) forwarded his statement to me wondering what this was about.

California Bank & Trust is a regional bank in Orange County, and primarily serves small to mid-sized businesses.

-- Russ Fox

Quoted from Russ's OP:

"California Bank & Trust has elected to not offer accounts to organizations that offer or sponsor Internet gambling. Commercial accounts receiving or processing Internet gambling transactions are subject to closure."

I am at least encouraged by the fact that they specify commercial accounts and organizations, not personal accounts.

Yeah, this to me seems like a shot at processors, not player accounts. Not good though.

Yea but the first part says it will not process transactions derived from internet bets or wagers. If your a processor or not (player) they aren't going to process gambling transactions Maybe the second part means commercial accounts trying to do so will also be closed.