FWIW the other sites that used this Florida processor are using a Canadian one now.

Then what were the grounds/excuses for busting up "Account Services" in San Diego? I thought it had something to do with UIGEA.

Given the wording of the UIGEA which seemed to specifically exempt withdrawals, I'm really surprised no one has set up a Neteller like company to handle poker site cashouts only. This would free up the poker sites from the current hassles of dealing with processors like the one in Naples, and would of course be widely used by all poker players.

While the UIGEA definitely does not cover withdrawals, the DOJ (and FBI, etc.), continue to play by their own rules (e.g., their interpretation and application of the Wire Act to online gaming) that run counter to the UIGEA. IMO, that just makes it too risky for some entity to create a poker site cashout only service.

Can the PPA or even FT or STars themselves bring some sort of unlawful seizure lawsuit and decide this issue once and for all?

Scenario: FT contracts with a LEGITIMATE (all licenses in order, records kept, etc.) payment processor who works exclusively for them (no online casinos, sports book etc.) Transacts maybe $1-$5 million maximum pay-outs. Waits for DOJ action. Wins in court because not covered by UIGEA and can blow away DOJ's "wire act" BS. Establishes precedent for the industry.

If someone did set up a "Neteller like company to handle poker site cashouts" from the US they risk the DOJ going after them,besides UIGEA the DOJ has other laws at their disposal they might try and use (like the Wire Act). We don't know if the DOJ would be successful or not as it hasn't been fully tested in a court of law. Though I suspect if a "Neteller" type of company were set up in the US for players to cash out it wouldn't be to long be for a thread like this was started about them.

Sure if the sites or maybe one of the processors decide to take a case to court they might win but they also could lose. So far the processors haven't wanted to fight the DOJ in court, the owners either flee the country or plea bargain. The poker sites don't seem to want to fight in court for fear of losing and risk having those involved in the company doing time in prison.

I am from europe, but why do you think Neteller, Party and others close there business with the US customers. Simple Stars / FT and the others offer a grey business and they simple use grey ways to transfer money.

Here in germany playing is official crime..but gouverment do nothing so far...but sure there is a risk that on Day X a few hundred get a visit and have a BIG problem.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0...NzU4ZmVh&hl=en

Link is working now but your right it wasn't before (bandwidth exceeded) Maybe someone has another link in case it goes down again.

For the PPA to confidently file suit we really need for the Feds to take money out of a player's hands, not merely stop money before it gets to the players. I know and you know that the effect is basically the same, but in the esoteric world of Federal financial law, the two things couldn't be more distinct.

And so on that point it would really be ironic for the PPA to encourage the Feds to take money from players just so it would be easier for us to file suit, don't you agree?

As to a processor taking a case to court, that is indeed procedurally simple, but has a different catch. You need a person (or persons) in charge of the processor willing to risk years in jail should the court case not go our way.... That's a helluva lot to ask of someone, don't you again agree?

I wish it were easier than this but its not. Blame the lawyers (well preferably just blame MOST of them ).

Skallagrim

Come on Skall... take one for the team!

Actually,
I volunteer. I'd get 5 years in a "country club" max. Put 10 mil in a swiss bank account. Pay for my defense. I would take this gamble. 10 mil is peanuts compared to the billions that would be made if online poker prevails.

It would be like the "Roe vs Wade" of online poker. "jackhigh vs Da Man"

No Skall, most lawyers are not to blame. The lawyers at the DOJ are to blame for this prosecutor abuse which is becoming all too common across the US and only being challenged in extreme cases like the Duke Lacrosse rape case or the case of former Sen. Stevens. Also, blame all the lawyers who served as Supreme Court judges in the 20th century and let these type laws and practices pass muster under the US Constitution. A good book about this is "Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush" by Thomas E. Jr Woods, Kevin R. C. Gutzman.

Not the least of things that Ticks me off in this Article are the Poker players who where obv smart enough to win some cash but not smart enough to keep their pie holes shut at the bank. They should all lose at least 2 fingers. My first thought was burnt at the stake but i must be gettin soft in my old age.

I get your point but views like this make feel online poker is bad for my health. Not only to have to worry about processor troubles, delayed checks, ect. but I have to fear what others players might do to me if I tell the wrong person I play online poker

If a poker site accept funds from players, laws in the player's jurisdiction can cause that to be a violation of UIGEA law. All this can apparently cause the site to run into even more laws when trying to pay out unlawful gambling proceeds to players. So, as you say, UIGEA bans only acceptance of funds not the payout from the site or transmitter...but that is not the point.

If having a poker exclusive transmitter of funds to players changes any of that, I would be surprised and willing to invest.

There is just a lil diff between tellin a buddy or coworker that you play, and notifying your bank that you are receiving and moving funds from an online poker site thru their institution?

Do you think you would have trouble finding the line? As apparently many do.

I still cant fathom it.

Bunch of 18yr olds tryin to impress the hot teller?

As it's been stated the UIGEA does not prohibit cashouts. They aren't doing anything illegal. Why should they lie?

Although it may not technically or REALLY be illegal, the DOJ can decide unilaterally, without legislation or court ruling, that THEY have decided its illegal. If a certain circuit court of appeals decides that its legal, the DOJ will simply ignore that too.

As a result you then have banks that, out of an abundance of caution, decide to not want to do business with anything gambling or poker related due to the problems that the DOJ could POTENTIALLY cause them. One of the biggest concerns has been over blocking, which is not illegal either.

So in the end, if you want to be able to take advantage of the business that poker sites are in need of, payment processing, you HAVE to lie, even though its legal.

The thing is this is no ifferent that Stars/FTP processor. Just the guy AP/UB was using got "caught". While UB/AP has had issues in the past that people might deem as "shady"; i would say this incident changes little for the sites image in general.

The site might lose some money at the end of the day, but that shouldnt affect things, uness its such a blow to balance sheet that they decide to shutdown opperations and take all player balances. It called being "eurolinxed"; that is actually a small bargaining chip against US prosecution is that UB could just steal like 50x this balance they Feds siezed if they wanted. (so maybe fed will return funds and just hammer the little guy processor.)

Anyhow this can/easily will happen again. Any time a site is having "processor problems" it cause they got shut down cause basically they got found out by a bank and were reported to Feds. Its happened on every site from Stars-ftp-Ub at one time or another. Honestly, its not that hard to get processors; look ub just had some german national do it. Its like when a drug dealer gets caught, often drugs on hand are far less valuable then the cash made in past. They know the rik of being caught, but the consequence is very small compared to the money u can make. In this case UBs presence hinges on payouts; so they will take the consequences and move on here imo.

Ub wil be fine, they will have a new processor soon; the question really is why did the Govt or Feds chose to go after a UB guy when they could easily go after Stars/FTP just as easily. The fact that UB processor was caught for doing a lot of paper checks doent change anyhting; they can just as easly find electronic transfers if they wanted.

What is it exactly that you suggest people say if confronted by the bank?

This is a serious question. Is there some standard answer that people agree would be appropriate? Other than "none of your business or I'll take my business elsewhere" which I don't really think are smart things to say to the bank.

Use the ATM. or "It is an online business I have had a relationship with for years. It isn't some Nigerian scam, the check is good."

You may wish to ask Jay Cohen for his opinion on this matter before you embark on such an endeavor.

Here's another link to view the complaint.

Well... he only did 17 months in a minimum security prison and he ran a sports book. I would do 17 months in minimum for 10 mil. I would do payouts for poker only, so no "wire act" violations. I don't think the Feds would have the guts to prosecute a Poker Only processor. They would be afraid of a precedent setting case if they lost - which under the UIGEA rules - they would have a hard time winning the case.

Who has the balls to take one for the team - I would for 10 mil!