Copied from other thread....

4 checks total were requested prior to 4/15, I have recieved two, below is the info I have:

Check 1: recieved
date requested: 3/30
date processed: ?
date on check: 4/5/2011

Check 2: recieved
date requested: 4/3
date processed: ?
date on check: 4/5/2011.

Check 3: not recieved
date requested: 4/7

Check 4: not recieved
date requested: 4/11 [/QUOTE]

It means that they format their dates as DD/MM/YY.

lol...i gotta stop goin to happy hour

Serious question for the lawyers out there (I'm one too but don't know the answer to this):

Do I commit bank fraud when a client's bank account shows that he purchased a meal and drinks from "Joe's Coffee Shop" when in fact he purchased ladies' affection from Tiffany's Gentleman's Club? Put another way, what are the specific rules, if any, about how merchant transactions are coded?

yes.

edit: There's a saying in govt that says "Never let a crisis go to waste." I doubt that the casinos are behind this clampdown, but I have no doubt that they will move in ASAP to take advantage of the situation. That's why the blackout period was always so laughably ******ed. Open up the market and the sites will be up in within weeks, not a year.

No, because the bank doesn't have a policy of refusing transactions from the strip club.

The more important question would concern the situation where the bank does have a policy against doing business with strip clubs. Is the fact that the bank has a policy simply enough by itself?

What if the policy is based solely on moral objections and has no relation to any economic concern? What if the policy is based on something completely ludicrous ("strip clubs are run by aliens and aliens always cheat") that also has no relation to real or potential economic harm?

If some type of real or potential economic concern needs to be present, must the concern be true? If the policy is "our bank doesn't do X because its illegal" and it turns out X is not illegal, should that make a difference? If the concern does not need to be correct, must it still be at least be 'reasonable' ? What is reasonable in this context?

All of these points are far from firmly settled as a matter of law.

Or, I guess I should say, they are unsettled until lawdude chimes in to tell us how they will definitely be settled by the courts.

Skallagrim

PS and FTP is keeping it legit and has kept us updated. they are giving our money back hopefully in the near future. however i heard nothing from absolute yet. so any news?

Negative

No need for a thread when a single sentence will do. Sorry, but there's no word from Absolute.

PStars processed my cash out today. eCheck on its way supposedly. (fingers crossed)

I suspect that there are gray areas in exactly the places you have identified.

However, the problem is that these gray areas have nothing to do with what the sites allegedly did. The caselaw is clear that even a minimal injury to the bank, such as paperwork, is sufficient to satisfy the materiality requirement in a bank fraud prosecution. The sites are accused of defeating a policy of the banks that was instituted for the purpose of legal compliance, at the behest of the government and in support of the government's requirement that banks know their customers. (And to answer your question, since minimal injury is sufficient, the claim that the underlying conduct is legal is clearly not a defense to the materiality element. A bank whose legal compliance policies are jeopardized is injured even if it turns out, after the investigation is made and counsel is hired and the government is brought in and all the rest, that the law wasn't broken after all.)

IF the sites did that, the fact that where a bank had a policy based on a purely moral objection to a transaction, that would create a closer question on the issue of materiality really doesn't matter.

Can anyone please tell me what would happen if someone used a "PC Anywhere" type program to remotely operate a computer in another country?
I know that they warn against using a VPN, but what about one of these programs?
Thoughts?

Thanks,
Steve

If you used a program like "PC Anywhere", they couldn't really detect that because you would ACTUALLY be using the computer located in the right country ... albeit controlling it remotely. But, to be able to do that, you'd have to actually have someone in that country helping you or you'd have to go get your own and set it up somewhere.

This is relevant to my interests.

Aren't these programs a bit laggy and unsuitable for online poker? I

Not really..... I have used the service and in is safe and reliable. Plus you can get the service for $99 a year for 1 computer. My wife suggested it to me and when I called My PC they said it would work. only problem is if the electric goes down someone at the host location has to restart the computer.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...on-lawyer.html

And article on Pokernews

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2011/0...sted-10286.htm

Does this mean some countries are willing to extradite some of these suspects?

If you try to use a home/consumer class remote control app to fool anyone in to letting you play poker in another country, you have only yourself to blame when it all goes horribly wrong.

Yeah, technical logistics aside, it's just not worth it. The value that would drive someone to consider to go to such great lengths are simply not worth risking. It's a catch-22.

VPN way better option than remote control apps. You can setup VPN on separate computer and connect your main computer to the "gateway" computer and it will be undetectable. Any old PC you have laying around can be setup to do this. You can have it sit between your cable modem and your wireless router, OR you can configure your wireless router to create the VPN for you (depending on which model you have). Its really easy actually.

what do you mean when it all goes wrong!

But they say on the FAQ from Stars that they can detect VPN and they will seize accounts and etc? Is there a way to make it undetectable?

Thanks

use your vpn to connect to another vpn

Yes. As I said, above, if you have your VPN running on a seperate computer acting as a gateway, or within the wireless router, they can not detect it in a million years.

If you run the VPN on your computer, they *may* detect it if they check for it, however, there are MANY MANY legitimate reasons to have a VPN running, and they would have to start a witch hunt against users who use them. I have a VPN running on my computer 24/7 and has been that way for years now. I use it for my job. Some internet provides use VPNs as part of their network access. Many universities use VPNs for their students when they connect from their dorm rooms. Its a pretty big can of worms if they want to do this.