Pokerstars Opening Their Own Bank

[wolfie_cr]

What is stopping from a future or current international bank (whom would be subject *ONLY* to their country's laws) from deciding that they need new customers and they accept online gaming ELECTRONIC transactions (from offshore sportsbooks) because they can as they are not in violation inside their jurisdication..... but now... when the bank is requested to send funds to an USA resident, they intentionally refuse to code the electronic transactions accordingly when sending funds over here to the USA.... how can this be stopped?? (or if a code is necessary, then any other code that is accepted...)


well if there was enough interest (as it appears to be) some DOA sets up an investigation and sends funds to say ten gambling shops (like they did with the one where they nabbed the guys from neteller) and they trace the money

THEN they send threatening letters to every single bank in the US and they say something like "if you dont stop doing business with this bank nasty things can happen "

all that has happened till now is mainly intimidation (and seems to have worked quite well for them!)

 

[CalvinTy]

I thought about that, wolfie, but why has Citadel and other ACH's stopped servicing USA then? I really think ACH's are also coded as required, but I may be wrong. I realize that some of those ACH's are public companies so there is that liability to the shareholders, but hmmm, just wondering since VIP was one of the last books to use e-check as an option until this week for US clients (I know as I was shocked to be able to use the e-check there when I took advantage of their 100% matching bonus just LAST Friday).

Just read your follow up post, very good points, wolfie. I guess it boils down to whether the govt has all bark, but no bite.... and eventually some US local banks may say "back off, I don't see any problems doing business with this international bank as I need this business & as long as they are not indicted in a court of law, leave us alone".

* CalvinTy

 

[wolfie_cr]

on the stopping the ACH services subject ......

a) even if the companies are not based in the US there is NO way for them to get an ACH processed unless they have a company (subsidiary /processing or otherwise) that will tap into the US bank network and 'get the money'

b) you are right on with the public company stuff, technically they cant do anything illegal as they should abide by all the rules

c) it would be nice if the banks would tell them to f*** off ....but (and this is another problem) for any bank........the % of profits they get from egaming is (in the big picture) very very small. is it worth it for them to get in a legal fight when you have little to gain? banks are very traditional entities and they would rather keep screwing credit card customers with ridiculous fees than fight the DOJ regarding the rights of their customers

I believe most big companies will stay away from the USD and have all their processing in Euros (Neteller is even having trouble receiving wires in USD! so I am afraid that the days of USD as the 'egaming currency of choice' are totally over)

btw on that company that was doing ACH until just now, it depends on how bold the processing company is.....perhaps they were just thinking about profitting a few more weeks and then 'shutdown to comply'

everything so far has been intimidation and fear and that has made quite a few companies run away as fast as possible, this wildcard that they are playing 'money laundering' is becoming way too powerful (as the 'terrorism' one)

 

[max1234]

Calvin,

To answer your question about why the DOJ can stop US banks from transacting with other banks .... name which CEO of a major US bank wants to go to jail even though the charges might not stick. I'll answer for you.... there isn't one. The DOJ doesn't have to be right, they can arrest, indict and the ask for an enormous bail amt to be set and then let the CEO prove he isn't guilty. Who needs that shit? That's why all of the public companies are saying no to US customers.... who wants to be indicted? Who needs that type of publicity? I'm not saying the DOJ is right, but to me that's the general type of attitude that companies are taking. The Neteller guys aren't guilty of money laundering but their legal bills are going to be huge. :money8:

 

[Extraordinary_5]

Where did you find this information? Dante

 

[Woody0]

Thats incorrect...the reason you are able to use checks is that the law put into the port securities bill does not include checks..

False, checks are included under section 5363 (3).