Banks already saying, yeah right....

Search

New member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
4,821
Tokens
I knew they did something to appease the banks before they passed this. They basically said you don't have to do shit as long as you are not conspiring to run a gambling ring.


BC-Internet Gambling-Banks,0453 �
Banking group sees protections in Internet gambling bill �
With BC-Britain-Internet Gambling �
By GREG EDWARDS Ž
Dow Jones Newswires Ž

ST. LOUIS (Dow Jones/AP) — The Internet gambling legislation passed late last week by the U.S. Congress, which led to a major sell-off of Britain-based online gambling stocks Monday, remains a concern to the U.S. banking industry but isn’t as burdensome as feared.

“We got some language in the bill that looks like it protects the financial services industry,” said Steve Verdier, director of congressional relations for the Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents almost 5,000 banks in the United States. “It could have been a lot worse.”

The legislation is designed to prohibit U.S. banks and credit card companies from processing payments for illegal online gambling. Financial services companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had expressed concerns about the compliance burdens that would be imposed, such as tracking and blocking potentially millions of transactions.

Under the legislation as passed, “If you are acting as a normal bank, and you’re not in some sort of conspiracy with a betting house, then you are not going to be held liable,” Verdier said.

In addition, the legislation will be guided and enforced by regulations written by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department.

“If they find that the banks just don’t have the technology to track and block these transactions, then we don’t have to,” Verdier said. “The Fed and Treasury are not supposed to ask us to do the impossible.”

Still, Verdier said, “we will have to see how those regulations get written.”

The legislation, attached to an unrelated port security bill, was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Friday and by the U.S. Senate early Saturday. It is expected to be signed into law by President Bush.

Shares in Britain-based betting companies, such as PartyGaming PLC, 888 Holdings PLC and Sportingbet PLC, plunged Monday. The companies said they would suspend business from the United States if the legislation is enacted.

The U.S. Justice Department has been bringing fraud charges against online gambling companies and their executives.

For example, BetOnSports PLC and its former chief executive, David Carruthers, were indicted in June in federal court in St. Louis, and the company closed its U.S. operations Aug. 12.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Let's hope they interpret this as a "free pass" on any requirement to restrict Neteller transactions.

:103631605
 

New member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
4,821
Tokens
Hopefully Neteller will sue the first financial institute to block money from freely flowing to them.

Neteller has a right to bank just as any other bank. You cant say they mostly deal with gambling...
 

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
2,401
Tokens
If anyone thinks thought that they passed this bill without every having the thought of enforcing it on someone, if it be a lame duck or someone, they are wrong. Someone at somepoint down the road I am sure will have it applied to them.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,523
Tokens
The banking lobby did pressure Frist to remove the penalty language against the banks. Now it reads, give it your best effort. So first it is truncated, then all banking said no way we can be held accountable if we can't enforce it. You wait until the banks drop the other shoe and say, sorry, no can do. I foresee that happening very soon. Amazing how so many AIM companies are taking a beating, while our financial institutions are yawning. If they are relaxing, I am not to scared.


Best Wishes...OF :howdy:
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,523
Tokens
passingthewind said:
If anyone thinks thought that they passed this bill without every having the thought of enforcing it on someone, if it be a lame duck or someone, they are wrong. Someone at somepoint down the road I am sure will have it applied to them.

Therin lies the quandry. How can they enforce it on anyone, if they can't enforce it at all. This entire disaster may blow up in their faces. If this was just political posturing before elections, someone will look awful bad when there biggest fears come true, how do they enforce it? There is no guide, no precedent, no business model, nothing. You are taking starting form scratch, with minimum funds, and the bill lost another tooth when they backed off penalties against banking.

Governement: "You banks should stop this transfer of funds going to gambling sites."

Banking: Are you serious, we can't. Do you know how many millions of tranactions we deal with daily?

Government: Oh well, we tried. Why is it no one wants to play with us anymore?


Best Wishes...OF :howdy:
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,773
Tokens
...shares in YouBet.com surged, adding 37 cents, or 10 percent, to $4.07 on the Nasdaq. Mangini said the company has an exemption under the new legislation based on the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.

"For YouBet.com and U.S. horse racing, this legislation could be quite positive," Mangini said.

A YouBet.com spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
2,455
Tokens
Dont believe it. Some hard up prosecuters somewhere will twist what they can to get a case going against a bank. Dont doubt it.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,523
Tokens
They can't because the language allowing them to penalize banks was dropped from the bill. They would get laughed out of court. I read somewhere where banking consultants said this is not that bad at all, for banking. That was an important concession when they truncated it. Why do think BOS and Neteller are afraid? Because the language written does not exclude them. They may pass phony ass laws when no one is looking, but they don't fight the law's wording. If they had kept that bit in this would not have made it as far as it has. It is hard to bite without teeth.


Best Wishes...OF :howdy:
 

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
3,741
Tokens
passingthewind said:
If anyone thinks thought that they passed this bill without every having the thought of enforcing it on someone, if it be a lame duck or someone, they are wrong. Someone at somepoint down the road I am sure will have it applied to them.

Sad, but you can BET THE HOUSE on that ONE!
 

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
595
Tokens
sean1 said:
Neteller has a right to bank just as any other bank. You cant say they mostly deal with gambling...
Neteller isn't a bank and they are careful to say that in their material, including their T&C. And of course you can say that they deal mostly with gambling...it's true.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
6,057
Tokens
I think i'm going to mask my voice and call People's to see what they are going to do.
 

Triple digit silver kook
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
13,697
Tokens
sean1 said:
I knew they did something to appease the banks before they passed this. They basically said you don't have to do shit as long as you are not conspiring to run a gambling ring.

"As long as" can be quite subjective when dealing with feds.

"Run a gambling ring" is also subjective.

"As long as" should include a clause stating: "we may and will bust your ass when we feel its necessary".
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,758
Tokens
levistep said:
I think i'm going to mask my voice and call People's to see what they are going to do.

You from CT too?

Let me know what they say!
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,758
Tokens
passingthewind said:
If anyone thinks thought that they passed this bill without every having the thought of enforcing it on someone, if it be a lame duck or someone, they are wrong. Someone at somepoint down the road I am sure will have it applied to them.

Actually, it could actually be an election season ploy. There are certainly more questions then answers about if this bill is actually enforceable. Maybe they will only use it when they're really after something else, like they use tax laws to arrest people.

Much too early to tell.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
2,455
Tokens
DAWOOFDADDY said:
"As long as" can be quite subjective when dealing with feds.

"Run a gambling ring" is also subjective.

"As long as" should include a clause stating: "we may and will bust your ass when we feel its necessary".



Exactly. There is nothing to stop an overzealous state prosecuter from getting an indictment against someone. No one in the main stream will know what the law says.


Look at the bogus shit Louisana did against Sportingbet. They set up a sting and ran bets through there site, so that they can arrest them for breaking there state law.


You dont think somewhere down the road, someone wont set these banks up the same way. All you need is an indictment.
 

New member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
4,821
Tokens
Doesnt a federal law require a federal indictment unless certain states adopt the same law?

Sean
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,523
Tokens
They already have RICO if they want to bust someone with no real law. They did not pass this law to nail banks. Sadly they need the bankers cooperation here. If they even indicted one bank, one time, it would cross the line. They will most likely not even consider that. They can set you up, do a sting, or use the RICO to bust you for close to anything. They can also use the Patriot Act to do whatever they desire. This one is so truncated it almost has no one to arrest.

Best Wishes...OF :howdy:



This is not a vehicle to bust anyone. It is to stop transactions. That is all that is left. I guess if you started booking offshore, onshore they could get you. Or you happen to visit the US. But again, they already have the Wire Act and RICO for that.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
2,455
Tokens
They are desprate. They need a victim. They will get someone, its how it works.

If you read Frist's first quote, the law is set up to go after banks. They cant stop us, so they will police them and make them do it.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,523
Tokens
They already have victims with RICO and wire act. They can't scare banks to comply, because that language was deleted on truncation. They can ask for cooperation and help. I just don't buy into the we needed this law to make an example of someone. I still beleive it is nothing more than an election year tactic, just like busting Carruthers. Tough on crime, tough against gambling. The talk sounds good, makes for good sound bites. Many actions are mainly for political purposes. Placating the religious right, getting knuckleheads reelected. After the elections are done I think there will be a much clearer picture of what this was/is all about.


Best Wishes...OF :howdy:
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,582
Messages
13,452,592
Members
99,423
Latest member
lbplayer
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com