What is happening Dec 1st to affect cash flow?

[OnWisconsin]

Basically, this short thread here is a microcosm of the same concerns expressed five years ago when Netteller said they would no longer move money from the USA to anything remotely tied to offshore gambling.

And here we are five years later and the offshore gambling industry has no trouble receiving or sending money pretty much anywhere they want.

yeah.

i play poker on full tilt and ub. they bother accept mc. others don't. only prob was email from ub bout a month ago about "don't cash this check we sent u last month". at first i was pissed, then when i saw what was going on i was glad i hadn't cashed the checks, cause ub reimbursed me plus gave me an 200 or so as a good faith gesture. so next next day they had echeck cashout option, which had never been there before. i used that. 3 days later it was in my bank acct. i was disappointed when next time i cashed out echeck wasn't there. what's my point? i don't know.

but yeah. i'm a degenerate gambler. that will always be easy to do. with my credit card. if i hadn't lost my left nut in a poker game i'd bet on it

 

[barman]

5 years ago? Try 2 and a half years ago.

heh...My bad

After about a couple months of hand wringing among our friendly fraternity, I - and most other people I know - have had absolutely no trouble moving money back and forth from the various offshore sportsbook countries.

 

[barman]

Doug wonders: Who directly competes with MG/WU, Steve ?

Bar: There are at least a dozen or more online money transfer services available to people who use the web. I've been using paypal most recently, but it's just one of many.

If I ever felt that paypal was not a viable method, I'll simply plug in with a different one.

And make no mistake. With each passing month, new companies are opening on the web and moving money worldwide. Each of these new ones will need a period of time to establish a level of trust and reliability for consumers, but you can be sure that many will pass that test.

Economics 101, my friend.

There is no way to permanently impede willing buyers from doing business with willing sellers.

And in the 21st century, with communication available to the other side of the planet simply by logging into the WWW, it's sincerely laughable that anyone is getting too jacked up thinking that somehow they will be blocked for more than a few moments by any government efforts to impede them.

 

[barman]

One easy way to spot a list of the many online money transfer services is to look at the bottom of most any offshore sportsbooks' deposit page

Looking at Pinnacle's site, I see 18 different methods of moving money online.

Now, Pinnacle themselves do not accept US players, but it's an example of just a few of the many methods to move money online.

If WU and MG actually do bend to the UIGEA and make it difficult for US players to move money to sportsbooks who will accept their business, you can be sure that many of these other outlets will step up and seek that money transfer business.

And being as most are outside the USA, they are immune from prosecution by the US feds.

 

[newton0038]

The biggest and loudest hit to the industry will be when the 2 North American govs. invade the sovereign land of Kahnawake where thousands of online gaming entities hold "licences" and SERVERS. If the plugs get pulled on the reserve's monoply it will affect the entire industry around the globe as all access to accounts held by sites that use Kahnawake as their server base would be shut down. Alot of shady shit goes on there and more than what this story reads.



PUBLICATION GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: WED JAN.14,2004
PAGE: A1 (ILLUS)
BYLINE: INGRID PERITZ AND TU THANH HA
CLASS: National News
EDITION: Early DATELINE: KANESATAK

Quebec strikes deal to calm Mohawks


INGRID PERITZ AND TU THANH HA

With a report from Rheal Seguin

KANESATAKE, QUE. and MONTREAL Anxious to avoid a violent clash at the Kanesatake Mohawk community, the Quebec government brokered a deal yesterday to allow 55 new constables to leave the community's police station, which had been encircled by protesters for more than 24 hours. The besieged police officers, who came from various native bands in Quebec at the invitation of embattled Grand Chief James Gabriel, were allowed out of the station late last night. They were replaced by 30 officers from the Mohawk reserves from Akwesasne and Kahnawake.

The agreement is a setback for Mr. Gabriel, who had invited the outside police officers because he said his own police force was too easy on drug traffickers.

The constables arriving from the two Mohawk reserves will assume patrol duties in Kanesatake.

An interim police chief from Kahnawake will replace the one Mr. Gabriel wanted, Quebec Public Security Minister Jacques Chagnon said.

He told reporters that Mr. Gabriel had no choice but to accept the deal: "You have to deal with reality. We were in a dead end and if it wasn't solved we would have spent a second night with armed people on both sides and the possibility of a bloodbath tomorrow."

While the Surete du Quebec, the provincial police, stood ready to intervene, the government wanted at all cost to avoid sending them in, mindful of the botched raid in July of 1990 that cost the life of an SQ officer and triggered a 78-day standoff.

SQ officers entering Kanesatake would have been "greeted like invaders," Mr. Chagnon said. "We all had the same aim all day long, which was to find a peaceful settlement."

With dozens of police officers under siege for the whole day and Mr. Gabriel's house in smouldering ruins, tensions tore at the community and left doubts about who was in charge.

Angry Mohawks, including several vendors of contraband cigarettes, stoked bonfires outside the Kanesatake police office during the day and vowed to prevent native officers inside from policing their community.

The community, located 55 kilometres from Montreal, was still split by divisions last night: Dissident band council members said they no longer recognized Mr. Gabriel as leader.

Mr. Gabriel, who fled the community before his house was torched down to its cement foundations, insisted he is still the grand chief. "I won't buy peace from a gang of criminals who make up their own rules and respect no authority," he told reporters from a hotel in downtown Montreal.

Exactly who was in control in the community of 1,400 was unclear. At crucial intersections of the reserve, masked men set up roadblocks with their pickups and grilled motorists who wanted to get through.

Most of the day, the 55 uniformed native officers from across Quebec remained prisoners in the police station. They slept on the station floor and ate whatever food the protesters allowed in.

Ostensibly triggered by the increase in sales of tax-free tobacco to non-natives, the dispute has long been simmering over Mr. Gabriel's attempts to enforce a tougher law-enforcement agenda. Mr. Gabriel brought in former police chief Terry Isaac and ex-deputy chief Larry Ross, in a move whose legal legitimacy is challenged by some community members.

Mr. Isaac said yesterday that organized crime has taken hold in the community, controlling drug and weapons trafficking. He said marijuana cultivation is a major problem. "The community needs our help. Tensions are very, very high now."

Still, people familiar with native issues say it is rare that an internal dispute degenerates to the point where the grand chief's house is torched. Mr. Gabriel was forced to flee with his wife, two children and two stepchildren. Yesterday, smoke and the acrid smell of burned plastic rose up from the charred remains of the home. The shell of a burned-out car stood next to a child's play area, where red-and-yellow toy trucks lay in the snow.

Unhappy members of the Mohawk community view the arrival of the outside police officers as an illegitimate takeover of their territory.

"It's an invasion," said Barry Bonspille, a member of the community's police commission and executive director of the band council. "

. . The only thing saving their skin now is that they're native. They're wolves in sheep's clothing."

rights; police; law enforcement; crime

 

[eoghater]

We are less than 30 days away from the deadline. What will be the next step for the books and bettors? In my opinion, as long as you keep the deposits on a non-suspicious level, this law doesn't have much bite to it.

 

[eoghater]

Also, it's been far too long without an e-processor. Sportsbooks need to step and move past the check processing and provide some viable options for long-term deposits/withdrawals.

 

[Waz]

Any updates on the December 1st changes? I'm surprised there aren't more threads about this.

 

[Sugarbear]

1. barman is putting it down big time. 2. So Stop this panic stuff. Nothing the banks can do about nothing. Read outside of fourmdom once in a while. This is a non issue in Washington and elsewhewre.

Again read everything barman has said and carry on as usual.

That is all.

 

[HAT]

Again read everything barman has said and carry on as usual.

Meh....I'm pretty sure that's what 99% of the Rx does 99% of the time.
:toast:

 

[barman]

meh..heh

It's not so much that it's a "Non-issue in Washington" as much as it is that you can count the number of congresscritters who honestly give a crap about internet gambling on about one hand.

(okay....it's pretty much a non-issue in Wash DC)

The others who voted for the UIGEA did so because it was attached to other far more important legislation. And in that group you might find another dozen or two who included in their reasoning that it's of value to keep some kind of grip - however translucent - on money that is moving in and out of the USA.

Those guys are the ones who likely honestly believe it helps their reelection campaigns.

"I voted in favor of more closely watching money that gets transferred out of the country to online gambling operations!"

And approximately eleven people in their entire district then think, "You know what? I was on the fence about voting for Congressman DipWad, but now that I know he's in favor of the UIGEA, I'm not only going to vote for him, I'm even going to put a bumper sticker on my car!"

And the beat goes on


UNLESS you are someone who is quite honestly trying to move over $10,000 at a time offshore in a single transaction, there is nothing much to see here. Like about 98.98% of what comes out of Washington DC, sensible thinking Americans with average to above average Life Smarts can pretty much just ignore the bluster of the Very Important Press Release For December 1, 2009 and carry on with our lives just as we did when the feds told us it's illegal to smoke pot; it's illegal to take a Vicodin that a co-worker hands you at lunch; it's illegal to do a MarchMadness bracket contest with more than $10 attached; it's illegal to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

All Washington DC-based law enforcement is interested in is two things

a) People, businesses and organizations whose actions truly constitute a threat to the safety and security of the Homeland.

b) People, businesses and organizations who are making a TON* of money skirting various federal laws or regulations.


----
*TON = MORE than ANYONE reading this post has in play with regard to doing business with offshore gambling.

 

[barman]

FRIENDLY DISCLAIMER:

IF YOU are someone who - after reading my small handful of posts in this here thread - still has sincere anxiety about how/when/where or with who you will be moving your sports gambling money offshore, then by all means take whatever precautions you deem in your best interest.

That includes stopping the use of offshore gambling if that is what it might take for you to feel secure in your person and for your personal interests.


But please...Don't be offended if nearly all the rest of us carry on with business as usual. We won't think any less of you.

We're far too busy to be passing judgement on what and how you choose to handle your personal gambling and sports investing business.

 

[EVincent]

Informative read here fellas. Wish we had more posts like it. Players helping other players out.

I know one thread mentioned keeping your money in A+ books.

Where would you guys say Matchbook and SIA stand currently in regards to grades?

and also....

Will it become more difficult for me to cash an offshore check come December 1st if I try to make a withdrawal from a book?

Thanks for all the info fellas.

 

[bellyputter]

Many of the smaller banks are just beginning to use money laundering software.

 

[ProPokerPlayer]

Have Mr. Know-it-all give you guys an update on the BSA. Thats the Bank Secrecy Act for everyone else.

Here is part of a recent post by a poker professional. They posted this with their names on a public forum but im deleting all names if any are in it....I however do not agree with their conclusion that they expect to hear nothing further...The whole reason for the interview is for the bank to determine if the customers info needs to be turned over to the authorities. The bank will ALWAYS error on the side of sending them the info instead of leaving themselves liable if in fact the transactions were to be declared illegal by the Govt at some future point...
Banks are required under the Act to report any "suspicious" activity to the Fed. Im sure as he explains the BSA he'll also give you the definition of "suspicious". But here is a list of things they are to look out for...many of these apply to various aspects of offshore gaming...

Suspicious events which may cause a bank to file a SAR:

Structuring
Money Laundering

Bribery/Gratuity

Check Fraud

Check Kiting

Commercial Loan Fraud

Other

Computer Intrusion

Consumer Loan Fraud

Counterfeit Check

Counterfeit Credit/Debit Card

Counterfeit Instrument (other)

Credit Card Fraud

Debit Card Fraud

Defalcation/Embezzlement

False Statement

Misuse of Position or Self Dealing

Mortgage Loan Fraud

Mysterious Disappearance

Wire Transfer Fraud

Terrorist Financing

Identity Theft



I got this via certified mail from my bank:

Dear Client:

The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requires [name of my bank] to have a thorough understanding of our customers and their businesses. In response to this obligation, [name of my bank] has developed a list of account servicing questions to help us better understand our clients and their banking needs. These questions were not asked at the time of account opening.

Please contact your Relationship Manager, [his name], at [his phone number] within 10 calendar days of receipt of this letter or you may contact me directly at [her phone number] to schedule a phone interview.

Please note that your failure to respond to our request for the interview within twenty one (21) calendar days from the date of this letter will result in a restriction on your ATM/Debit Card. In addition, failure to respond to our request for the interview within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this letter may result in your accounts being closed.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

[her name]
RISC Office Compliance Specialist
[her phone number]

Update:

I had my interview.

I was asked what I do for a living. I told them that I am a professional poker player and coach.

I was asked what each individual wire transfer I had received was for. Each time, they had a history of where the money came from, including the intermediary banks. They know where the money is coming from. For each one, I told them the truth.

I was read a prepared statement by them that essentially said that should these international wire transfers continue, they will likely close my accounts.

I had to tell them that I would not be using this bank to receive wire transfers from online gaming sites in the future.

I was told that my account would be under review in 90 days to see if my activity matched that statement.

I was assured when I asked that my account information was not being sent to any other government agency and the primary purpose of the call was to prevent me from using the bank to fund online gambling. The bank considers it risky activity.

I expect to hear nothing further.

 

[F.A.D.E.D.]

so is this for bank wires only? or checks?

 

[EVincent]

Have Mr. Know-it-all give you guys an update on the BSA. Thats the Bank Secrecy Act for everyone else.

Here is part of a recent post by a poker professional. They posted this with their names on a public forum but im deleting all names if any are in it....I however do not agree with their conclusion that they expect to hear nothing further...The whole reason for the interview is for the bank to determine if the customers info needs to be turned over to the authorities. The bank will ALWAYS error on the side of sending them the info instead of leaving themselves liable if in fact the transactions were to be declared illegal by the Govt at some future point...
Banks are required under the Act to report any "suspicious" activity to the Fed. Im sure as he explains the BSA he'll also give you the definition of "suspicious". But here is a list of things they are to look out for...many of these apply to various aspects of offshore gaming...

Suspicious events which may cause a bank to file a SAR:

Structuring
Money Laundering

Bribery/Gratuity

Check Fraud

Check Kiting

Commercial Loan Fraud

Other

Computer Intrusion

Consumer Loan Fraud

Counterfeit Check

Counterfeit Credit/Debit Card

Counterfeit Instrument (other)

Credit Card Fraud

Debit Card Fraud

Defalcation/Embezzlement

False Statement

Misuse of Position or Self Dealing

Mortgage Loan Fraud

Mysterious Disappearance

Wire Transfer Fraud

Terrorist Financing

Identity Theft



I got this via certified mail from my bank:

Dear Client:

The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requires [name of my bank] to have a thorough understanding of our customers and their businesses. In response to this obligation, [name of my bank] has developed a list of account servicing questions to help us better understand our clients and their banking needs. These questions were not asked at the time of account opening.

Please contact your Relationship Manager, [his name], at [his phone number] within 10 calendar days of receipt of this letter or you may contact me directly at [her phone number] to schedule a phone interview.

Please note that your failure to respond to our request for the interview within twenty one (21) calendar days from the date of this letter will result in a restriction on your ATM/Debit Card. In addition, failure to respond to our request for the interview within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this letter may result in your accounts being closed.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

[her name]
RISC Office Compliance Specialist
[her phone number]

Update:

I had my interview.

I was asked what I do for a living. I told them that I am a professional poker player and coach.

I was asked what each individual wire transfer I had received was for. Each time, they had a history of where the money came from, including the intermediary banks. They know where the money is coming from. For each one, I told them the truth.

I was read a prepared statement by them that essentially said that should these international wire transfers continue, they will likely close my accounts.

I had to tell them that I would not be using this bank to receive wire transfers from online gaming sites in the future.

I was told that my account would be under review in 90 days to see if my activity matched that statement.

I was assured when I asked that my account information was not being sent to any other government agency and the primary purpose of the call was to prevent me from using the bank to fund online gambling. The bank considers it risky activity.

I expect to hear nothing further.

This was a wire transfer, correct PPP? THose always seemed to draw red flags. What about depositing checks from offshore? Would this still be possible come Dec 1st? If not, how could you get your money out?

FWIW I think this is silly we even need to discuss this. Its not like we are criminals or drug lords for goodness sakes.