For those of you that have not heard, Neteller's founders were arrested this week while visiting the USA and Neteller shut off its business with Americans. Neteller was the way that pretty much everyone funded and accessed their online poker/gambling accounts. This all stems from the Republicans bill that was tacked on to the Port Security bill last year. Which made it illegal to transfer money to online gambling institutions ( unless of course that institution is a horse betting place, because horse racing is a great republican pasttime ) Why am I as an American citizen not allowed to spend my hard earned taxed money any way I want as long as it doesnt hurt anybody?
While I think the law is stupid, and it will just open up places in China to do the same thing....... I can still get into Neteller...at least I just did. Link to article Well I guess my money in Poker stars is going to stay there until I figure out a way to get it out. Come on Dems...repeal that silly law. DD
There is no way the Dems will repeal that law, facilitate Americans trying to gamble online will make them look like a**holes in public. And you can still get your money from the gambling sites, they can always send you a check.
That is true, but it also makes it hard to reload....... I would think all this does is open up the way for FOREIGN online banks to have Americans with accounts. I will now look for a bank in the Carribean to put some money into which will allow me to gamble and invest without the prying eyes of our government. So, all it will ultimately do is hurt US banks. BRILLIANT !! DD
Be careful with that, you might have to explain your movement of cash (wire transfers leaves a lot of info behind), and provide records for your gains and losses to the IRS in case they want to audit you. All legal US residents must pay taxes on all their worldwide income, chances are if you start moving money into Cayman Islands, you will be red flagged. Not that you are doing anything illegal, its just a royal pain in the arse when get audited.
You can still get to Neteller, but you cant deposit or withdraw from gambling sites so its pretty much useless. I was reading that it is difficult to get an offshore bank account, especially if you are just using it to fund a poker habit. Foreign banks will only deal with the hassle of an American customer if you have a big minimum deposit and they will want you to maintain a big balance. It won't be ideal as a just a middleman between my bank of america acct and pokerstars.
Some bank will do it as they can charge transfer fees......as long as their is profit....there will be someone to do it. DD
The cost to potential addicts (significant financial loss) outweighs the benefit to non-addicts (fun).
But as long as it happens in a state-run or government-licensed entity so that the state profits from it as well, it's fine?
“To say the situation is sensitive is the understatement of the decade. The problem is, even if you know you have done nothing wrong, you have no powers of resistance.” “You can quickly go from being a bystander to a target, so even if you are bomb- proof, you have to assume you are subject to hostility.” _______ Top Banks Ordered to Hand Over Records Related to Online Gambling THE US Department of Justice has ordered the world’s biggest investment banks, accountants and law firms to hand over all e-mails, telephone records and papers connected with internet gaming firms as part of an investigation into illegal online gambling in America. HSBC, Dresdner Kleinwort, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank are known to be among the banks that have been issued with subpoenas — official requests for information — as part of a worldwide hunt to build a case against those who benefited from illegal online gambling. Britain has been the fundraising centre for many internet gambling companies, with a number of international operators listing their shares in London. Fortunes were made by the founders of internet gaming stocks, including Party Gaming, 888.com and Betonsports.com, and advisers pocketed huge fees. The Department of Justice first issued subpoenas in October, only days after George Bush sounded the death knell for America’s $6 billion (£3.2 billion) internet gambling industry by signing legislation banning all related transactions. But until now the investigation has been kept secret. According to City sources, the subpoenas have continued to arrive over the past few weeks. It is thought that some investors in online gambling companies, including Party Gaming and 888.com, have also been hit with requests for information. One source said: “To say the situation is sensitive is the understatement of the decade. The problem is, even if you know you have done nothing wrong, you have no powers of resistance.” He added: “You can quickly go from being a bystander to a target, so even if you are bomb- proof, you have to assume you are subject to hostility.” The source went on: “The Department of Justice has taken a shotgun, not a rifle approach in relation to lots of gaming companies and has just asked everyone to hand over all the information they have.” The request could force banks and other advisers or former advisers to the gambling companies to hand over hundreds of thousands of e-mails and files to American investigators. Another City source familiar with the circumstances said: “There is no doubt at all that this situation is escalating. This has definitely got legs.” Another source described it as one of the biggest “fishing expeditions” ever undertaken by the Department of Justice. Vast riches were made by the founders of internet gambling companies, including Party Gaming and 888.com. Party Gaming floated with a value of £5 billion in the summer of 2005, propelling it straight into the FTSE 100 index ahead of British household names such as British Airways and ICI. Its four founder shareholders — Anurag Dik****, Vikrant Bhargava, Ruth Parasol and her husband, Russ DeLeon — took out £797m and valued their remaining shares at about £ 3.3 billion. Meanwhile, 888.com, which floated in September 2005 valued at £590m, created another batch of dotcom millionaires, this time among the company’s Israeli founders. Avi and Aharon Shaked received more than £10m from selling a quarter of their 70% stake. The probe by the Department of Justice will spark outrage in Britain, coming so soon after the extradition of the so-called NatWest Three to America. “UK plc should be really worried about yet another encroachment of American investigators on to British territory. The City is clearly under threat,” said one British businessman who asked not to be named. The subpoenas do not reveal whom the Department of Justice is targeting. But some believe the ultimate goal is to find information incriminating the founders of the online gambling firms. The inquiry vindicates the City professionals who refused to act for internet gambling firms because of the uncertainty about its legality in America. Banks that have been subpoenaed have lined up lawyers to act for them. None of the banks involved would comment on the subpoenas. The Department of Justice also said that its policy was not to comment about ongoing investigations. HSBC advised 888.com, one of the most high-profile internet gambling companies, on its flotation. Credit Suisse advised the original shareholders of 888.com on their strategic options before the flotation. Deutsche is co-broker to Party Gaming, while Dresdner advised on its public listing. link
If it's in smaller increments, like dollar-a-ticket lotteries, and the government can regulate it, or it can be relegated to a particular venue, like a casino or track, which would theoretically limit the amount of activity, then yes. And speaking in broader terms, I also think any consistently profitable business (except for non-retail e-commerce) in the U.S. should be taxed domestically, that's just the cost of doing business in the best capital, consumer and copyrighting environment on the planet.
Amazing how many people and how often those people want the government to 'protect' us from ourselves. Arguing the cost of addiction is dumb. You can gamble in one way or another everywhere, and lotteries are far more harmful than online poker. It is idiotic to outlaw a game where it is legal in most places - for example it is not illegal to play poker for money in Texas. Further, outlawing it only decreases potential revenue for the government. Another stupid decision by the exiting GOP.
These businesses are not in the US, though - and how are they different from non-retail e-commerce? It's one thing wanting to tax them, but another to criminalize people (the managers of online gaming or financial payment provider companies such as Neteller) who are not criminals. It's largely untruthful of the governments (similar movements in Europe) to say they want to protect people by criminalizing online gaming operators and payment providers. The truth is, they want to make that money themselves. It's sort of like the prohibition all over again.
I don't think the GOP wants to make the money themselves, they are just being dumb. If they wanted to make the money themselves they would regulate. I know in Texas the anti-gambling lobby gets a ton of money from (suprise!) the casinos in the surrounding states of NMexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.
Well, it's not the GOP (or the government) that wants to make the money themselves - it's the Vegas super-casinos. Online gaming is bad for Vegas, thus the anti-online-gaming bill was primarily pushed by the legal US casinos. That said, if Vegas makes more money, the government makes more money in taxes. Plus, if you don't spend your money on online gaming, you'll probably spend it on something within the US, which means you're paying sales taxes, etc. I do think ultimately online gambling will become legal and regulated in the US - but it might still be a while. It will probably happen when the mega-casinos in Vegas develop their own online gambling sites and decide the profits they can make there outweigh the losses they'll have in Vegas.
I'm not sure that you're correct. Online gaming has in many ways become a boon for Vegas. It's more than likely increased the number of players, for sure in poker, but many multiples. As for other things, like sports betting, you can't do that legally in most places and not that many people who fly to Vegas for that stopped because they could do it online. I haven't seen a study on this or anything - have you?
I haven't. And it may be a boon to Vegas in reality, just as music downloading may be a boon to their industry. But Vegas itself thinks its a negative. Vegas casino interests were the ones that pushed strongly for the anti-gambling law. It was publicized as a morality thing or whatever, but the people that were behind it were the casinos. The morality side just was a good boost to get it more support. The only reason the casinos would be pushing it, presumably, is that they feel that online gambling hurts their business.
I think the biggest supporters were those of horse racing and lotteries, not Vegas. Although it gets pretty confusing figuring out who is or is not for this stupid legislation. I think maybe the non-Vegas casinos like the bill but Vegas is a destination rather than a trip to the local casino. I don't NOT go to Vegas because I can gamble at home. But I might not drive to a local joint. http://www.gambling911.com/Internet-Gambling-Bill-Prohibit-Online-Poker-100906.html "This (internet gambling) legislation has a loophole big enough to drive a truck through that was designed solely to protect betting on horse racing and lotteries over the Internet," says Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV), who went on the record with Gambling911.com's Kira Wissman to discuss the impact, if any, this bill will have on internet gambling. ------ Gambling911.com recently had the opportunity to speak with Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV) on her views regarding the recent legislation passed in the U.S. Congress, prohibiting online poker rooms, and certain banking transactions between the customer and online gambling sites. Congresswoman Berkley is an avid support of research into how to economically regulate the online gambling industry and turn it into a profitable enterprise for both the public and private sector. Shelley Berkley: “It is not the role of the federal government to tell adults how they should spend their money, and that includes betting on-line." In May, 2006, Congresswoman Berkley cosponsored bipartisan legislation that sought to create a federal study on Internet gaming. The study bill was a direct response to efforts in the House to ban all forms of on-line gaming. "Internet gaming is becoming more popular every day and we need a comprehensive federal study that looks at the question of whether or not it can be effectively regulated and what role technology can play in accomplishing that goal,” said Berkley, who co-chairs the Congressional Gaming Caucus. Titled The Internet Gambling Study Commission Act, the bill was meant to counter renewed efforts in the House to enact a sweeping ban that would prohibit all forms of on-line gaming. Berkley questions the effectiveness of such a ban, given the limited information now available on how such a legislation would be enforced. Berkley has also expressed concern about federal intrusion into an arena normally reserved for the individual states. "Nevada is the world model for well-regulated gaming and people who come to the Las Vegas strip know they are not going to be ripped-off. As a nation, we should look at whether or not the Nevada model can also be used to regulate gaming on-line. That is just one of the many questions I hope this study will answer,” said Berkley. “It is not the role of the federal government to tell adults how they should spend their money, and that includes betting on-line." The bill was introduced by Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) and was cosponsored by more than 40 House Members. The legislation calls for creation of a federally appointed panel to study questions relating to Internet gaming and requires the panel to report its findings and recommendations for future action. In July, Congresswoman Berkley again voted against Republican-led efforts to ban casino gaming on the Internet and unsuccessfully fought to amend the legislation to close a loophole giving special exemptions to horse racing and lotteries. "This legislation has a loophole big enough to drive a truck through that was designed solely to protect betting on horse racing and lotteries over the Internet. The fact that this bill was included in the GOP’s “Values Agenda” proves it is nothing more than an election-year ploy to satisfy Republicans on the far right who want to outlaw adults from gambling in Nevada or anywhere else,” said Berkley. "I continue to be amazed by the members of this body who constantly rail against an intrusive federal government, and yet, when it comes to gaming, they are the first to call for more government intrusion,” Berkley said. “A man’s home is his castle unless he chooses to participate in online gaming. Then his home becomes the province of the federal government.” "The vast majority of states allow gaming and regulate it, whether it be lotteries, racing, card rooms, or casinos. This bill would make a legal activity illegal in those same states solely because it is done online rather than in a casino. In reality the intent of this bill is to attack and undermine legal gaming in our nation,” said Berkley. An amendment to H.R. 4411, the “Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act,” offered by Congresswoman Berkley would have eliminated provisions in the bill that specifically exempt lotteries and horse racing from the ban on gambling over the Internet. While her amendment was ultimately rejected, Berkley cites the loophole as evidence of the hypocrisy displayed by the bill’s backers. These lawmakers claim the legislation will crack-down on betting over the Internet, but tout the fact that it contains exemptions protecting the interests of the horse racing industry and lottery companies. "Despite its misleading name, there is no getting around the fact that this bill very clearly and specifically states that betting on horse racing over the Internet is not prohibited. The same holds true for lotteries, which enjoy special protections under this legislation. And despite the misinformed and misguided claims of this bill’s supporters, it would neither prohibit Internet gaming, nor increase the enforcement capabilities of the United States government,” said Berkley. Berkley believes Congress should thoroughly examine the issue of Internet gaming to assess how states and gaming entities might use technology and state regulations to ensure the safety and integrity of Internet gaming based in the U.S. With billions of dollars going from the US to foreign Internet gaming operations, Berkley urges Congress to leave the door open for U.S.-based gaming entities to provide safe, regulated and state-taxed Internet gaming options.
