NETeller says U.S. authorities seized funds |
|
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:45 pm GMT by Gunslinger
http://www.neteller-group.com/press/en/124.htm
| Quote: | 8 February 2007 - NETELLER Plc (LSE: NLR), the leading global independent online money transfer business, today issued the following update with regard to its US business and criminal charges against two of its founders.
On 19 January 2007, at the request of the Group, the Group’s legal advisers met with representatives of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“USAO”) to clarify the Group’s position with respect to the complaints brought on 16 January 2007 against two of the Group’s founders, Mr. Stephen Lawrence and Mr. John Lefebvre. Neither are current employees or directors of NETELLER. In that meeting, the Group pledged to cooperate with the USAO, indicated it was prepared to begin document production promptly and discussed a potential mechanism for arranging an orderly repayment of funds to US customers.
The discussions between the Group’s legal advisers and the USAO are ongoing. The Group is, under advice of its legal advisers, commencing production of documents and intends to cooperate with the USAO in its investigation.
Following upon the complaints dated 16 January 2007, banks in the US began declining to permit transactions involving the Group through accounts maintained at one or more automated clearinghouses in the United States. Additionally, the Group has been advised that the USAO has obtained court-ordered seizure warrants seizing funds pertaining to the Group’s transactions. To the best of the Group’s knowledge, it believes that the amount of funds seized by the USAO or otherwise restricted by third parties does not exceed US$ 55 million. These funds were largely in the process of being transferred from the Group to its US customers or vice versa.
As a result of the restrictions placed by third parties, court-ordered seizures, and related legal concerns, the Group is currently unable to make payments to US customers. Nevertheless, the Group is in discussions with the USAO to manage an orderly return of funds to US customers. As part of these discussions, it is contemplated that the USAO will engage a forensic accounting firm, at the Group’s expense, to assist in this process and to examine the Group’s financial position. “The return of funds to our US customers is a top priority for NETELLER” said Ron Martin, Group President and CEO. US customers wishing to withdraw funds from their NETELLER e-wallet accounts will experience ongoing delays while these discussions continue, and a further update will be provided by the Group once effective repayment mechanisms are determined.
To the Group’s knowledge, no criminal action or proceeding has been brought against the Group, its current officers or directors by the USAO. Nevertheless, there can be no assurance that the Group will not be charged in a criminal action at some subsequent time. The Group intends to work with the USAO to seek a negotiated resolution of any allegations relating to its US activities. Any resolution of this matter may lead to potential sanctions against the Group including material financial penalties, fines and forfeitures.
It is emphasized that in line with the Group’s standard business practices for all customers, funds held by the Group for US customers are held in segregated trust accounts. The Group’s own cash position remains strong and the Group currently has sufficient working capital to fund all its customers’ balances as well as ongoing requirements of the business.
NETELLER remains committed to developing its business in line with its stated strategic objectives including geographical and product diversification for all markets. The Group will focus on its continuing business and the opportunities available in the growing markets of Europe, Asia and the Americas outside of the United States. Since the Group’s withdrawal from the US market on 18 January 2007, average daily new account sign-ups of new customers from non-US markets has been around 1,400. This compares to average daily sign ups of 3,303 for the year to 31 December 2006. Daily fee revenue since 18 January 2007 has averaged over US$ 200,000 per day (excluding any revenues from Netbanx, 1-Pay and interest income). These metrics demonstrate the resilience of the Group's ongoing business. NETELLER customers not resident in the US continue to be minimally affected by this withdrawal from the US market.
In view of the continuing uncertainty, the Group's shares will continue to be suspended from trading on AIM for the time being. Further announcements will be made as appropriate. |
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:00 pm GMT by vyni
Now that's it's been confirmed...
all I can say is OMFG lol
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:14 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Nevertheless, I'm still relatively confident we will get our money back within a few weeks once they reach a settlement.
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:54 pm GMT by vyni
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=20378
| Quote: | On a darker note, we now learn that the FBI has actually frozen the funds of all US clients, which were still ‘on account’ at NETeller the online e-wallet. It was earlier believed that the digital money would be refunded to US players and now they are calling it evidence and the cash is on ice.
Strangely enough, the authorities are attempting to link NETeller’s online payment processing of gambling money to terrorist funding. Despite the fact that NETeller in the UK has public shareholders, pays dividends and offers 100% audited financial statements, the FBI is pursuing an argument that e-wallet funds are being used to finance terrorist.
Additionally, despite the transparent nature of all these UK payment companies, subpoenas have been issued to the following Wall Street investment banks HSBC, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Kleinwort. All of these fine companies participated in underwriting public offerings for some of the more popular online gambling webs. They all have offices in London and now they all have records being subpoenaed. |
Posted Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:42 am GMT by TheSalche
jesus ... this whole thing is so annoying and such garbage
how come paypal doesn't get shut down? terrorist could transfer money through there too
Posted Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:08 am GMT by shorn7
This is getting completely ridiculous. I am all for busitng terrorists, but if they did even the slightest amount of investigation they would find that all this money has less than zero to do with terrorism. I hate our government more and more every single day.
Posted Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:21 am GMT by UrAteUp
Welcome to Bushland Shorn...where King George rules sepreme....  .
This money freeze by the US is going to piss alot of people off. Not just people with accounts there but the country where it is based, the banks it has accounts in and all the stockholders. King George is probably going to catch hell for this one.
Note to King G: Up Yours...Viva La'Resistance!!!! Power to the Peeps!!!!
UAU for 2008
Posted Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:16 pm GMT by JohnnyCache
oh god
of COURSE it has to be about terror
YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS DIDN'T DIE IN IRAQ SO YOU COULD FUND TERROR WITH POKER
god this is so stupid.
Posted Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:43 pm GMT by groton
um i told u so when u people instested of voting in Bushie back in.
i mean he has to have his Justice Department waist tehre Resources on Going after pokerplayers who fund the Terroist(thoe i doubt theyare any)
just the Conservtive way
Posted Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:37 pm GMT by TheSalche
| groton wrote: | um i told u so when u people instested of voting in Bushie back in.
|
i didnt insist on voting him back in ... for the record
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:52 pm GMT by Bobross139
| groton wrote: | um i told u so when u people instested of voting in Bushie back in.
i mean he has to have his Justice Department waist tehre Resources on Going after pokerplayers who fund the Terroist(thoe i doubt theyare any)
just the Conservtive way |
I want whoever this illiterate screwball voted for to be President! Sign me up!
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:22 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Bobross139 wrote: | | I want whoever this illiterate screwball voted for to be President! Sign me up! |
He's dyslexic.
Now go be ashamed of yourself.
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:53 pm GMT by groton
| Bobross139 wrote: | | groton wrote: | um i told u so when u people instested of voting in Bushie back in.
i mean he has to have his Justice Department waist tehre Resources on Going after pokerplayers who fund the Terroist(thoe i doubt theyare any)
just the Conservtive way |
I want whoever this illiterate screwball voted for to be President! Sign me up! |
Gore and then Kerry
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:51 pm GMT by Dave B
Yeah, you are right, we would be MUCH better off with the loon bat Algore or Mr I voted for the armor for the troops before I voted against it in office.
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:06 pm GMT by Kalbelgarion
The issue that's personally impacted me the most in the past six years is this online poker witch-hunt, Bush's War on Sin.
I'd rather have Gore and Neteller than Bush and his insane Justice Department which wants to lock us all up.
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:36 pm GMT by Dave B
Just remember, Gore invented the internet.....he can take it away.
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:09 pm GMT by Bobross139
Anybody who thinks there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans are fooling themselves.
They're all crooks.
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:49 pm GMT by Kalbelgarion
Hey, one party introduced, passed, and signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act of 2006, and one didn't. One party is beholden to anti-gambling religious crazies, and one party isn't. That's difference enough for me.
Posted Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:06 pm GMT by Dave B
check the vote, both parties gave it strong support. Few politicians were on the side of poker.
Posted Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:06 am GMT by Ensano
| Dave B wrote: | | check the vote, both parties gave it strong support. Few politicians were on the side of poker. |
they didn't really vote on the internet gambling bill... they were supporting something completely different... I doubt many even knew that this had anything to do with what they were voting for...
Posted Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:14 am GMT by Kalbelgarion
I have checked the vote of HR 4411. 94% of the bill's sponsors and co-sponsors were Republicans. Its champions in the Senate, Bill Frist and Jon Kyl, were Republicans. The President who signed in (in the Port Bill) is a Republican. One thing is for sure: If the Democrats controlled either chamber, this terrible bill would never have been brought up for a vote.
Posted Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:46 am GMT by Dave B
60% of the Dems voted for it.
Posted Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:07 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
| Kalbelgarion wrote: | | If the Democrats controlled either chamber, this terrible bill would never have been brought up for a vote. |
So presumably this bill will be repealed now that the dems have control?
No?
Didn't think so.
Politicians are nothing more than glorified accountants, elected to run the economy. To argue one side against the other is to argue which group of accountants are doing a better job.
Posted Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:57 am GMT by UrAteUp
| wEbMaStEr wrote: | | Kalbelgarion wrote: | | If the Democrats controlled either chamber, this terrible bill would never have been brought up for a vote. |
So presumably this bill will be repealed now that the dems have control?
No?
Didn't think so.
Politicians are nothing more than glorified accountants, elected to run the economy. To argue one side against the other is to argue which group of accountants are doing a better job. |
Lawyers Webby...they are glorified lawyers. If they were accountants they might see the value of poker. If they were accountants they might see how to get out of a deficit. If they were accounts they would have morals.
Lawyers have none of these things.
Posted Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:09 pm GMT by Kalbelgarion
It a matter of congressional priorities. As someone's who has worked on Capitol Hill, I can tell you that it's hard for things to get on the congressional agenda, especially if they only apply to a tiny minority of folks (like us poker players). Furthermore, not everyone is as well-versed in the ways of gambling and poker as, say, Senator Reid. Every congressperson--and most staffers--have never played poker online. They're the senior people of our society who are still getting used to the idea of there being a "series of tubes."
The fact is, the Democrats would have never brought this bill up for a vote, since they have other priorities. The Republicans, to apease their crazy religious base made this bill one of their priorities. But right now, the Democrats have other priorities (like debating Iraq, raising the minimum wage, and outlawing torture) since the terrible bill that the Republicans passed affects only a tiny part of the voting public.
This makes me wonder why this isn't a bigger issue. Poker players are stinkin' rich, so we should have some good lobbyists on our side raising a fuss about this. We should be able to hire good think tanks to write papers on how legalizing and taxing online poker would be great for the economy. We should be able to run ads raising awareness about this issue. Is the PPA really that ineffective? Are they just not concerned about online poker players? Or are poker players that unwilling to put their money up to change the law?
Overturning last year's law would be a winner for the Democrats, as they're trying to win over the mid-west libertarian types (and they're doing a good job, too, what with the recent victories in Arizona, Montana and Colorado). They just need some good lobbying (with some good money backing it up) to make them see this.
Posted Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:35 pm GMT by Dave B
I promise you, poker players are not rich.
Posted Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:37 pm GMT by Dr_Pablo
Bush had nothing to do with this. he signed it as a formality, repulicans, democrats, all the same. Law is made to serve the intrests of those with economic social and political power. Think about who that might be? religous zealots? casino owners? this isnt a consensus system.
The day poker players have enough ESP to combat the intrests of the rich, is the day they wont be playing online poker. no one is going to make any sort of deal over this, its insignificant to pretty much everyone except the us online poker community.
And whats the difference between calling it protection from the brithish, the germans, the communists, or the terrorirsts. Life is a witch hunt thats just the way power works.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:51 am GMT by BeerWench13
Um, guys? You do all realize that this ban is based on money, right? The US couldn't find a way to regulate online poker winnings so they could get their cut. They didn't have a way to tax it, so they banned it. The witch hunt and claims that the funds were used to support terrorism are just a way for the government to justify the ban. It's all about the money, folks. If you believe otherwise, you're not thinking like an American politician. Someone figure out a way to regulate online winnings with a 1099 or something and I guarantee we could get the ban lifted. But the only way is for Uncle Sam to get a piece of the pie.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:10 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | The US couldn't find a way to regulate online poker winnings so they could get their cut. They didn't have a way to tax it, so they banned it. |
Yes they do. Sweden and China are both working models of state-run/heavily controlled gambling. This ban had very little to do with money going/not going to the government itself.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:18 pm GMT by BeerWench13
They didn't outlaw gamblng. Vegas still exists and casinos still run day and night in this country. They outlawed online gambling. Why is that I wonder? Because no one was claiming their winnings on their taxes? Maybe. Because the US wasn't getting any funds from the online gambling sites? Maybe. Because Big Brother doesn't want poor little John Doe in Bumfuk, Kentucky to go broke because he's gambling online? Come on. Do you really think so?
If not for money, why would they ban it then? I'd like to hear another logical explanation other than GW's witch hunt on "sins".
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:29 pm GMT by Dave B
They didnt even have the balls to ban gambling, they knew that would turn into a messy internet law argument that no one is willing to have. The just banned financial orgs from doing transactions w/ gambling sites.
Why?
1) Strong indian gaming lobby
2) Strong legal casino lobby
3) Pride, gambling sites were basically giving the finger to the US Govt by using offshore locations and getting around current laws, politicians egos dont like getting the finger
4) Gambling is bad constituency is strong in certain areas (unless you are gambling on cattle futures w/ no experience and turning $1000 into $100k in under a year)
I dont think that the tax dollars are a big factor. I believe the stat that only about 10% of gamblers win, the house makes the killing. If that is the case, you really arent taking about that much money being lost. Also, you still need to claim winnings as income, so if someone is very successful, the IRS can still go after them.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:39 pm GMT by BeerWench13
I agree with all that you're saying, but doesn't that still come back around to money? If the US government was gaining financially by allowing online poker, do you think they'd have banned it?
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:46 pm GMT by supafrey
| BeerWench13 wrote: | | I agree with all that you're saying, but doesn't that still come back around to money? If the US government was gaining financially by allowing online poker, do you think they'd have banned it? |
The point isn't that they weren't, but that they easily could have. This was not an option they cared about. This decision was based on lobbying and friends helping out friends.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:52 pm GMT by flafishy
I think Wenchie is absolutely, 100% spot-on here. Which is why the PPA and Mike Sexton and Annie Duke and all these people are wasting their time and money trying to get a poker carveout.
Online gamblers don't pay taxes on their winnings, the online casinos can't be taxed and a decent amount of money is leaving the US economy. So what possible motivation would any legislator have to carve out poker? Because it's a game of skill and it would be the right thing to do to protect our freedoms? Yeah, right. Give me a break.
If you want to gamble online, go play a lottery or bet on the horses because those things can be taxed.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:54 pm GMT by flafishy
| supafrey wrote: | | BeerWench13 wrote: | | I agree with all that you're saying, but doesn't that still come back around to money? If the US government was gaining financially by allowing online poker, do you think they'd have banned it? |
The point isn't that they weren't, but that they easily could have. This was not an option they cared about. This decision was based on lobbying and friends helping out friends. |
They easily could have what? Taxed online poker sites? How, exactly?
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:56 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Did you just say that the US government didn't care about the money? My, you are Canadian. Money is what makes our society turn whether we like it or not. Our government is all about the money. What you're saying regarding the lobbyist is probably true and they probably paid a pretty penny to get things to go their way. Again, it's all about the money. As I said before, if the online gambling sites were US-based and being taxed like a casino, I doubt there'd be a ban right now because that income potential would far outweigh what the lobbyist paid to have it banned.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:00 pm GMT by khaosanroad
IF the US Govt. carved out a poker exemtion then we would see Harrah's and others open online poker rooms based in the US and that would be easy to tax.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:01 pm GMT by shorn7
| Quote: | | Online gamblers don't pay taxes on their winnings, the online casinos can't be taxed and a decent amount of money is leaving the US economy. So what possible motivation would any legislator have to carve out poker? Because it's a game of skill and it would be the right thing to do to protect our freedoms? Yeah, right. Give me a break. |
Simply not true. Most of the online players that I know are most certainly declaring all of their winnings for fear of major fines and jail time if they don't. Especially now that NEteller has caved and will most likely have to provide a lot of customer information, this is a group of tax filers who are ripe for an audit in 2006. Frankly, it would be stupid of anyone with winnings greater than a few $100 to NOT declare it all. The penalty simply isn't worth it.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:24 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Stupid is as stupid does. It would be stupid for a guy to rob a convenience store that he frequents regularly and when his name and even where he lives is known by a majority of the sales staff. That didn't stop the guy from doing it in a town not too far from here.
I'm really not trying to start a debate about this, but I find it hard to believe that money was not the #1 factor in the US government's decision to ban online gambling.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:36 pm GMT by supafrey
WHAT MONEY?!
There IS none to be had. You're just repeating a word and saying Americans love it as if that proves it. No money is coming from the ban to government directly, so I'm certain you don't mean the U.S. is somehow benefitting from this...
So i'd assume you mean personally? As in bribery? Quite simply bribery just isn't what it used to be. Voting blocks are worth faaaar more than cash to most of these elected officials, so lobby groups are actually far more pervasive than anyone with a fat wallet could ever hope to be.
If "money" was the issue, then the government could easily have done what Khaos mentioned, and what I was referring to previously in in the Scandanavian/Chinese examples. Nationally based sites that offer greater protection for the client while still earning a heaping crapload of money.
And Shorn is most DEFINITELY right about tax laws, etc. Read on 2+2 or FCP or P5s, whereever. Anyone making serious bank at this game that is based in the U.S. has been declaring tax money either as personal income or as a profession. Considering you're allowed to declare your losses as deductions (in one of the stupidest tax models I've ever seen - 'total bets made' minus 'total bets lost') anyone that's smaller stakes than that is not worth consideration.
I love when people generalize about their debating opp's intelligence, experience or naivity and then just end up destroyed. | Quote: | | Did you just say that the US government didn't care about the money? My, you are Canadian. Money is what makes our society turn whether we like it or not. |
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:38 pm GMT by flafishy
| khaosanroad wrote: | | IF the US Govt. carved out a poker exemtion then we would see Harrah's and others open online poker rooms based in the US and that would be easy to tax. |
Yeah, Harrah's would be easy to tax. But if you make it legal for Harrah's, then you have to make it legal for everyone else if you don't want to break about 15 foreign-trade treaties. When that happens, you get fined out the ying-yang and become subjected to having our market flooded all of a sudden with unauthorized versions of Windows Vista out of Antigua and Costa Rica and about a dozen other countries that lift their protection of US copyright agreements and a whole lot of other countries breaking agreements on export duties.
It isn't as simple as it seems.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:43 pm GMT by flafishy
| supafrey wrote: | WHAT MONEY?!
There IS none to be had. You're just repeating a word and saying Americans love it as if that proves it. No money is coming from the ban to government directly, so I'm certain you don't mean the U.S. is somehow benefitting from this...
So i'd assume you mean personally? As in bribery? Quite simply bribery just isn't what it used to be. Voting blocks are worth faaaar more than cash to most of these elected officials, so lobby groups are actually far more pervasive than anyone with a fat wallet could ever hope to be.
If "money" was the issue, then the government could easily have done what Khaos mentioned, and what I was referring to previously in in the Scandanavian/Chinese examples. Nationally based sites that offer greater protection for the client while still earning a heaping crapload of money.
And Shorn is most DEFINITELY right about tax laws, etc. Read on 2+2 or FCP or P5s, whereever. Anyone making serious bank at this game that is based in the U.S. has been declaring tax money either as personal income or as a profession. Considering you're allowed to declare your losses as deductions (in one of the stupidest tax models I've ever seen - 'total bets made' minus 'total bets lost') anyone that's smaller stakes than that is not worth consideration.
I love when people generalize about their debating opp's intelligence, experience or naivity and then just end up destroyed. | Quote: | | Did you just say that the US government didn't care about the money? My, you are Canadian. Money is what makes our society turn whether we like it or not. |
|
Are you really that naive, or are you just goading an argument?
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:50 pm GMT by supafrey
About which parts?
About voting blocks being worth more pound for pound than hundreds of thousands of dollars? No.
That bribery didn't take place here? No I'll stick with my idea that there was no more than usual.
About people making tens of thousands of dollars or more online, based out of the U.S., reporting their taxes? I never said all individuals, but for more than enough to cover the spread I'm sure. I highly doubt the range of unreported income is wider/greater than other industries and I'm unsure of how you could prove otherwise. (Hairstylists, Waiters, big business.) I also have much, much, much more experience than you talking to high stakes NL players quite frankly about their finances.
And the Harrah's example is only a bad one because it includes a business party. There is absolutely no reason the government ITSELF couldn't be running the site, much like lottery corporations. This would not only bring in easy revenue without infringing on international property rights, free trade, etc, (as if the U.S. adheres very strictly to those when their against national interest regardless), but also making taxation a moot point. Two quick and easy boxes to fill in with your SIN (social security number i think it's called in your country)/passport + home address and I think they could tabulate your winnings/losses far more easily than is currently possible. Seems like a win win.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:16 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Water is wet. Disprove that statement too.
I refuse to debate with you about what happens in my country. When you've been an American and have been screwed out of your hard-earned money for as long as I have, come talk to me. Hell, you haven't even had a checking account as long as I've been working at this one job. I wish I was 20 again. I knew everything then.
| supafrey wrote: | | I love when people generalize about their debating opp's intelligence |
Oh goody! Then you'll love the following:
Honestly, the more you spew the less I really have any interest in what you have to say. It's one thing to state logically and rationally what you believe to be the truth about the workings of the government of another country. It's another to be a complete ass. You're accomplishing both. I had no idea your talents were so limitless. Go ahead destroy me.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:32 pm GMT by supafrey
hahahahaha so I'm not allowed to comment on American politics because I don't live in the U.S.?
Or is it because I'm young?
Or is it because your false opinions on this one subject are in fact correct because of the many times you've been "screwed out of your money" by your government?
Seems more like you're attacking me than the "rational and reasoned opinions" that I've presented that you seem to be calling for. You clearly won this round.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:37 pm GMT by BeerWench13
I'm glad you understand now.
P.S. I'm an evil Wench today. More so than usual.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:50 pm GMT by flafishy
| supafrey wrote: | About which parts?
About voting blocks being worth more pound for pound than hundreds of thousands of dollars? No.
That bribery didn't take place here? No I'll stick with my idea that there was no more than usual.
About people making tens of thousands of dollars or more online, based out of the U.S., reporting their taxes? I never said all individuals, but for more than enough to cover the spread I'm sure. I highly doubt the range of unreported income is wider/greater than other industries and I'm unsure of how you could prove otherwise. (Hairstylists, Waiters, big business.) I also have much, much, much more experience than you talking to high stakes NL players quite frankly about their finances.
And the Harrah's example is only a bad one because it includes a business party. There is absolutely no reason the government ITSELF couldn't be running the site, much like lottery corporations. This would not only bring in easy revenue without infringing on international property rights, free trade, etc, (as if the U.S. adheres very strictly to those when their against national interest regardless), but also making taxation a moot point. Two quick and easy boxes to fill in with your SIN (social security number i think it's called in your country)/passport + home address and I think they could tabulate your winnings/losses far more easily than is currently possible. Seems like a win win. |
Clueless.
Goodbye.
Posted Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:54 pm GMT by supafrey
you debate almost as well as beerwench.
i forgot how much cooler we look when we ignore rational arguments and get into heated attacks against anyone that disagrees with us. Talking in two word Hilton'esque garbles really solidify your intelligence. You both win.
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:25 am GMT by BeerWench13
I just find it hard to believe that we're debating over whether or not money was at the root of the ban on online gambling. No matter what twist you wish to put on it, when it comes down to it, it was a financial decision, not just a political one.
supa, I don't wish to argue with you over this and I apologize for pointing out your age, and therefore your inexperience in life matters. Just because you don't live here doesn't mean you don't see what's happening. I am now making a vow that I will no longer discuss politics or religion with any of you any longer. There is never a right answer and it only ends up being a pissing match in the end. You are entitled to your opinions in the matter. I will keep mine to myself since I'm not going to change your mind or vice versa.
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:33 am GMT by supafrey
uh huh. you realize that "money" is like... a noun, right? That's like me saying that the poker legislation was secretly caused because of.... "greed!" ... or.... "morality!"..
These are single words that could mean a million different things - you personally just really seem to not know who/how/what caused the ban and are just attributing it to something that is valued without explaining a single thing about how or why something like money could even be utilized. I've asked you to be more specific a few times now.... whether it was for bribes, grants, power, personal wealth, corporate wealth, looser tax regulations that would increase casino owners pockets, etc. Chalking it up to money is just doing a lot of talking without saying very much.
And making assumptions about anyone aside from their stated arguments is downright retarded. You could no more validly call me too young and naive to understand any more than I could wave you off with one hand and reduce you in similar ways - it was only a few years ago I could call you a flighty, stupid girl and that would be enough to win my side of the debate, right? That doesn't mean it's reasonable. Saying I may not get it because of how many years I've been around makes no more sense than me saying you couldn't understand politics anyways because you don't have a nutsack.
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:50 am GMT by BeerWench13
Congratulations on proving you're an a**hole. Reread the thread for my specifications. I'm not going to repeat myself to appease your overweening ego. I'm done wih this thread and you. There are many ways to say what it is you're trying to say. Not all of them include be a pompous ass, however, you seem to have a knack for it. Don't bother responding because I'm no longer bothering with you. You're a waste of my time and brain power. When you get over yourself just a little, maybe I'll reconsider, but considering that you seem to have gotten worse instead of better, I'm not going to hold my breath. Learn to speak without sounding condescending and disdainful and maybe someone will pay attention to what you actually have to say. I don't right now because you simply come off as a flaming jerk. Go figure that people complain about you.
Mods and admins, I apologize for this post and for the hijacking of this thread. I've just had enough of him and his overinflated sense of self-worth. If I'm banned, so be it. I'll find a forum that he hasn't had the opportunity to poison yet.
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:57 am GMT by supafrey
For serious.
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:21 am GMT by Jernej Zorec
gg Pav , u are my new hero
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:57 am GMT by Ensano
| BeerWench13 wrote: | | I'll find a forum that he hasn't had the opportunity to poison yet. |
| UAU wrote: |  |
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:25 pm GMT by Alaskadude
Ok, so, back to the subject at hand.
I've been searching around a bit today and cannot find anything new about Neteller and the status of everyone's money. Have you guys heard anything?
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:03 pm GMT by shorn7
| Quote: | | I've been searching around a bit today and cannot find anything new about Neteller and the status of everyone's money. Have you guys heard anything? |
It is still frozen for now. From what I have heard and read, they are still negotiating with the DOJ to release funds. But don't hold your breath that it will happen anytime soon.
Posted Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:18 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| BeerWench13 wrote: | Congratulations on proving you're an a**hole. Reread the thread for my specifications. I'm not going to repeat myself to appease your overweening ego. I'm done wih this thread and you. There are many ways to say what it is you're trying to say. Not all of them include be a pompous ass, however, you seem to have a knack for it. Don't bother responding because I'm no longer bothering with you. You're a waste of my time and brain power. When you get over yourself just a little, maybe I'll reconsider, but considering that you seem to have gotten worse instead of better, I'm not going to hold my breath. Learn to speak without sounding condescending and disdainful and maybe someone will pay attention to what you actually have to say. I don't right now because you simply come off as a flaming jerk. Go figure that people complain about you.
Mods and admins, I apologize for this post and for the hijacking of this thread. I've just had enough of him and his overinflated sense of self-worth. If I'm banned, so be it. I'll find a forum that he hasn't had the opportunity to poison yet. |
Wench don't let Egoman get to you. Stick around here and post. You have alot of knowledge to contribute on poker and a remarkable sense of humor. All traits this forum needs.
Posted Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:17 am GMT by snoogins47
| shorn7 wrote: | | Quote: | | I've been searching around a bit today and cannot find anything new about Neteller and the status of everyone's money. Have you guys heard anything? |
It is still frozen for now. From what I have heard and read, they are still negotiating with the DOJ to release funds. But don't hold your breath that it will happen anytime soon. |
Probably somewhat unnecessary, but I can confirm this as my precious monies are still held up.
Posted Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:24 am GMT by crack
Just to add another side of the coin from another side of the pond. A friend of mine from the US trasnferred me some money which I then used to deposit into a poker site.
Guess what? Yeah my account has been closed pending investigation. This has been going on for 2 weeks now. First I got told to send my details to the UK office so I done that, wait wait wait wait. Account opened o/
Within 1 hour account closed.
Phoned them back up and was told that it's not down to the UK office but the canadian office. They don't work weekends and they were not workng on some national holiday, so I have to wait till later this week. Do you think they are just hoping people give up and they get to keep the money?
What I am disgusted about is that they offer to transfer and handle money for people and they havent honoured this. I had a quick check in the TOS and I don't see anything where it states US member can't transfer you money IF you play poker, just in case.
So basically Neteller have turned into a huge joke and I am going to use someone else as soon as they release my money, if they ever do that is.
Posted Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:52 am GMT by vyni
Neteller has just announced that it has signed an agreement with the US authorities for the transfer of funds back to its US customers. They hope the process will be completed within 75 days.
| Quote: | Neteller’s deal with the US Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the Southern District of New York and a company called Navigant Consulting means the company now has an outline of terms and timeline for the orderly distribution of funds. Navigant will also provide a report to the USAO on Neteller’s current financial position.
Neteller said it continues to cooperate with the US authorities. The company has been in discussions ever since it exited the US market following the arrest of ex-directors and founders Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre.
Ron Martin, group president and chief executive of Neteller, said: “We continue to be committed to returning funds to our US customers and working with the US Attorney’s Office. Progress, while not always visible to the outside observer, has been steady and these agreements mark a milestone in the process.” |
|
|
