Thursday, January 18, 2007

And the fallout continues...

This morning I received this email from Full Tilt that I'm sure many of you received, too.. I've been trying to figure out why the Instacash feature seems to be the focus. My guess, for what it's worth, is that the Instacash feature makes it appear that money is going directly from your bank account to the poker sites. We know that it's not true...rather Neteller is simply advancing you the fundage based on the verification of your bank info, knowing that they'll pull the money out of your bank via the standard 3 to 4 day processing time for a normal deposit. If this is the case (for now anyway), Neteller should survive and still be able to accept deposits from US poker players. We'll just lose out on the instant gratification of "sweet! That new poker site is doing a 300% deposit bonus, and the deal expires tomorrow! Let me do an instacash deposit and take advantage of my bonus-whoring ways."

Of course if I am right and the nature of the instacash is the sticking point, that's not going to satisfy the government for very long. There will eventually be another charge of racketeering, tax evasion (my prediction is that will become another big hammer that they start wielding, beyond what they're already doing), terrorism funding, etc., and they'll find another way to put the pinch on eWallets.

One other question, short of simply sending wads of cash directly to RiverStars, it seems as though it could be heading in the direction of simply sending checks or money orders to the poker sites or eWallets. If the UIEGA is hitting US financial institutions on doing business with gambling sites, who's to say that they would refuse to do a cashier's check (or even a personal check) made out to a gambling site out of fear of prosecution for allowing a US resident to conduct business with a gambling site?

Short version, there are still ways to get money to and from the poker sites (what's next, taxing money that comes into your bank account from "certain locations" (i.e. eWallets, gambling sites, etc.)), and they're likely to be functional for a while. Unless some sense comes to Washington (and despite their dislike of Dubya and the concept of Homeland Security, I don't see the Dems doing anything to repeal or even relax the UIEGA), though, I see a continuing assault on entities that do business with gambling sites, and a further restriction on our ability to enjoy an activity that we all know and love (and occasionally hate).

No comments: