It's a little early in the day for spreading hysteria isn't it?
Penalties established by UIGEA?
There aren't any. Banks are expected to comply and compliance will be reviewed and enforced by their regulatory agencies.
It's debatable whether Internet poker is illegal?
Only for those who think denial is a river in Egypt. Recently, the DOJ grabbed more than $30 million in consumer funds derived from Internet poker. For the banks caught in the middle of an issue they care nothing about, the DOJ's opinion is the only one that matters. Any real debate is about whether Internet poker should be illegal, not about whether it is.
The "notes" are "threats?"
Banks are required to send notification of the UIEGEA requirements to their commercial customers. None of the language quoted here threatened anything, particularly blocking withdrawals. Actually, the regulation implementing UIEGEA specifically indicates that banks cannot block transactions other than those prohibited by UIEGEA; e.g. deposits to commercial accounts.
You may believe that Barney Frank is the Messiah, but he's got clout because he is Chairman of the House Banking Committee. By attempting to delay the required compliance date, he is simultaneously currying favor with the banks too. Banks think this is a ridiculous waste of time - they don't like it any more than you do. Nevertheless, they cannot simply blow it off. They have on-site examinations from federal regulatory agencies that are intended to assure their compliance with any law, no matter how asinine.
Fanny pieces like this cater to the reader's preconceived notions, they do not inform them.
News Comments
Banks Prepping for December (1)
996 days ago
It's a little early in the day for spreading hysteria isn't it?
Penalties established by UIGEA?
There aren't any. Banks are expected to comply and compliance will be reviewed and enforced by their regulatory agencies.
It's debatable whether Internet poker is illegal?
Only for those who think denial is a river in Egypt. Recently, the DOJ grabbed more than $30 million in consumer funds derived from Internet poker. For the banks caught in the middle of an issue they care nothing about, the DOJ's opinion is the only one that matters. Any real debate is about whether Internet poker should be illegal, not about whether it is.
The "notes" are "threats?"
Banks are required to send notification of the UIEGEA requirements to their commercial customers. None of the language quoted here threatened anything, particularly blocking withdrawals. Actually, the regulation implementing UIEGEA specifically indicates that banks cannot block transactions other than those prohibited by UIEGEA; e.g. deposits to commercial accounts.
You may believe that Barney Frank is the Messiah, but he's got clout because he is Chairman of the House Banking Committee. By attempting to delay the required compliance date, he is simultaneously currying favor with the banks too. Banks think this is a ridiculous waste of time - they don't like it any more than you do. Nevertheless, they cannot simply blow it off. They have on-site examinations from federal regulatory agencies that are intended to assure their compliance with any law, no matter how asinine.
Fanny pieces like this cater to the reader's preconceived notions, they do not inform them.