The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

[PSUColonel]

What will happen to Sportsbook.com? anyone know?

[PSUColonel]

I better damn well be able to bet on football and basketball online the way I always have. I will really be pissed, as I hate dealing with bookies because they screw with the odds so badly, and aren't reliable in terms of being around to take bets when you want. I will be really really pissed if this affects sportsbooks.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I better damn well be able to bet on football and basketball online the way I always have. I will really be pissed, as I hate dealing with bookies because they screw with the odds so badly, and aren't reliable in terms of being around to take bets when you want. I will be really really pissed if this affects sportsbooks.

Serious question...aren't sportsbooks (besides those located in Las Vegas) illegal?

[-apoc-]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I better damn well be able to bet on football and basketball online the way I always have. I will really be pissed, as I hate dealing with bookies because they screw with the odds so badly, and aren't reliable in terms of being around to take bets when you want. I will be really really pissed if this affects sportsbooks.

WSEX already stated they will continue to do business with US customers so that is one sportsbook you can use I don't know about the others.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

WSEX already stated they will continue to do business with US customers so that is one sportsbook you can use I don't know about the others.

Yes, but will my bank (Wachovia) do business with them? I don't see what the big deal is. I'm using a debit card (hence cash) and not running up a credit bill. What the hell is this shit?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Yes, but will my bank (Wachovia) do business with them? I don't see what the big deal is. I'm using a debit card (hence cash) and not running up a credit bill. What the hell is this shit?

Many of the banks in the US appear to be balking at even enforcing these rules simply for the fact that it's going to cost them a lot of money to set up any kind of enforcement of the rules. You'll have to keep an eye on it, but it appears initially that this isn't going to make as big of an impact as initially feared.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Logan

Serious question...aren't sportsbooks (besides those located in Las Vegas) illegal?

It depends who you ask and what their interpretation of the law is. Most people believe that if a law is being broken by making sports bets online it is the Wire Act. The people who feel that it is legal say that it is only illegal to accept a bet online. Not to place one. So you making a sports bet is not illegal, but the site accepting it is breaking a US law.

There are others that say these type of bets fall under state laws and unlike poker, which in many states laws falls into a pretty gray area, sports betting is almost always clearly defined as illegal. I believe that there has only been one guy ever successfully prosecuted for sports betting online. That was a few years ago though and it's possibly more have been since.

[Z²+]

Well, this thread has made up my mind for the topic of my research paper in my Law & Economics seminar. In my search for sources, I even found that there is a journal called the Gaming Law Review. If I'm going to spend the semester researching and writing, I might was well pick a topic that I'm interested in.

Coming up with a thesis was the most difficult part, but my preliminary argument is that prohibiting (or attempting to prohibit) online poker in the US is a futile effort, in that players will keep finding alternate ways to play, and that the US should legalize (and thereby regulate) the online poker industry as the UK does. (also, possibly trying to tie in an analogy to the evolution of music downloading - at first illegal but unenforced, followed by alternate sources as enforcement stepped up, ultimately ending with the legalization of licensed (regulated) music downloads from the record labels (much like a BnM casino opening an online poker room).

Just seeing all that in writing was simply my way of helping to put it into a somewhat coherent format. But at least I'll enjoy my topic.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Z²+

Well, this thread has made up my mind for the topic of my research paper in my Law & Economics seminar. In my search for sources, I even found that there is a journal called the Gaming Law Review. If I'm going to spend the semester researching and writing, I might was well pick a topic that I'm interested in.

Coming up with a thesis was the most difficult part, but my preliminary argument is that prohibiting (or attempting to prohibit) online poker in the US is a futile effort, in that players will keep finding alternate ways to play, and that the US should legalize (and thereby regulate) the online poker industry as the UK does. (also, possibly trying to tie in an analogy to the evolution of music downloading - at first illegal but unenforced, followed by alternate sources as enforcement stepped up, ultimately ending with the legalization of licensed (regulated) music downloads from the record labels (much like a BnM casino opening an online poker room).

Just seeing all that in writing was simply my way of helping to put it into a somewhat coherent format. But at least I'll enjoy my topic.

That would be interesting to read. If you get a chance, update us with some of your findings once you get a good grip on the material through research.

[Jas_lov]

Yes, please update us Z. I took Law and Economics last semester and I wish we could have picked our topic to write on, but the professor limited it to The Death Penalty or Legalizing Marijuana. I would have rather been able to choose and done a topic like this one. There are so many economic implications to this including increased costs to banks which mizzou mentioned earlier and the point about downloading music and movies is interesting because people are still doing it for free which just proves your point that this is a futile effort. I have a feeling this bill won't end up amounting to much as the non public poker sites and the banks will do everything they can to prevent it. Publicly held sites like Party and 888 want the public to know they aren't breaking the law so that's why they pulled out.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Z²+

Well, this thread has made up my mind for the topic of my research paper in my Law & Economics seminar. In my search for sources, I even found that there is a journal called the Gaming Law Review. If I'm going to spend the semester researching and writing, I might was well pick a topic that I'm interested in.

Coming up with a thesis was the most difficult part, but my preliminary argument is that prohibiting (or attempting to prohibit) online poker in the US is a futile effort, in that players will keep finding alternate ways to play, and that the US should legalize (and thereby regulate) the online poker industry as the UK does. (also, possibly trying to tie in an analogy to the evolution of music downloading - at first illegal but unenforced, followed by alternate sources as enforcement stepped up, ultimately ending with the legalization of licensed (regulated) music downloads from the record labels (much like a BnM casino opening an online poker room).

Just seeing all that in writing was simply my way of helping to put it into a somewhat coherent format. But at least I'll enjoy my topic.

The first critique that jumps out at me is that your thesis may prove too much. If the fact that people will find ways to engage in a certain illegal behavior means that we should legalize the behavior--then what is the point of having criminal laws at all?

I think that this is a critique that you can overcome, especially if you come at the topic from a law and economics perspective. You will, however, need to address that concern.

Sounds like a crazy-cool topic. Good luck.

[stevew]

Dear steve,

Due to the recent passing of the Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Act by the United States Senate on September 30, 2006, and its imminent enactment as federal law, we will no longer allow real money gaming activities from United States residents.

We regret to inform you that, consequently, we are closing your gaming account at Titan Poker.

Your balance is available to you. You may access your account and request the withdrawal of such balance, subject to any conditions that might apply, including bonuses received.

We appreciate your patronage, and apologize for any inconvenience caused. We hope to be able to offer to you our services again in the future.

Robin Steele
Manager
Titan Poker
"Become a Legend at Titan Poker"
hxxp://www.titanpoker.com

First such notice that i've received.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by stevew

First such notice that i've received.

I didn't even know that you played poker.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I didn't even know that you played poker.

Not well.....anyways.

Basically I got some free money out of one of those party affiliates, and played on that for awhile(eventually had to withdraw most of that to pay some bills ). And then periodically they would send me another 40 bucks almost every month, and i'd play off of that until I could clear it and withdraw it.

I never played for cash at titan poker, just freerolls a few times.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by primelord

It depends who you ask and what their interpretation of the law is. Most people believe that if a law is being broken by making sports bets online it is the Wire Act. The people who feel that it is legal say that it is only illegal to accept a bet online. Not to place one. So you making a sports bet is not illegal, but the site accepting it is breaking a US law.

There are others that say these type of bets fall under state laws and unlike poker, which in many states laws falls into a pretty gray area, sports betting is almost always clearly defined as illegal. I believe that there has only been one guy ever successfully prosecuted for sports betting online. That was a few years ago though and it's possibly more have been since.

Thanks for the explanation. My first thought is if there's any way to bend or twist a law to make it illegal, its illegal, and everyone is screwed.

Now, how does everything tie in to the "illegal to accept bets, not place them" when the person placing them isn't of legal age to gamble in their country (like I did a few years back)?

[Flasch186]

SUBJECT: New FirePay policy for US account holders

On September 30, 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Once President Bush approves the Act. FirePay (www.firepay.com) will no longer allow US consumer payments for online gambling merchants.

* Beginning the day President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any purchase transactions from US FirePay account holders at any gambling merchant site.
* Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account.

All US FirePay accounts holders will continue to be able to make purchases and receive payments from non-gambling, online merchants, as well as “Deposit From” and “Withdraw To” their US bank account.

Click here for the latest news and opportunities for FirePay account holders.

** Please note:

1. This new policy will not affect FirePay account holders from outside of the United States

2. For any questions regarding these deadlines or policy, please email [email protected]


Sincerely,
FirePay
[email protected]

[Subby]

Firepay sucked anyway.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Subby

Firepay sucked anyway.

Is it crazy to think the other sites (Netteller, etc) will follow their lead?

[k0ruptr]

I've had about 4 emails from different sites stating closure of my account, luckily I got my money out of 90% of sites 4 months ago

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Logan

Is it crazy to think the other sites (Netteller, etc) will follow their lead?

Is it crazy to think that? No.

However Firepay is in a little different situation than Neteller is. Firepay is a U.S. based company. It is far more difficult for them to ignore this than Neteller. I'd imagine if Neteller is going to pull the plug we will know within the next couple of days. Bush is signing the bill on Friday.

Some people were reporting that Neteller's inital reaction was that they are a non-U.S. based company making deposits into other non-U.S. based companies so this bill really can't apply to them. Whether that is accurate or not I don't know. I will say they voluntarily stopped allowing Maryland residents to open accounts, so it isn't like there isn't any history of them bowing to U.S. law makers before. This obviously will have a much larger affect on their bottom line though so I would imagine they are much more likely to fight now.

[Logan]

Thanks for the details.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by primelord

Firepay is a U.S. based company.

Nope, FirePay is a plc (public limited company) that is on the London Stock Exchange.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by cartman

Nope, FirePay is a plc (public limited company) that is on the London Stock Exchange.

I stand corrected.

In a bit of good news, both Neteller and Poker Stars announced today that they will be staying in the U.S. Market.

[Simms]

Stars' official statement, fwiw: hxxp://www.pokerstars.com/legislation/uigea/


Also, here's an interesting article from the LV Review-Journal I found this morning: hxxp://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/687079/internet_gambling_ban/index.html?source=r_technology


Key passages:

The costly, irresistible temptation of playing games of chance on personal computers has been eradicated. Right?

Wrong. Not only did Sen. Frist have to lard up the ports bill to win passage for his pet project, he included enough exemptions to rival the IRS tax code.

It also allows state-licensed casinos, once authorized within their jurisdiction, to construct Web sites with online poker and casino-style gaming. And these casinos would be allowed to provide links to other states and countries where gambling is legal.

This Internet gambling "ban" is nothing close to a ban at all...

"The casino lobbyists in Washington, D.C., thought this was a pretty good deal. It's actually better than that," Mr. Cabot said.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by primelord

I stand corrected.

In a bit of good news, both Neteller and Poker Stars announced today that they will be staying in the U.S. Market.

Looks like I need to pull my $$$ out of Firepay and move it to Neteller. I need to dig up my Italian bank account info to move the money...

[stevew]

What about ISP's blocking the sites? Isn't that part of this legislation, or am I misinformed about that part.

Maybe Dubbya will forget to sign this on Friday, and it will get pocket vetoed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

What about ISP's blocking the sites? Isn't that part of this legislation, or am I misinformed about that part.

Maybe Dubbya will forget to sign this on Friday, and it will get pocket vetoed.

It's much like the banking portion. They would like to force the internet companies to block some of the sites. But the logistics of it are complicated to the point that blocking those sites is next to impossible. It's simply not going to happen. This is more and more looking like a political thing than a bill with any actual teeth in it.

[primelord]

http://investors.neteller.com/netell...oct06Final.pdf

Very unfortunate news. Neteller is pulling out afterall. For the time being they say it is business as usual. Within the 270 day period though it appears the plan is to cutoff deposits for all U.S. based players. Players will always be able to cash out.

This certainly doesn't have to mean the end of things. Another company can step up and fill the void. Still this is not good news.

[twothree]

I wonder if this will reduce the overall field of players in the World Series of Poker next year? Or, will the internet qualifiers come mostly from outside the U.S. next year?

[primelord]

Originally Posted by twothree

I wonder if this will reduce the overall field of players in the World Series of Poker next year? Or, will the internet qualifiers come mostly from outside the U.S. next year?

Well there is news on that front as well. Apparently the WSOP is not going to be accepting internet qualifiers next year. An online site will not be able to buy you into the event next year. Now they can certainly just run satellites that give you enough money to buy yourself in, but supposedly history shows that when you give a player the cash rather than buy their seat they almost always just keep the cash.

I'd imagine the main event field will still be large next year, but probably a good ways dwon from the 8000+ this year.

[Subby]

Is Party still planning on pulling out of the US?

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Subby

Is Party still planning on pulling out of the US?

They already have. You can still log in to Party to cash out (and join play money tables if you want to ), but it no longer will allow U.S. residents to sit at a real money table.

[DeeBrownforPresident]

Check out http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/3356, there are alternatives currently available to neteller (I know mycitidel is still running, they advertise on pocketfives.com), and I'm sure more will be coming onto the scene.

[Flasch186]

anything new on this? Should we continue to take our laptops into our closets to play with the lights off hoping the feds dont come a barging in?

[Z²+]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

anything new on this? Should we continue to take our laptops into our closets to play with the lights off hoping the feds dont come a barging in?

Well, after a month of research and two drafts of my seminar paper, my answer would be that you should feel free to play in your living room with your windows open and a sign over your door saying "Online Poker Played Here!"

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Wire Act does not apply to online poker, so the Justice Department can make all the unfounded, outragious claims they like about the illegality of online poker -- until Congress actually passes legislation that explicity mentions online poker, they really can't barge in and arrest private players.

And since the UIGEA has language that only affects financial transactions that deal with "unlawful internet gambling" -- without giving this term a definition -- and since the Supreme Court has already ruled that online poker is not illegal under the Wire Act -- it can be argued that this legislation has absolutely no effect on online poker. At least, that's my argument in the first half of my paper -- the other half deals with all the confusion & ambiguity currently associated with the industry, and why/how it should be legalized and regulated.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_law/index

For anyone who is still interested (or for anyone who simply just doesn't want to trust a lowly 3L), the following website -- particulary the article archive from the past 2 to 3 months -- is an invaluable resource, in addition to an entertaining read.

Nothing above should be construed in any manner as actual legal advice, and the author is not holding himself out as a provider of legal services.

[panerd]

While I have no fear about ever getting arrested for playing $1/$2 online poker on my computer I wonder about the WSOP. Granted I don't follow poker that closely so maybe this has been discussed at length, but how are they going to handle American players being sent from the major poker sites? This seems like the ultimate pissing contest between Poker Stars and the Justice Department. While the government probably doesn't care all that much about online poker it will be hard for them to not do anything while the poker sites are showing how they fell about the new law on national TV.

[Simms]

Originally Posted by panerd

While I have no fear about ever getting arrested for playing $1/$2 online poker on my computer I wonder about the WSOP. Granted I don't follow poker that closely so maybe this has been discussed at length, but how are they going to handle American players being sent from the major poker sites? This seems like the ultimate pissing contest between Poker Stars and the Justice Department. While the government probably doesn't care all that much about online poker it will be hard for them to not do anything while the poker sites are showing how they fell about the new law on national TV.

Harrah's announced a month or so ago that they won't be accepting any online sattelites for 2007 -- direct buy-in only.

There is some assumption that the bigger sites will eventually find a loophole to exploit somewhere, but aside from just giving winners the $12k and hoping they actually spend it on an entry, it's hard to say how, exactly.

[Flasch186]

looks like neteller stopped servicing the US today....glad this was attached to the Port security bill. Ill also be glad when earmarks have to be disclosed but I digress.

[McSweeny]

bah

so now how do i go about getting money into and out of poker stars?

[Z²+]

Originally Posted by McSweeny

bah

so now how do i go about getting money into and out of poker stars?

It appears now that eChecks are the most viable option. Does anyone have any experience using eChecks on Pokerstars or online sportsbooks? Can your financial institutions block these transactions, like credit card companies can?

[Z²+]

On a side note, not that anyone is interested, but this topic and my "extensive" research netted me an A- on my seminar research paper. I'd submit it to the law review, but I since I'm protesting their elitist snobbery, they don't get to read it. Feel my wrath.


And by "extensive" research, I clearly mean the minimum amount that was required to support my thesis the night before the final draft was due

[Vinatieri for Prez]

One Neteller founder (from Vancouver) just got arrested in Malibu by the feds. He sold his shares in Fall 2005 for 123 million and is now facing 20 years in the pokie. The other founder was just arrested in the US Virgin Islands.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...7ade24&k=94082

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Z²+

It appears now that eChecks are the most viable option. Does anyone have any experience using eChecks on Pokerstars or online sportsbooks? Can your financial institutions block these transactions, like credit card companies can?

I used echeck on pokerstars a while ago with no problem but when I tried tonight I gat a message telling me to contact support. I am awaiting their reply to my email and I'll let you know what happens

[sooner333]

eChecks might not work too well, I believe the main company that performed these transactions, Citadel, shut its doors to the U.S. as well.

I have read that one sportsbook (bet jamaica) has started their own debit card system to get around this, though I have no idea how it works.

[Jas_lov]

Never used an echeck before, but from what i'm reading it appears to be easy to use. The poker sites that stayed around must have figured neteller would be targeted and had other options in mind. I've really been cashing in at UB with their initial 100% deposit bonus plus their UB points to cash and now they have a 100% reload bonus up to $650 using one of their other methods to deposit so that's worth checking out. Also, Citadel pulled out of the U.S. market as well if anyone used them. I just used my debit card to deposit into UB so that's still an option as well if your bank allows it.

I'm more angry that Pinnacle pulled out of the U.S. market because I thought they were the best sportsbook out there. I might try Bodog or mansion. Anyone used these sites for sportsbetting and know if they have decent lines?

[Subby]

There was an interesting discussion on the Czaban show this morning that this bill will actually help stimulate organized crime...sportsbooks like Pinnacle closing up shop will lead to folks falling back on their mobbed-up corner bookie again...

[QuikSand]

A couple of the guys I know who make book have indicated as much to me -- in the last few months, they have had former regulars re-appear on their books and re-open "accounts," after being away for two to five years. Business is booming for the good old fashioned "Hey, Ricky, gimme a hundred on the Packers" school of sports wagering, it seems.

[Flasch186]

how are the ports though?

[CleBrownsfan]

hxxp://www.pocketfives.com/96A9211C-39F7-40B7-B787-15FDB5B5E918.aspx

As many of you know, the founders of Neteller were arrested early Monday morning. After gathering information from several credible sources today, including Citadel Commerce, the Poker Players Alliances, and other media contacts, we can safely say that the following facts about the events are TRUE:

1. Stephen Lawrence was arrested in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He resides on Paradise Island in The Bahamas, not property of the U.S. John Lefebvre was arrested in Malibu, California.

2. The charges, as stated, were money laundering to illegal gambling websites and RICO, which stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. The latter was language used to arrest many mob members throughout history. It also includes drug trafficking and other violations.

3. The investigation had been ongoing since at least June of 2006 and evidence cited in the case goes back to the company's inception in 1999. The company started transactions with "gambling" sites in 2000.

4. The official citation states two instances where the FBI Agent in question wagered on NFL games. He used Neteller to deposit onto a sports wagering site, which was not named. This violates the Wire Act of 1961. The third violation does not list specific merchants, but an FBI Agent deposited onto three separate online, offshore merchants, described as "online gambling businesses." The NFL wagers amounted to $250 or less and the aforementioned deposits were all exactly $25.

5. The Board of Directors of Neteller has strongly urged that the company's shares, which are traded on the London Stock Exchange under the symbol "AIM," be suspended from trading. The value of these shares has plummeted recently.

6. Neither man has any current position within Neteller except for ownership rights. One left in December, 2005 and the other left in October, 2006. Both were the founders of the company.

7. I spoke directly with Neteller today and received the following wording: "From time to time, NETELLER revises the policies of our products and services. At the end of 2006, NETELLER began reviewing the instaCASH payment option, which resulted in the decision to retire this product from the US, effective January 16, 2007. As such, instaCASH is no longer available to US members. If you have any further questions, please visit http://updates.neteller.com."

8. Neteller is monitoring the U.S. situation closely, as can be expected. They stated "We have several deposit options available: 1. Online Check (EFT) - Money in your NETELLER account at no charge available in 4-5 business days. 2. Credit Card - Instantly fund your account for a fee of 3.9% 3. Bank Wire - Can be initiated from any bank worldwide. you must personally go into your local bank with the appropriate bank wire information to initiate a bank wire deposit to your NETELLER account."

9. Neteller assured me that all withdraw functions will remain as normal and continue without interruption for U.S. customers.

10. The complete case against Lawrence can be found here:
hxxp://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=163591

11. The complete case against Lefebvre can be found here:
hxxp://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=163594

12. The only information that has officially been released from Neteller is a press release. It can be found here:
hxxp://www.neteller-group.com/press/en/122.htm

13. An Associated Press article by Larry Neumeister stated, "Lefebvre and Lawrence also conceded in the company's offering documents that they were risking prosecution by the U.S. government, he said. Prosecutors said Neteller in 2005 alone processed more than $7.3 billion in financial transactions, 95 percent of which was derived from money transfers involving Internet gambling. Lawrence and Lefebvre were charged with conspiring to transfer funds with the intent to promote illegal gambling, and could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted."

14. According to Neteller's website, the actions taken today will not affect international users of Neteller, including withdraw options and InstaCash.

15. Neteller has not left the U.S. market. InstaCash is simply disabled for American users of the virtual wallet. The deposit methods available are given in #8 above. While a pullout from the U.S. market is one of the many possibilities that exist, it has not yet happened.

16. The charges were filed in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District in New York.

17. A U.S. Department of Justice statement released Tuesday concerning the arrest. It states, "LAWRENCE and LEFEBVRE are both charged with conspiring to transfer funds with the intent to promote illegal gambling. If convicted, both defendants face a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment."

18. The same Justice Department statement clarifies why the two were arrested and provides a link to several other arrests made: "This prosecution is part of the United States Departmentof Justice’s effort to combat unlawful internet gambling through, among other things, the implementation of the federal anti-money laundering statutes. Other recent examples of the Justice Department’s efforts in this regard include the indictments of two offshore internet gambling companies – Worldwide Telesports, Inc.,(indictment unsealed on May 17, 2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia) and BetonSports, PLC, apublicly traded holding company that owns a number of Internet sportsbooks and casinos, and its founder, Gary Stephen Kaplan (indictment unsealed July 17, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri). Additionally, in July 2003, one of Neteller’s competitors, PayPal, and its parent eBay, entered into a civil settlement agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri to settle allegations it aided in illegal offshore and on-line gambling activities. As part of the agreement, PayPal agreed to forfeit $10 million, representing proceeds derived by PayPal from the processing of illegal gambling transactions."

19. Borth Lawrence and Lefebvre are Canadian citizens and were arrested independently on Monday.

20. Reports from the Associated Press on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, state that bail would be set for Lawrence on Thursday and was expected to be $5 million. Unconfirmed reports state that Lefebvre posted $5 million bail in a Los Angeles courtroom earlier today.

21. Word came from the online poker sites themselves regarding their policies for the short term regarding Neteller: Bodog disallowed all transactions involving Neteller for U.S. Neteller accounts. UB, PokerStars, and FullTilt are continuing to accept payments from Neteller as usual, just not InstaCash options for U.S. Neteller accounts. More information on this as it becomes available. CardPlayer has an excellent article about it that can be found here:
hxxp://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/8122

22. As of Wednesday, January 17, 2007, Neteller is no longer accepting payments from U.S. accounts to online poker or online gaming websites. For more information, including a complete Q&A, please click here. You will still be able to use Neteller for non-gambling transactions and peer-to-peer transfers as normal. Non-U.S. residents are not affected by this move and will be able to use Neteller as normal.

23. As of Wednesday, January 17, 2007, Citadel Commerce (myCitadel Wallet) is no longer accepting payments from U.S. accounts to online poker or online gaming websites. You will still be able to use Citadel Commerce for non-gambling related purchases. Non-U.S. residents are not affected by this move and will be able to use Citadel Commerce as normal. A link to Citadel's complete press release can be found by clicking here. I e-mailed the CFO of Citadel Commerce, who e-mailed back and said they had no further comment at this time other than what was in the press release. I know of no arrests or legal action taken against the company.

We will be adding credible information to this post as that information comes in and is verified by the staff of PocketFives.com.

[GoldenEagle]

I have a feeling in the back of my mind that this is all being orchestrated by Brick and Mortar casinos. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. B&M casinos have the cash to bribe politicians and the justice department to make these arrests. The B&M casinos are trying to cut-off as many online poker rooms as possible. Getting rid of Neteller accomplishes two things for them: 1) It hurts the business of the existing poker room, thus cutting off and further alienating its customer base, 2) It means that when B&M casinos do enter into the online market, they will not have to pay the expensive fees that Neteller has.

There is little doubt in my mind that online poker will be taxed, regulated, etc. on of these days. It is just going to be dominated by B&M casinos which will result in:

1. Higher rake, probably upwards to $5-6 a hand.
2. No more bonuses
3. No rakeback