Mastercard/Visa -- huge seizure

I thought it meant it's a lot of bullcrap for us to go thru and all we want to do is gamble online and we shall, one way or the other. :D
Understood but quoting or actually paraphrasing Maxd., expect some casualties! Who,what,when,where,how et al=the question(s).

BTW now , "we" should read "we"-1
 
I would like to point out that eWallettXpress uses one's checking acct for transactions. I'm sure there are others, but I'm forced to ask why so many people are using CC, and ATM cards that are, and have been the source of the controversy from the onset of UIGEA. It seems fairly reasonable to allow for someone to put say a grand in a hobby acct at bank A while doing personal business in bank B.

As far as i'm aware, checks are not credit cards and slip through the UIGEA cracks in the armor. Please feel free to correct me if this is not so.

TIA
dodecahedron
 
Hiya: Well, there are a lot of people who do not want to give out any banking information, to anybody, if they do not have to. Thus, pre paid debit cards. Even On Line games know how hard it is to get someone to give out their banking information, to play a game, more the less, to gamble on line. This is why games had Game Time Codes, you can buy at the game store. But, yes, a second bank acct, used for Gambling, e bay, ect. is a good idea.
 
Hiya: Well, there are a lot of people who do not want to give out any banking information, to anybody, if they do not have to. Thus, pre paid debit cards. Even On Line games know how hard it is to get someone to give out their banking information, to play a game, more the less, to gamble on line. This is why games had Game Time Codes, you can buy at the game store. But, yes, a second bank acct, used for Gambling, e bay, ect. is a good idea
No shit!!!!!!!:rolleyes::)
 
Saw that on one of my bank statements, too. (NOT the account I use for QT transfers.) However.... I really wish someone who plays the horses could stir up a stink about this with the bank(s)... as gambling on horses is supposed to be legal... LOL

And back to the CC thing... other than prepaid cards... (and this is my personal opinion only)... Credit Cards and/or household bank accounts should never, ever be used for gambling -- regardless of whether it's considered legal or not where you live.
 
Hiya: The statement in the pic from Nashvegas, is more of a ,"Boo them Up", and, "look FBI, we are doing all we can about it". The bigger the city you live in, and the bigger the bank is, the harder it is for them to actually, "Decline" anything thinking it is on line gambling releated. Unless the check from the Casino looks like this:
________________________________________________________________
OnLine super Casino-----------2/7/2010
In the S. Pacific
asd-2356

Pay To: Casino Log in name, aka; "Love2winalotof internetgambling$"
Pay: Seven hundred casino dollars-------------$700.00


note: Thanks from Online Casino xyz
________________________________________________________________

hehehe. I mean, in a Town like Las Vegas, with people from all over the world here all the time, and one of the highest rates of Internetional Banking transactions in America, It become really hard to know.

Oh, and you just know, that at some point a Bank is going to accuse the Wrong person of having a Internet Gambling Transaction, "when it was not", decline it, causing the person to lose something, and that person will be sitting at the Bank Managers desk, WITH HIS LAWYER. ........
 
Saw that on one of my bank statements, too. (NOT the account I use for QT transfers.) However.... I really wish someone who plays the horses could stir up a stink about this with the bank(s)... as gambling on horses is supposed to be legal... LOL

And back to the CC thing... other than prepaid cards... (and this is my personal opinion only)... Credit Cards and/or household bank accounts should never, ever be used for gambling -- regardless of whether it's considered legal or not where you live.
Yes, it is the second time I posted it and the way it is written became the most important topic of discussion. Nevermind the closing of bank accounts which has occurred but not at Regions afaik but another US top ten bank!!
 
Hiya: The statement in the pic from Nashvegas, is more of a ,"Boo them Up", and, "look FBI, we are doing all we can about it". The bigger the city you live in, and the bigger the bank is, the harder it is for them to actually, "Decline" anything thinking it is on line gambling releated. Unless the check from the Casino looks like this:
________________________________________________________________
OnLine super Casino-----------2/7/2010
In the S. Pacific
asd-2356

Pay To: Casino Log in name, aka; "Love2winalotof internetgambling$"
Pay: Seven hundred casino dollars-------------$700.00


note: Thanks from Online Casino xyz
________________________________________________________________

hehehe. I mean, in a Town like Las Vegas, with people from all over the world here all the time, and one of the highest rates of Internetional Banking transactions in America, It become really hard to know.

Oh, and you just know, that at some point a Bank is going to accuse the Wrong person of having a Internet Gambling Transaction, "when it was not", decline it, causing the person to lose something, and that person will be sitting at the Bank Managers desk, WITH HIS LAWYER. ........
Time will tell but as I posted before the frontlines including branch managers are clueless to UIGEA. Thus, in that sense you are correct. Feel free to keep playing the law of averages,hehe!!
 
As a second stab at this issue I talked with a senior exec from a widely respected casino. They are not US-facing and as such do not have first hand knowledge of the recent actions. They do however have considerable expertise in the field and I value their input. They have asked not to be named.

"As we have no direct experience of the issue here our answers are based purely on our knowledge of how the banking and card schemes operate in general terms."

Q1:As I understand it the credit card companies have moved to block transactions which they identify as being related to online gambling. Have I got that right?

A1: Yes. Both Visa and Mastercard have implemented blocking for all US issued cards on transactions for both online poker and casino. Previously this has been in place by blocking 7995 transactions but they are now targeting non coded transactions. Our belief is that they are getting ready for the financial transaction aspect of UIGEA which hits the statute books in June.

Q2: How big a deal is this? I've heard from some quarters that it's seismic, that as much as "hundreds of millions" have been seized from some operators and that some of them are going to curl up and die because of this. Does that sound like a reasonable assessment of the situation?

A2: At present the figures and affected operators is at best speculation and worst rumour mongering. However, that said, the implications could be far reaching for those operators which are transacting outside of the card scheme rules in relation to 7995 coded transactions (see also Q7). It will clearly impact hard on those operators who have not restructured following the original announcement of the UIGEA and continued to rely heavily on US-based consumers for their revenue. Those operators that chose to restructure following the announcement are steps ahead in focusing their marketing elsewhere globally to allow for this deficit, it may well be a case of too late for operators caught up at this late stage of the game.

Q3: It this global or US only? I suppose another way of asking the same thing is will it affect all customer transactions or only those customers in the US?

A3: Other than individual card issuers who have there own territorial rules this appears to only affect those cards issued in US, although Citigroup appear to have rolled this out globally.

Q4: As I understand it MC/Visa block the transaction, which means the money never leaves the bank and the operator is short that deposit. Will that money ever have entered play at the casino or is just that the tap got turned off and so there's less money flowing?

A4: If the transaction is blocked at source (i.e. the card issuer) then the operator would not normally credit a players account with funds so it is unlikely that the funds would have been used by the end user at the casino / poker room. If the transaction was blocked after authorization was given by the bank, which may well be the case here, then potentially there will be money flowing around the poker room / casino where the operator has not and will not receive the funds and will have to bear the loss associated.

Q5: I've heard that the CC companies will be fining operators for these gaming related transactions. Is that something your average casino is covered against or are they likely to be out-of-pocket for those fines?

A5: This is not normally something that a casino/poker operator would have coverage for and ultimately would affect the bottom line profit of the operator. In general both Card Scheme Rules operate an Excessive Chargeback Report (based on volume and value of sales) and if you hit certain limits here then the fines can be punitive.

Q6: There's been pretty widespread speculation that this will slow payments to the players yet some shops are not showing any such thing. Are some operators simply isolated from this or are they able to absorb the damage and carry on because of contingency planning (or the like)?

A6: Being a non US merchant this I cannot comment on this. I would suggest that the bigger operators will be able to absorb some of this cost; it will hurt but won't be life threatening!

Q7: There's been some talk of a wave of chargebacks being released because of this, presumably initiated by someone other than the player yet the player would have the chargeback on their record. Does this make any sense to you?

A7: Being US exempt it is hard to comment. There are potentially two scenarios here which could come in to effect. The first is a card scheme chargeback and this would affect previously authorized transactions being charged back by the card issuer where there is evidence to suggest that the authorizations were obtained outside of the card scheme rules as they stand, i.e. non coded transactions. Additionally there is a possibility that the card schemes could sanction the operators if it can be shown that the transactions were processed outside the scheme rules and this could be in the form of fines and, the ultimate sanction, removal of transaction ability with the card scheme.

At present these comments are mainly based on conjecture and speculation, until we become aware of the exact figures involved and the stance that the card schemes themselves take it is difficult to suggest the likely impact. If the card schemes themselves were to take the heaviest stance possible then the repercussions for those operators will, potentially, put them in a position from which there will be little chance of recovery. Fines imposed by the card schemes themselves may not be as worrying or harmful as the potential to have the facility of the card scheme removed from the operator and potentially find themselves blacklisted with the card scheme to ensure that future acquirers/processors are unable or unwilling to take them on regardless of the legitimacy of any future transactions.
 
Oh, and you just know, that at some point a Bank is going to accuse the Wrong person of having a Internet Gambling Transaction, "when it was not", decline it, causing the person to lose something, and that person will be sitting at the Bank Managers desk, WITH HIS LAWYER. ........
The layer won't be of much use:

5364
(d) No Liability for Blocking or Refusing To Honor Restricted Transactions. A person that identifies and blocks a transaction, prevents or prohibits the acceptance of its products or services in connection with a transaction, or otherwise refuses to honor a transaction
(1) that is a restricted transaction;
(2) that such person reasonably believes to be a restricted transaction; or
(3) as a designated payment system or a member of a designated payment system in reliance on the policies and procedures of the payment system, in an effort to comply with regulations prescribed under subsection (a),
shall not be liable to any party for such action.
 
What keeps getting my attention is possible retroactive type chargeback issues thus making me feel it's a good time to stay on what I will call a 'break'.
Thanks much maxd. :)
 
That kind of sounds like, "Yea, Keep accepting American Players, and you not only put your USA based part of your Casino in jepordy, You also put your entire playerbase world wide in jepordy, as you might lose all your money processors".
 
As a second stab at this issue I talked with a senior exec from a widely respected casino. They are not US-facing and as such do not have first hand knowledge of the recent actions. They do however have considerable expertise in the field and I value their input. They have asked not to be named.
They are spot on based on my numerous conversations (most not by my choice by any means).

Most of your source's answers have been previously mentioned in this forum *cough* in of course a more simplistic way. Even discussed some with L J via phone y-day. Again, excellent info. from your source. So as a casino watchdog and player advocate site, now what:what:
 
They are spot on based on my numerous conversations (most not by my choice by any means).

Most of your source's answers have been previously mentioned in this forum *cough* in of course a more simplistic way. Even discussed with L J via phone y-day. Again, excellent info. from your source. So as a casino watchdog and player advocate site, now what:what:


So whats the worst that can happen to the average US online player ? This is really starting to get me paranoid, is big brother gonna be knocking on my door or even yours, can we get fined, jail time, a slap on the wrist, credit ruined :eek:or is it the big fish they want, im just a minnow in this huge pond of gambling..........laurie
 
So whats the worst that can happen to the average US online player ? This is really starting to get me paranoid, is big brother gonna be knocking on my door or even yours, can we get fined, jail time, a slap on the wrist, credit ruined :eek:or is it the big fish they want, im just a minnow in this huge pond of gambling..........laurie
JMO on the player, and excluding the obvious like never being paid and speculative answers given by the anon. source, the seizure of your CC's (no idea re: debits, pre-paids-well I have an idea at least on debits) is a concern. I also believe those that have and rely on good credit may have some derogatory credit issues that will require long term (a couple years or so) persistence(sp) to even possibly remedy. IRS and money laundering who knows. JMO very quickly!

Of course, there are many non-player issues but all are also speculative so nevermind:p

EDIT: the player should be concerned but imo the least concerned except for the obvious trickle down or maybe better said "cause and effect" issues.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that MC and VISA were reviewing uncoded transactions across the board...not just in this industry. It just so happens some of these types of transactions occur in this industry. I don't think it is an effort focused solely on the industry.

Singlemalt
 
Hiya: The average Joe/Jane have nothing to worry about. The worst that happens is our transactions get declined. The Powers that be have a Lot of targets to go after. The Processors are first, then the Casino's. The average player is not even close to being on the radar yet.

Why do i say this. When you have Targets, and some are Hard, and some are Easy, do you not go after the Easy ones first? And what could be easier, than having a site pay to advertise on TV, and have their high profile players in those commercials, and wearing the sites Logo on their shirts & Hats?

All the Poker Sites, imhop, are target #1. Unless you think the Authorities believe that the Poker sites are paying thousands of dollars to send people to their play for free site, ie .net, ONLY TO HAVE THEM ONLY PLAY FOR FREE?:rolleyes:

As soon as we see the FBI walk into a Poker Tournament, and drag" insert famous poker player/affiliate here" away from the table, and start reading him his rights, i will not be losing any sleep over this.
 
I guess the major question, I'm posing is.
How is that some processing such as the ones who process for Jackpot Capital and iNetBet fell through the cracks. Other than I do know that iNet did send a large number of my transactions through one of the shutdown operators aka GameAccessClub. I mean still to this very day I can use any visa card that goes through as Virtual-Webcard, a2zpay, and BOS International. Were these processors smarter and or more protected than this Game Access Club? Just seems silly to me a new merchant pops up and then gets shut down literally within months of it opening. They must have done something horribly wrong to get this kind of treatment. So yeah... it just seeems like either someone wasn't clever or just not good enough at coding there transactions right.
 
I just noticed that 3Dice is pushing people to deposit with web wallets instead of credit cards. Have'nt tried to deposit with CC so not sure if that option still works. QT charges are excessive, so I guess I'll try the netspend and see what happens. If the company that sends out MOs for payouts is freaking out, then it can't be long before noone will take our cards.
 
I believe

3D if offering a 5% deposit bonus to offset the charge of web wallet. No w/r.
correct?
 
A little birdy dropped this in my mailbox, more on the subject:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
A little birdy dropped this in my mailbox, more on the subject:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
These sites were mis-coding and cascading credit/debit card transactions (unknown to most customers and potentially having negative consequences way beyond simply not funding gambling for cardholders. This is fact.)

No player advocate/casino watchdog can ignore or justify this, correct?
 
As of today when I tried netspend visa at 3 dice I was told to use my use my wallet acct or QT. to deposite. Forget it not even worth it to me anymore. I dont want my CC info on qt anymore because of crackdowns so to load netspend 5 bucks to load qt 2.50 by the time I deposite Im allready behind lol.

Its a sad day when I say no to internet gaming and Im afraid that day has arrived.

Closed my website down, and I am done!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top