- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
This just in on the Reuters Site.
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
All Games
Popular Bonus Filters
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Popular News Sections
Neteller Confirms Funds Seized!
- Thread starter Webzcas
- Start date
This just in on the Reuters Site.
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
The good news is that they are negotiating with the USAO to get US players paid.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/more-neteller-bs.15961/
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/more-neteller-bs.15961/
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
Will the USAO get tossed into the Rogue Pit?
Place your bets....
spearmaster
RIP Ted
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Location
- Heaven
I've been bitching and moaning about the lack of public information for the last two days. I mentioned that every day without news is just another nail in their coffin.
Maybe it's just coincidence, I don't know. But finally, today...
This is probably the source of Reuters' information.
Maybe it's just coincidence, I don't know. But finally, today...
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
This is probably the source of Reuters' information.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
It is. VWM posted the full PR in another thread 
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Maybe I'll just deduct the amount seized from my Neteller account from my Federal tax payment this year and then we'll be even.
Would that work?
Gambling winnings are taxable, so money lost to Neteller could be offset against gains in the legal B & M trade or horse racing tracks.
More interestingly, can gambling losses be offset against general taxable income?
Here in the UK, gambling is taxed by a levy on the companies involved, rather than on individuals. Since the house always wins in the long term, this seems a far more sensible approach than taxing individuals, who always lose in the long term.
I have just watched a documentary about Las Vegas, where one high roller "won" $5000 on a slot, and stated "that's $3,500 after tax" - what a rip off!!!!
When I visited I heard that wins over $1,000 had to be logged by an attendant, and a tax form filled in. As I only played the 1c and 5c a line slots, this was never a problem for me
A Royal Flush might have been different, yielding an exact $1000 (or even $2000/$4000 if I played after a couple of drinks
At least Manchester is closer
Sadly you can only write losses off up to your winnings, not to offset income. $1200 in one hit is where the attendant hands you a pen if I remember right. But it is possible to make 400 here, 200 there, etc. and walk out with much more.
(Not to complicate it, but its just an itemization, we aren't actually taxed on the winning directly, but as part of overall income. If I end up in the 30% bracket, then indeed, 'that's $3500 after taxes)
if I remember right. But it is possible to make 400 here, 200 there, etc. and walk out with much more.(Not to complicate it, but its just an itemization, we aren't actually taxed on the winning directly, but as part of overall income. If I end up in the 30% bracket, then indeed, 'that's $3500 after taxes
)
Nifty29
Dormant account
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Winnings here is OZ are 100% tax free for the individual, unless your registered profession is a professional gambler.
I can win $10000, walk out with it, change it down to $1 coins, fill a bathtub with it, and frolic in it nude wearing a frilly pink plastic shower cap right on the steps of the Tax Office and they couldnt touch a single dollar. (not sure they would want to after that lot anyway)
Not sure if it would violate any other acts of parliament, but Ill keep you posted....
I can win $10000, walk out with it, change it down to $1 coins, fill a bathtub with it, and frolic in it nude wearing a frilly pink plastic shower cap right on the steps of the Tax Office and they couldnt touch a single dollar. (not sure they would want to after that lot anyway)
Not sure if it would violate any other acts of parliament, but Ill keep you posted....
Last edited:
BrianC
Dormant account
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Location
- New Jersey USA
Sadly you can only write losses off up to your winnings, not to offset income. $1200 in one hit is where the attendant hands you a pen if I remember right.
That's correct. $1200 in a single slot machine payout is reported to the IRS
and the winner given a tax form (1099-G I think it's called).
I once worked up a video poker machine to $3000 and cashed out. Since it utilized the newer paper cashout (instead of coins or an attendant coming over) I cashed out the money at a booth and no 1099-G was required.
Brian
if I remember right. That's correct. $1200 in a single slot machine payout is reported to the IRS
and the winner given a tax form (1099-G I think it's called).
I once worked up a video poker machine to $3000 and cashed out. Since it utilized the newer paper cashout (instead of coins or an attendant coming over) I cashed out the money at a booth and no 1099-G was required.
Brian
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Location
- Ontario/Canada
Old / Expired Link
Barclays Bank Declining NETeller Wires According to Online Poker Room
Online poker rooms and sports betting operations in Costa Rica are now discovering that third party payment processor, NETeller, is having serious problems with its primary UK bank, Barclays. All the more reason for customers outside the US to stop doing business with NETeller before they start dealing with the same headaches as their US counterparts.
......
Barclays Bank Declining NETeller Wires According to Online Poker Room
Online poker rooms and sports betting operations in Costa Rica are now discovering that third party payment processor, NETeller, is having serious problems with its primary UK bank, Barclays. All the more reason for customers outside the US to stop doing business with NETeller before they start dealing with the same headaches as their US counterparts.
......
I found two comments in the Neteller statement especially interesting, apart from the general thrust of the announcement which effectively places the blame for these player payout delays squarely at the door of the US authorities.
Perhaps the two points I refer to are related.
First there is what seems to be an unnecessarily prolonged discussion - since January 19 in fact - ostensibly over how to pay American players their dues.
Then, the cautionary comment that 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."
That might indicate that a *settlement* is being negotiated with the US authorities which would put an end to Neteller's fears of US persecution whilst at the same time accomplishing the US government's goal of removing this e-wallet company permanently from the US scene; screwing up US player payment alternatives to make Internet gambling difficult and pressuring offshore online casinos and poker rooms out of the US market.
That and perhaps the prospect of a juicy *settlement* payment that does not necessitate the US authorities having to argue their opinions in a court of law.
Regarding the Barclays report, if it is true that British banks are allowing themselves to be pressured into boycotting dealings with a fellow British e-wallet bank (Neteller) then it does not say anything kind about the British banks or even the British government for allowing this blatant extra-jurisdictional intimidation by the DoJ.
If, and I stress "if" this individual poker room report is true, then it may be for purely selfish reasons on the part of Barclays which values its American associations, or perhaps would not mind seeing a potential rival subjected to difficulties. The Costa Rican bank letter advises only that Barclays has declined to process without giving a reason, and it appears that Neteller has other UK avenues anyway.
As a non-U.S. Neteller user myself I do not see the wisdom of cutting and running every time the DoJ scores another questionable point. Neteller's numbers, despite a decrease of over 50 percent in new (non-US) sign-ups continue in the positive and the FSA in the UK which regulates this company is no paper tiger.
Perhaps the following passages of the Neteller statement bear repeating:
"Once again, the company emphasises that in line with it's standard business practices for all customers, funds held 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," the statement assures.
The statement also reiterates the Neteller strategic position post-US withdrawal, pointing out that the company remains committed to developing its business, including geographical and product diversification for all markets except the USA.
"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," the statement concludes.
The continued suspension of trading in Neteller shares is a concern, but until the negotiations with the Americans have been finalised, and the resulting panic has quietened it is probably the wisest course for both company and investors i.m.o.
Perhaps the two points I refer to are related.
First there is what seems to be an unnecessarily prolonged discussion - since January 19 in fact - ostensibly over how to pay American players their dues.
Then, the cautionary comment that 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."
That might indicate that a *settlement* is being negotiated with the US authorities which would put an end to Neteller's fears of US persecution whilst at the same time accomplishing the US government's goal of removing this e-wallet company permanently from the US scene; screwing up US player payment alternatives to make Internet gambling difficult and pressuring offshore online casinos and poker rooms out of the US market.
That and perhaps the prospect of a juicy *settlement* payment that does not necessitate the US authorities having to argue their opinions in a court of law.
Regarding the Barclays report, if it is true that British banks are allowing themselves to be pressured into boycotting dealings with a fellow British e-wallet bank (Neteller) then it does not say anything kind about the British banks or even the British government for allowing this blatant extra-jurisdictional intimidation by the DoJ.
If, and I stress "if" this individual poker room report is true, then it may be for purely selfish reasons on the part of Barclays which values its American associations, or perhaps would not mind seeing a potential rival subjected to difficulties. The Costa Rican bank letter advises only that Barclays has declined to process without giving a reason, and it appears that Neteller has other UK avenues anyway.
As a non-U.S. Neteller user myself I do not see the wisdom of cutting and running every time the DoJ scores another questionable point. Neteller's numbers, despite a decrease of over 50 percent in new (non-US) sign-ups continue in the positive and the FSA in the UK which regulates this company is no paper tiger.
Perhaps the following passages of the Neteller statement bear repeating:
"Once again, the company emphasises that in line with it's standard business practices for all customers, funds held 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," the statement assures.
The statement also reiterates the Neteller strategic position post-US withdrawal, pointing out that the company remains committed to developing its business, including geographical and product diversification for all markets except the USA.
"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," the statement concludes.
The continued suspension of trading in Neteller shares is a concern, but until the negotiations with the Americans have been finalised, and the resulting panic has quietened it is probably the wisest course for both company and investors i.m.o.
Last edited:
winbig
Keep winning this amount.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Crazy....
Anyone remember these ads about 4 years ago?
If you own a SUV, you support terrorism! You gotta love America.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Snippet:
Class action anyone?
The stop of funds from Neteller to gamblers does not seem to be related to any existing law
Class action against the DOJ. Anyone?
Tax refunds are only for professional gamblers, and only up to their yearly iwinnings. But If someone can show that his Neteller balance was a result of 2006 winnings, he may deduce the loses form his 2006 statement.
Anyway, I think that the palyers will eventually get paid. The money is there, and there is no legal basis to stop the payments. It is a matter of time and a procedure. my guess.
The stop of funds from Neteller to gamblers does not seem to be related to any existing law
Class action against the DOJ. Anyone?
Tax refunds are only for professional gamblers, and only up to their yearly iwinnings. But If someone can show that his Neteller balance was a result of 2006 winnings, he may deduce the loses form his 2006 statement.
Anyway, I think that the palyers will eventually get paid. The money is there, and there is no legal basis to stop the payments. It is a matter of time and a procedure. my guess.
I can see fodder for a class action suit.... just not sure who to sue, nor who would qualify in the class. The US government protects its actors when they have reason to believe they were acting within the law. Don't know if that umbrella would cover NT for cooperating. We may never know when the company knew 'what', nor what their actions were. But something stinks, no doubt.
btw, by dumb luck I don't have a 'dog in this fight'. (as far as I know.) I just think the whole thing sucks, so there's my 2 'coins'.
btw, by dumb luck I don't have a 'dog in this fight'. (as far as I know.) I just think the whole thing sucks, so there's my 2 'coins'.
Quote: Anyway, I think that the palyers will eventually get paid. The money is there, and there is no legal basis to stop the payments. It is a matter of time and a procedure. my guess. Unquote
I think this is a fair assumption. The money is undoubtably there but the difficulty may lie in the uncompleted (as yet) negotiations ongoing with the DoJ and in the practical difficulties of using the American banking system for refunds without DoJ interference, I surmise.
Neteller is unlikely to do anything that may hamper the future expansion of its otherwise still viable though much reduced post-USA business potential.
It's hard to accept that the US enforcers seem to have such clout outside their own jurisdiction, but much of their power is being created by companies succumbing to intimidatory tactics whilst governments let the DoJ get away with the abuse of extradition treaties intended to combat international terrorism and generally aggressive extra-territorial behaviour.
I think this is a fair assumption. The money is undoubtably there but the difficulty may lie in the uncompleted (as yet) negotiations ongoing with the DoJ and in the practical difficulties of using the American banking system for refunds without DoJ interference, I surmise.
Neteller is unlikely to do anything that may hamper the future expansion of its otherwise still viable though much reduced post-USA business potential.
It's hard to accept that the US enforcers seem to have such clout outside their own jurisdiction, but much of their power is being created by companies succumbing to intimidatory tactics whilst governments let the DoJ get away with the abuse of extradition treaties intended to combat international terrorism and generally aggressive extra-territorial behaviour.
'something stinks'
I wouldn't suggest for a minute that anyone at NT will do anything untowards that they aren't forced to do. I was only suggesting that there may be found a remedy in the way they are treated, (umbrella... agents working outside the law) and that remedy brought on by a class, as yet undetermined. And that suit brought against whomever has done the harm.
I was inconvenienced, not harmed. I'm not in that class.
I have an opinion that there should be no negotiations, but I'm not in NT's shoes. Somebody, somewhere, way beyond my suppositions and 'media' outlets knows. it will shake out as it does. The fix is in as they say in RNG's. And it has been for quite awhile. That's my opinion. This whole debacle has a predetermined outcome that none of us can influence. The button has been pushed. Call me a cynic, call me a fool. But something stinks.
I wouldn't suggest for a minute that anyone at NT will do anything untowards that they aren't forced to do. I was only suggesting that there may be found a remedy in the way they are treated, (umbrella... agents working outside the law) and that remedy brought on by a class, as yet undetermined. And that suit brought against whomever has done the harm.
I was inconvenienced, not harmed. I'm not in that class.
I have an opinion that there should be no negotiations, but I'm not in NT's shoes. Somebody, somewhere, way beyond my suppositions and 'media' outlets knows. it will shake out as it does. The fix is in as they say in RNG's. And it has been for quite awhile. That's my opinion. This whole debacle has a predetermined outcome that none of us can influence. The button has been pushed. Call me a cynic, call me a fool. But something stinks.
Last edited:
This whole situation does stink, and it's the smell of hypocrisy and protectionism imo.
The way in which American players are being denied the right of choice and financial facilities to pursue a form of gambling that is selectively being penalised;
The manner in which American player funds are being held in limbo and extra-territorially without public justification and by their own enforcers;
How legitmate businessmen and listed companies and their investors outside the USA are being detained, interfered with and financially damaged;
The implied threats to publishers used to halt and damage online gambling advertising in the USA;
The hypocrisy of politicians and enforcers in the USA allowing almost every form of gambling known to man to flourish whilst selectively pursuing one type and even making *exemptions* for some of that;
The apparent reluctance to actually take issues to a court of law and have enforcer *opinions* fully tested in a fair judicial process.
I'm not surprised that conspiracy theories abound in this sort of climate...the entire US effort against online gambling has a bad odour to it.
The way in which American players are being denied the right of choice and financial facilities to pursue a form of gambling that is selectively being penalised;
The manner in which American player funds are being held in limbo and extra-territorially without public justification and by their own enforcers;
How legitmate businessmen and listed companies and their investors outside the USA are being detained, interfered with and financially damaged;
The implied threats to publishers used to halt and damage online gambling advertising in the USA;
The hypocrisy of politicians and enforcers in the USA allowing almost every form of gambling known to man to flourish whilst selectively pursuing one type and even making *exemptions* for some of that;
The apparent reluctance to actually take issues to a court of law and have enforcer *opinions* fully tested in a fair judicial process.
I'm not surprised that conspiracy theories abound in this sort of climate...the entire US effort against online gambling has a bad odour to it.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
The US only takes action where money is concerned.
1) First Gulf War - Case in point. Protection of vital oil supplies in the Middle East
2) Second Gulf War - Removing Saddam's regime - under context that Saddam has WMD - However none were found and real reason was so the US obtained vital foothold in the Middle East to protect Oil Supplies.
3) Online Gambling not taxed or regulated in the US. Therefore the US steamrollers over the 1st amendment ( Linking to online casinos that accept US Players can now be seen as aiding and abetting FFS ) and over people's freedom of choice and try and ban it instead. Until such a time that they work out a way so they can accrue the major share of the 12bn online gambling cake. The way the UIGEA was put through stinks. That is not democracy. More like Republican tyranny. The act wasn't even voted on FFS.
1) First Gulf War - Case in point. Protection of vital oil supplies in the Middle East
2) Second Gulf War - Removing Saddam's regime - under context that Saddam has WMD - However none were found and real reason was so the US obtained vital foothold in the Middle East to protect Oil Supplies.
3) Online Gambling not taxed or regulated in the US. Therefore the US steamrollers over the 1st amendment ( Linking to online casinos that accept US Players can now be seen as aiding and abetting FFS ) and over people's freedom of choice and try and ban it instead. Until such a time that they work out a way so they can accrue the major share of the 12bn online gambling cake. The way the UIGEA was put through stinks. That is not democracy. More like Republican tyranny. The act wasn't even voted on FFS.
tennis_balls
Dormant account
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Location
- Albuquerque, NM
The US DOJ is working tirelessly in order to negotiate a fair and balanced settlement with Neteller: Old Attachment (Invalid)
Last edited:
This over-aggresiveness does a lot of da,mage to the anti-terror war.
It is not smart to over use your power.
Nobody cares when the US is too aggresive against terror.
I mean, they may not do things smart enough. But nobody cares about dampening Saddam and whatever terrorists.
But using your power recklessly, is doing no good for the US ability to fight terror.
It is not smart to over use your power.
Nobody cares when the US is too aggresive against terror.
I mean, they may not do things smart enough. But nobody cares about dampening Saddam and whatever terrorists.
But using your power recklessly, is doing no good for the US ability to fight terror.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
-
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!
At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!