- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
This just in on the Reuters Site.
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
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....
- 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 
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Location
- San Diego
Well, at least it's no more than $55 million. 
It also looks like my payout experiences will be even worse with the US Attorney than with Crystal Palace.
It also looks like my payout experiences will be even worse with the US Attorney than with Crystal Palace.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Location
- Arizona
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. 
- 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
)
- 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:
- 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:
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2007
- Location
- US of A
terrorism link
I found this story about the US government trying to link neteller to funding terrorism. Unreal.
Old / Expired Link
I found this story about the US government trying to link neteller to funding terrorism. Unreal.
Old / Expired Link
- 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:
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Location
- Israel
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.
- 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:
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Location
- Israel
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.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Location
- NorthWest USA
I was wondering...Neteller said the money is in a trust. Is that trust earning any kind of interest and if so, who gets the interest at payout time? 
.
.excuse if this question was in any other post.
.
.excuse if this question was in any other post.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Location
- Arizona
Yes, you can be sure it's earning interest.
And that's a excellent question to ask regarding who will ultimately be getting that interest. If Neteller truly wanted to demonstrate they had no desire to hold US customers' funds any longer than necessary, then it would make a pledge to payout a substantial portion of this accrued interest along with the returned principle. Sadly I have no faith that will happen.
I agree it's an excellent question, and it is one that I have asked Neteller (it will be interesting if they reply LOL!)
Tester, regarding your comment Quote: But using your power recklessly, is doing no good for the US ability to fight terror. Unquote
I agree, but with this change: "But using your power recklessly, is doing no good for the US. PERIOD."
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Location
- Israel
I was wondering...Neteller said the money is in a trust. Is that trust earning any kind of interest and if so, who gets the interest at payout time?
.
.excuse if this question was in any other post.
The money is earning interest. That is clearly stated in Neteller's reports. Period.
Neteller's clients are not getting interest for their positive balances. That is part of the business contract between you and Neteller. Since everyone knews that when depositing into Neteller, it is fair in a sense.
Now that money are held and you cannot use them, one may expect to get interst, sicne he cannot use the funds.
But two caveats:
The interest for short periods is not much anyway.
The "fairness" argument asking Neteller to pay everyone interest they earn now, just because this whole scandal, should be balanced by two point:
First, They are just pigeons closed in a cage. It is the USAO, and only him to blame for that. Neteller even sent millions to clients - only to find the money consficated the USAO.
Second, The money lost by Neteller to date, both by consfications, and by major loses due to the change in the business and other loses coming by, is way higher than any interest money. They are not "making a bock" on anyone's back. Maximum they can hope to minimize their loses.
I agree that it does not good for the US. My point was that even for the "highest goal" of terror fighting is does damage. Would the US be less arrogant, they would have got much more support form the whole world. I guess they could have even stop the Iranian bomb.
As undertaken earlier, I've been fencing with a Neteller spokeswoman this morning trying to get a direct answer on this.
I'm afraid the end result is a "no official comment" although she suggests an off the record call which as far as I am concerned is of little if any value when what is required is a straight answer to a simple and legitimate concern.
With corporate responses like this, it's no wonder that Neteller communications are unsatisfactory.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Location
- Israel
It is the first time they heard the question.
The company is in a crisis situation. Do you want her to say whatever she thinks, and get a gang of players cursing them, just because she misspoke?
The company is in a crisis situation. Do you want her to say whatever she thinks, and get a gang of players cursing them, just because she misspoke?
No, I expect her as a briefed and authorised spokesperson to give a factual answer to a perfectly straightforward and reasonable question regarding the monies being held on behalf of clients....or at the very least if she is caught off-guard to ask me to wait whilst she contacts someone who can provide an unambiguous answer to a legitimate question.
I do not expect to be flanneled with off the record whispers, and the refusal to comment on the public record does not imo look good for a responsible financial body.
I do not expect to be flanneled with off the record whispers, and the refusal to comment on the public record does not imo look good for a responsible financial body.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
Agreed. Neteller is a PLC and as such should start acting as one especially in these uncertain times. Millions of dollars worth of US Customer funds are currently in limbo - As such Neteller's customer base have a right to know what the company is doing to try and resolve this situation.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Location
- Heaven
Fully agreed. I also took this up with them last week - just a couple of days before their last press release, which in my mind still left a lot to be desired but it was certainly better than nothing.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Location
- Florida
Is the evidence Neteller is providing going to be used in the US case against its founders? Or are they cutting a deal to protect them? Did those guys bail out? There has been hardly anything in the media about the situation, and most of what has been reported is from NT press releases and the USA Today article.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
Bookmark this page:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
NewsNow trawls nearly 30,000 news feeds online, so as and when more news occurs concerning neteller, you will see it here first more than likely.
NETELLER INTEREST
With millions in 'cold storage' who gets the interest?
US players deprived of their Neteller balances by the wrangle between the Isle of Man e-wallet and US government officials were this week asking the very valid question: "If our frozen funds are being safely held in a Neteller trust account what interest is accruing on the money and will we be getting it?"
It's a legitimate concern with some $55 million reportedly involved....but it's one on which there was no information when InfoPowa tried to get a direct answer to the simple question, and a parallel enquiry of whether Neteller solely controlled the trust account or are independent trustees involved in its administration.
A Neteller spokeswomen first suggested an off-the-record call, which InfoPowa declined on the grounds that it was looking for an email documented public answer to a legimiate client question.
The spokeswoman's response to this was: "On the record, there is nothing to say over and beyond the formal announcements we've made."
As we commented to the spokeswoman, this is a pretty callous attitude to display toward clients who are legitimately concerned about what is happening to their money in Neteller's care.
There was no response.
With millions in 'cold storage' who gets the interest?
US players deprived of their Neteller balances by the wrangle between the Isle of Man e-wallet and US government officials were this week asking the very valid question: "If our frozen funds are being safely held in a Neteller trust account what interest is accruing on the money and will we be getting it?"
It's a legitimate concern with some $55 million reportedly involved....but it's one on which there was no information when InfoPowa tried to get a direct answer to the simple question, and a parallel enquiry of whether Neteller solely controlled the trust account or are independent trustees involved in its administration.
A Neteller spokeswomen first suggested an off-the-record call, which InfoPowa declined on the grounds that it was looking for an email documented public answer to a legimiate client question.
The spokeswoman's response to this was: "On the record, there is nothing to say over and beyond the formal announcements we've made."
As we commented to the spokeswoman, this is a pretty callous attitude to display toward clients who are legitimately concerned about what is happening to their money in Neteller's care.
There was no response.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Location
- NorthWest USA
Thanks everyone for your reply. Interesting!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Location
- Israel
Given the aggressive behavior of the US governmetn's hooligans, and their ability to get hold of USD denominated funds outside the USA, I am not sure that anouncing details about where and how the money is held, is in the player's best interest.
The magnitude of interest is change money sofar that hte money is not held for a long period. I hope it will not be held for a long period
The magnitude of interest is change money sofar that hte money is not held for a long period. I hope it will not be held for a long period
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Location
- Florida
Aggresive? Hooligans?
I heard that Neteller is fully cooperating with the US in its prosecution of the NT founders and preparing all the documents the gov't requests.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Location
- California
Soflat......this ugliness has just begun to affect the American public (at large) and seems to be the catalyst that was needed for much of the rest of the world to chant "I Hate Americans." Yep, it sux.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Location
- arizona
I would assume that the USAO is offering deals to both sides. And everybody involved (founders, board of directors) is in 'cover your ass' mode.
With the founders using their intimate knowledge of company operations as leverage. And the sitting company officers using US players funds 'held in trust', and player records, as their leverage.
soflat said:
Yes, I think for about $5 million apeice. (can't find a link, sorry)
I am not sure that anouncing details about where and how the money is held, is in the player's best interest.
The magnitude of interest is change money sofar that hte money is not held for a long period. I hope it will not be held for a long period
So, are you seriously suggesting that US players who's funds are frozen (and for that matter all Neteller clients because this is a policy that could impact on them too in different circumstances) are not entitled to know:
1) What rate of interest is applied to their frozen funds in the Neteller trust account, and who is entitled to it and
2) Simple administrative information on the trustees of the fund ie whether Neteller execs have sole control or whether it is a shared responsibility or a Neteller-exclusive responsibility involving independent trustees.
?
You're right - both Lawrence and Lefebvre are on $5 million bail each - earlier reports compared that with the $1 million bail granted to an alleged serial murderer!!!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
No, the $1M bail was for a guy that never killed a person. Mr. Devlin to be exact. He doesn't kill people, he just kidnaps little boys and keeps them against their will.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
This is just ridiculous. Two founders of a UK PLC company which is regulated by the FSA in the UK being out on bail for $5million apiece on charges of money laundering. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
JetSet, is there any news regarding the UK Governments view on all of this. Bearing in mind the DCMS are in full favour of online gambling regulation. I am amazed the UK Government have been quiet on this so far, whilst the US tries to destabilise and destroy UK Public Limited Companies and the thousands of jobs that depend on them.
The British government has been remarkably quiet about the extra-territorial damage the feds are causing to British companies and investors, and their seeming belief that the world is their oyster.
Some months back Tessa Jowell made a fairly mild critical remark that the US was making a mistake in going the prohibition route but that's just about been it.
The same applies to the reports that US extraditions under the anti-terrorism treaties were mainly for anything but terrorism charges - there was reportage showing the stats to prove this around about the time of the NatWest extraditions, yet there was nary a peep from the UK government.
It seems they don't give a damn.
Some months back Tessa Jowell made a fairly mild critical remark that the US was making a mistake in going the prohibition route but that's just about been it.
The same applies to the reports that US extraditions under the anti-terrorism treaties were mainly for anything but terrorism charges - there was reportage showing the stats to prove this around about the time of the NatWest extraditions, yet there was nary a peep from the UK government.
It seems they don't give a damn.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Location
- Israel
I heard that many wise persons do cooperate with mafia dons, once they "get the warning".
I am not sure I support Neteller's "cooperation" with the USA.
I do understand them, however. I do not know what I would have done under such kind of stress
I am not sure I support Neteller's "cooperation" with the USA.
I do understand them, however. I do not know what I would have done under such kind of stress
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2006
- Location
- us
i think i read that the initial hearing is actually tomorrow. maybe we can then see which way this mess is heading.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Location
- Israel
I, too remember that the initial hearing of the arrested owners is shceduled n the 14th.
I think that if Neteller are going to have an agreement with the USAO, we will have some hint for it in the hearing. But in legal cases, everything may be off the record until something comes out formally.
I think that if Neteller are going to have an agreement with the USAO, we will have some hint for it in the hearing. But in legal cases, everything may be off the record until something comes out formally.
