Whats Up with 5 dimes?

[dstover13]

I requested a instant deposit tranfer almost 2 months ago. They have given me the run around forever now. It came to me having them request for me to fax over official bank statement for from me to see if it didnt go through. Like I would lie for $700. One day they told me that check back with accounting in the morning thats when their open then they said check back later in the afternoon when accounting is open. I went thorugh this routine like 4 times.

Then they send me a email saying my bank turned down the instant deposit, this is like 2 weeks ago and the instant deposit was requested on 10/26. They say the bank needed to verify my DOB,NAme and address to make sure I am who they say I am.

I try to get a hold of 5 dimes yesterday morning since they told me the day before to conact them in the morning. They say to check back in the afternoon. I check back in the afternoon and then they say the person in acocunting and the office is out because they left early for chirstmas party.

I get a hold of them today and now they tell me that their processor cant release my funds until their processor notfies them of the outcome of the investigaton.

I ask what investigation?? They say the Department of Treasury. I say what, who I am not being invesitgated. No one had put a freeze on my bank account.

They say I am not being invesitgated just the hold is and not to worry about anything since it only one hold and for only $700.

I ask anyone here that knows this. First is it true or is it like I think, 5 dimes giving me the run around again or is ittrue and if it is, is it serious?

[firedawg]

[HedgeHog]

Ask for Tony-he'll get to the bottom of it.

[dstover13]

have you heard of depart. of treasury doing this

[Dirty Sanchez]

have you heard of depart. of treasury doing this

I'm sure jj is involved somehow

[dstover13]

Who??

[sharpcat]

Just completed a 4 figure book transfer in a few hours it seems as if they are having some issues with their 3rd party payment processor lately.

[dstover13]

Ok, but it not a dept of treasury right???

[sq764]

i dont get why people love this book

[dstover13]

I dont anymore believe me. I am in conatct with relatives in spain and canada about me geetin a BetFair account. I just want to know if their freaking making up the investigation crap

[QuantumLeap]

When only 1 person is responsible for deposits or accounting or transfers for a business expect delays when they are not in. In other words, sometimes you'll get fast service, other times you'll have to wait.

[dstover13]

Ok, I understand this. My whole concern is ar ethey bulls***ing about the dept of treas. inveestigation

[Dirty Sanchez]

Ok, I understand this. My whole concern is ar ethey bulls***ing about the dept of treas. inveestigation

Yeah I'm sure the DOT is definitely after your $700...heard they want it to pay down the debt

[dstover13]

I have taken a lot higher amount than this before from them thats why this is so weird. Or they are actually hurting this bad

[Dirty Sanchez]

I have taken a lot higher amount than this before from them thats why this is so weird. Or they are actually hurting this bad

Oh they're hurting real bad...Obama is looking for your support to take one for the team

[dstover13]

So is the DOT bs from them?????

[Dirty Sanchez]

So is the DOT bs from them?????

most likely...but for your support you'll be receiving an Obamacare card....can't leave home without it

[wtf]

i heard that guy tony there is very helpful and really cares for his users

[onetrickpony]

give me all ur points and i will call tony personally

[Dirty Sanchez]

give me all ur points and i will call tony personally

he's a gentleman for sure

[brxbmbers42]

call and ask for tony. very hospitable individual. he will get right to the bottom of it for you all the while having a huge smile on his face. A+ when it comes to customer svc.

[Hareeba!]

where's Rich ?

[dstover13]

wheres vivian

[sharpcat]

So is the DOT bs from them?????

Because of US laws (UIGEA) US banks are not allowed to make transactions with offshore gambling companies therefore offshore books are required to use a 3rd party processor to handle their payouts for them. This causes complications from time to time when books processors find themselves in a bad situation, the books have no control over this and their only option is to scramble and find a new processor.

As I stated I just received a book to book transfer from 5dimes for 4 figures yesterday and it took 4 hours, book to book transfers do not require a 3rd party processor. If I received my funds in four hours but you are in limbo it is because of the processor and not the book this is the US governments fault not the books, that was the goal of the UIGEA when it passed to make business complicated for books.

This is what you have to deal with living in the land of the free if you do not like it find a local or move to vegas because even the best books in the industry are likely to have problems with a processor at some point in time.

[dstover13]

Because of US laws (UIGEA) US banks are not allowed to make transactions with offshore gambling companies therefore offshore books are required to use a 3rd party processor to handle their payouts for them. This causes complications from time to time when books processors find themselves in a bad situation, the books have no control over this and their only option is to scramble and find a new processor.

As I stated I just received a book to book transfer from 5dimes for 4 figures yesterday and it took 4 hours, book to book transfers do not require a 3rd party processor. If I received my funds in four hours but you are in limbo it is because of the processor and not the book this is the US governments fault not the books, that was the goal of the UIGEA when it passed to make business complicated for books.

This is what you have to deal with living in the land of the free if you do not like it find a local or move to vegas because even the best books in the industry are likely to have problems with a processor at some point in time.

so the DOT excuse is bullcrap??

[sharpcat]

so the DOT excuse is bullcrap??

You aren't too bright are you?

[sharpcat]

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has finalized regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, according to a report on Dow Jones Newswires.
These regulations, sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Oct. 20, would effectively ban online gambling in the U.S. by making it illegal for banks to process credit card transactions from most Internet gambling sites.
With the current administration on its way out, and with more pressing issues facing the government, why the sudden rush to push through these regulations?
It is called a midnight drop - when an outgoing administration finalizes controversial regulations just before the end of its term - and it is the Bush administration's last opportunity to affect the fate of Internet gambling.
John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), met last Friday with officials from the OMB, the agency charged with actually implementing the regulations, in a last-ditch effort to prevent them from being put on the books.
Pappas was quoted on CardPlayer.com as saying in the wake of the meeting, "There was a lot of head-nodding, but no reaction one way or another that they are or they are not going to get these rules out before the key date of Nov. 19."
Public Liaison director's role questioned
The timing of the Treasury Department's action has been called into question by a number of Washington insiders. Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) wrote in opposition to the last-minute regulations, ''I am surprised that your administration would seek to rush through a rule that would saddle an already ailing financial services sector with a burdensome rule in the current economic environment.''
Rep. Cohen has called on White House Counsel Fred Fielding to explain what role Deputy Director of Public Liaison William Wichterman may have played in the decision to push through the regulations before the end of the Bush administration. Rep. Cohen is in particular asking whether Wichterman disclosed "to you or your office his potential conflict of interest in this matter."
According to reports from Bloomberg.com news, Cohen wrote to Fielding that he had heard that Wichterman ''has been a source of considerable political pressure to speed this regulation through.''
In 2008, prior to joining the White House, Wichterman had earned over $200,000 as a lobbyist on behalf of the NFL and had lobbied on its behalf in favor of Internet gambling restrictions. And, before he went to work as a registered lobbyist, Wichterman worked for Rep. Bill Frist - the architect of the plan to push the UIGEA by adding it to the Safe Port Act.
Regulations will hobble e-commerce, pundits fear
Dick Armey, in a guest article for CNET titled "The Midnight Regulation Rush Is On!" warns of U.S. Treasury officials "quietly pushing through new rules that potentially will have devastating consequences for privacy and e-commerce."
The former Republican congressman from Texas cautions against excessive regulatory interference into the Internet, saying it threatens to turn the Internet "into something akin to an electronic version of the Post Office rather than the engine of growth it has become."
He raises concerns that the UIGEA, with its "vague definitions and poorly defined goals force[s] banks and payment centers into a tight position," requiring them to take on investigative and law enforcement obligations far beyond their scope.
"This generates a great deal of confusion," Armey writes, "leaving consumers and Internet users facing the real prospect of perfectly legal activities being blocked simply due to uncertainty and caution on the part of banks and payment centers. For those processing these transactions, the ambiguity is compounded by compliance costs and the paperwork burden."
He further cautions against a domino effect if the government uses the regulations implementing the UIGEA to set a precedent for regulating and defining what types of transactions will be allowed over the Internet in the future.
"Once the federal government begins implementing guidelines for various types of online transactions, what is to prevent it from becoming more involved in every activity on the Internet?"
In our current economic condition, Armey encourages the Treasury Department to look at what a "powerful and valuable force in our economy" the Internet is, and to recognize that its growth is in large part due to the fact that it has been allowed to develop relatively free from governmental interference.
"Restrictive government mandates would only restrain such growth, not encourage it. Each new mandate also brings further government encroachment upon the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution," he concludes. For this reason, he urges them "not to rush forward with sweeping government mandates that threaten the future."
Frank speaks out against regulations
Today, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) joined the chorus of voices opposing this last-minute action by the Treasury Department. He wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson requesting he postpone issuing the regulations.
Said Frank, "I am deeply disappointed to hear that your agency is proceeding with what I consider to be unseemly haste in issuing regulations implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. This midnight rulemaking will tie the hands of the new Administration, burden the financial services industry at a time of economic crisis, and contradict the stated intent of the Financial Services Committee."
He noted that he had introduced legislation - which was passed by the Financial Services Committee of the House - that would prohibit the implementation of the confusing and unworkable rules originally proposed by the Treasury Department and replace them with a formal rulemaking process that would define the term "unlawful internet gambling," something the proposed rules fail to do.
He then strongly urged the Treasury Secretary "to delay implementation of these major, and deeply flawed regulations to permit the incoming Administration the ability to review the consequences of such a significant policy decision, rather than unfairly being denied that opportunity."
The Treasury Department's first attempt to draft rules implementing the UIGEA was not a success. The draft rules, published in October 2007, failed to define what would be considered "unlawful internet gambling."
They also failed to define "illegal transaction," and there has been much confusion as to what types of online gambling would be rendered illegal. At the time, banks warned that they would probably opt to block all online gambling transactions rather than try to determine which ones are illegal. Even an official from the Federal Reserve opposed the draft regulations, saying they were likely to create considerable uncertainty.
The PPA fought against the draft regulations and is continuing its fight against the final "eleventh hour" regulations. "It's really remarkable that this administration would try to push this out given the burden it would place on financial institutions at this time of financial crisis," said Pappas.


Article written by: Sherri Geller

[dstover13]

Actually yes I am . They told me that the DOT is investigating this hold. So I take it from your statement that the DOT is investigating the 3rd part processor not me. Correct??

Please I am not into keyboard tough guys. I appreciate your answer

[sharpcat]

Actually yes I am . They told me that the DOT is investigating this hold. So I take it from your statement that the DOT is investigating the 3rd part processor not me. Correct??

Please I am not into keyboard tough guys. I appreciate your answer

Read the article above you I have answered your question repeatedly.

Yes it is very likely that the processor has ran into issues with the DOT.

No the UIGEA does not penalize you as a player they penalize any bank who does not abide by the laws of the UIGEA.

[dstover13]

Thank you . BET FAIR here I come and looking already for property in Western Canada

[Aristocles]

Thank you . BET FAIR here I come and looking already for property in Western Canada

I'm not sure that I understand this post.

Are you making it clear that gambling is your raison d'être?

[sharpcat]

Thank you . BET FAIR here I come and looking already for property in Western Canada

You are welcome.

Moving out of the US is about the best you can do at this point because it does not appear that the federal ban on sports wagering is going to be overturned anytime soon. Until then the US government is going to make things as complicated as possible for both players and books hoping that this will deter US $$$ from going offshore.

People need to be a little more patient when it comes to payouts unfortunately, just because a book takes 10 days to get you your money does not mean they are out to stiff you in 99% of the cases the books are doing the best they can under the circumstances.

[dstover13]

I play just for US only at sevenwins this is legal because it's a contest site

[dstover13]

I know they wanted to pass it now in the new tax bill but I think it wont

[bubba]

Because of US laws (UIGEA) US banks are not allowed to make transactions with offshore gambling companies therefore offshore books are required to use a 3rd party processor to handle their payouts for them. This causes complications from time to time when books processors find themselves in a bad situation, the books have no control over this and their only option is to scramble and find a new processor.

As I stated I just received a book to book transfer from 5dimes for 4 figures yesterday and it took 4 hours, book to book transfers do not require a 3rd party processor. If I received my funds in four hours but you are in limbo it is because of the processor and not the book this is the US governments fault not the books, that was the goal of the UIGEA when it passed to make business complicated for books.

This is what you have to deal with living in the land of the free if you do not like it find a local or move to vegas because even the best books in the industry are likely to have problems with a processor at some point in time.

did the uigea make it illegal for banks to receive money from offshore books or just to send them money?