Neteller
Neteller shares suspended
Shares in Neteller PLC were suspended this morning following the news that former Directors of the company, Mr Stephen Lawrence and Mr John Lefebvre were detained by US authorities on Monday, 15 January 2007.
Other than as shareholders, neither Mr Lawrence nor Mr Lefebvre has any current position with or connection to Neteller. The Group has not received any communication or correspondence from any US authority regarding this or any related matter.
Mr Lawrence resigned as a non-executive director of the Company on 13 October 2006 having stepped down as non-executive chairman of the Company on 11 May 2006. Mr Lefebvre resigned as a non-executive director of the Company on 15 December 2005.
Mr Lawrence is the majority beneficial owner of Corvina International Ltd. which holds a total of 7,085,541 ordinary shares representing approximately 5.91% of the issued share capital of the Company. Mr Lefebvre is the beneficial owner of Eagle Medallion Fortress Investment Corporation which holds a total of 6,638,094 ordinary shares representing approximately 5.54% of the issued share capital of the Company.
Out of the chaos wrought by the introduction of the The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, had sprung the notion that the electronic money/payment processor service Neteller would decide to continue to process transactions between US citizens and online gambling companies, regardless of the policies and procedures introduced over the next 270 days by the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
The argument centred around the notion that whilst Neteller is clearly a "Financial transaction provider", as defined in the Act, it is also a company registered on the Isle of Man and therefore not subject to US regulatory control. Professor I Nelson Rose, in his leading article "The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 Analyzed" stated:
"The great unknown is how far into the Internet commerce stream federal regulators are willing to go. The Act requires institutions like the Bank of America and Neteller to i.d. and block transactions to unlawful gambling sites, whatever they are. But, while the Bank of America will comply, Neteller might not, because it is not subject to U.S. regulations. Will federal regulators then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to Neteller? And would they then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to an overseas bank, which forwards the money to Neteller?
It is difficult to serve a company with the papers necessary to start a lawsuit, a summons and complaint or petition, if the company has no offices, or officers, in the U.S. Even if the papers for such a lawsuit can be served, there is normally no requirement that foreign countries enforce these types of orders. Other countries are particularly reluctant to enforce a T.R.O., which does not even require that the defendant be present. Preliminary injunctions are also often ignored, because they are issued without a full trial and can be modified at anytime by the trial judge. Neteller operates out of the Isle of Man. I do not know of any treaty or other law which would require the Isle of Man to enforce even a permanent injunction against one of its licensed operators."
In November 2002, however, PayPal, the world's largest electronic money processor stopped processing payments on behalf of online gambling companies. Approximately 6% of the company's revenues in that year had been derived from this business sector.
In July 2002, in response to a federal grand jury subpoena issued at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Paypal was forced to give up documents relating to its relationships with online gambling companies.
Then in August 2002, the company reached agreement with the Attorney General of the State of New York to stop processing payments from New York citizens to online gambling companies. Paypal also agreed to pay the State $200,000 in penalties and disgorged profits and to cover the cost of investigation.
In March 2003, Paypal received a letter from the said Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. contending that its provision of services to online gambling companies was in direct violation of 18 U.S. Code 1960 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which prohibits the transmission of funds that are known to have been derived from a criminal offense or are intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity.
In July 2005 PayPal announced that it would pay the U.S. government $10 million in repsonse to the claims. Prior to making the payment the company had warned its shareholders that;
"Any finding of a civil or criminal violation by PayPal...could endanger our ability to obtain, maintain or renew money transmitter licenses in jurisdictions where it requires such licenses to operate, which would materially harm our business."
Section 317 of the Patriot Act, which amends the pre-existing money laundering offences in the United States under Sections 1956 and 1957 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode, affords the US jurisdiction over foreign persons, including any financial institution;
"For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person, including any financial institution authorized under the laws of a foreign country, against whom the action is brought, if service of process upon the foreign person is made under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the laws of the country in which the foreign person is found, and -- "(A) the foreign person commits an offense under subsection (a) involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the United States; `(C) the foreign person is a financial institution that maintains a bank account at a financial institution in the United States."
The Patriot Act extends the jurisdiction of the US courts over any person or organisation who commits a money laundering offence involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the UntiedStates. By extension, in so far as every dollar transacation must involve a US bank somewhere along the chain, any transaction that involves dollars is subject to US anti-money laundering laws. Money laundering is taken to encompass any financial transaction which generates an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act.
Section 319(b) of the Patriot Act allows US courts to seize funds in a US account if those funds are held for a non-US bank or financial institution, where the non-US bank or financial institution has received funds that originate from criminal activity, in its non-US bank accounts;
"For the purpose of a forfeiture under this section or under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), if funds are deposited into an account at a foreign bank, and that foreign bank has an interbank account in the United States with a covered financial institution (as defined in section 5318(j)(1) of title 31), the funds shall be deemed to have been deposited into the interbank account in the United States, and any restraining order, seizure warrant, or arrest warrant in rem regarding the funds may be served on the covered financial institution, and funds in the interbank account, up to the value of the funds deposited into the account at the foreign bank, may be restrained, seized, or arrested."
On 30 September 2006, the United States Congress passed The Safe Port Act, Title VIII of which contains the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" that makes unlawful the receipt by a gambling business of proceeds or monies in connection with unlawful internet gambling. The first piece of Federal legislation dealing explicitly with online gambling, the Act makes clear that the US government's intention to stop the flow of funds from Americans to online gaming operators through criminal sanction.
In response to the passing of the Act almost every publicly quoted online gambling company has decided to exit the US market. Neteller chose to adopt a "wait and see" strategy. In an announcement to the London Stock Exchange on October 12 the company said;
"As stated in an announcement of 2 October 2006, the Company, in conjunction with its advisers, continues to monitor the progress of the Act and likely resultant regulations. The Company expects to have a clearer view of how financial services companies can comply and any possible resulting impact on its business as the regulations are drafted in the 270 days following the signing of the Act. In the meantime, the Company will continue to operate its business to minimise any potential adverse impact, maintaining existing customer and merchant support across all the markets it currently serves.
In a statement issued before the passing of the Safe Ports Act the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve jointly stated;
"Even when criminal law cannot be enforced, the Federal government's jurisdiction over financial systems can nevertheless cut off the money sources for illegal businesses."
An expert in international banking law suggested at the time, that the decision to stay in the US gambling market would not ultimately rest with Neteller; "They need banks in the UK and the US to facilitate their transactions, and they need a bank to lodge their monies with, much like any business. If these banks decide that they want nothing to do with a company that violates the new Act, then the company concerned may have no choice but to leave the US market."
Shares in Neteller had recently come of their lows on the back of stories that Dermot Desmond was stake building in the company. This morning, the shares are suspended, and it is investors who must now wait and see.......
It is now also clear, that any company that has ever taken a bet from a US citizen, regardless of when, remains open to prosecution. In this regard, Ladbrokes' bid for 888 PLC, is now looking increasingly uncertain...
| Neteller
Shares in Neteller PLC were suspended this morning following the news that former Directors of the company, Mr Stephen Lawrence and Mr John Lefebvre were detained by US authorities on Monday, 15 January 2007.
Other than as shareholders, neither Mr Lawrence nor Mr Lefebvre has any current position with or connection to Neteller. The Group has not received any communication or correspondence from any US authority regarding this or any related matter.
Mr Lawrence resigned as a non-executive director of the Company on 13 October 2006 having stepped down as non-executive chairman of the Company on 11 May 2006. Mr Lefebvre resigned as a non-executive director of the Company on 15 December 2005.
Mr Lawrence is the majority beneficial owner of Corvina International Ltd. which holds a total of 7,085,541 ordinary shares representing approximately 5.91% of the issued share capital of the Company. Mr Lefebvre is the beneficial owner of Eagle Medallion Fortress Investment Corporation which holds a total of 6,638,094 ordinary shares representing approximately 5.54% of the issued share capital of the Company.
Out of the chaos wrought by the introduction of the The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, had sprung the notion that the electronic money/payment processor service Neteller would decide to continue to process transactions between US citizens and online gambling companies, regardless of the policies and procedures introduced over the next 270 days by the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
The argument centred around the notion that whilst Neteller is clearly a "Financial transaction provider", as defined in the Act, it is also a company registered on the Isle of Man and therefore not subject to US regulatory control. Professor I Nelson Rose, in his leading article "The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 Analyzed" stated:
"The great unknown is how far into the Internet commerce stream federal regulators are willing to go. The Act requires institutions like the Bank of America and Neteller to i.d. and block transactions to unlawful gambling sites, whatever they are. But, while the Bank of America will comply, Neteller might not, because it is not subject to U.S. regulations. Will federal regulators then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to Neteller? And would they then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to an overseas bank, which forwards the money to Neteller?
It is difficult to serve a company with the papers necessary to start a lawsuit, a summons and complaint or petition, if the company has no offices, or officers, in the U.S. Even if the papers for such a lawsuit can be served, there is normally no requirement that foreign countries enforce these types of orders. Other countries are particularly reluctant to enforce a T.R.O., which does not even require that the defendant be present. Preliminary injunctions are also often ignored, because they are issued without a full trial and can be modified at anytime by the trial judge. Neteller operates out of the Isle of Man. I do not know of any treaty or other law which would require the Isle of Man to enforce even a permanent injunction against one of its licensed operators."
In November 2002, however, PayPal, the world's largest electronic money processor stopped processing payments on behalf of online gambling companies. Approximately 6% of the company's revenues in that year had been derived from this business sector.
In July 2002, in response to a federal grand jury subpoena issued at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Paypal was forced to give up documents relating to its relationships with online gambling companies.
Then in August 2002, the company reached agreement with the Attorney General of the State of New York to stop processing payments from New York citizens to online gambling companies. Paypal also agreed to pay the State $200,000 in penalties and disgorged profits and to cover the cost of investigation.
In March 2003, Paypal received a letter from the said Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. contending that its provision of services to online gambling companies was in direct violation of 18 U.S. Code 1960 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which prohibits the transmission of funds that are known to have been derived from a criminal offense or are intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity.
In July 2005 PayPal announced that it would pay the U.S. government $10 million in repsonse to the claims. Prior to making the payment the company had warned its shareholders that;
"Any finding of a civil or criminal violation by PayPal...could endanger our ability to obtain, maintain or renew money transmitter licenses in jurisdictions where it requires such licenses to operate, which would materially harm our business."
Section 317 of the Patriot Act, which amends the pre-existing money laundering offences in the United States under Sections 1956 and 1957 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode, affords the US jurisdiction over foreign persons, including any financial institution;
"For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person, including any financial institution authorized under the laws of a foreign country, against whom the action is brought, if service of process upon the foreign person is made under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the laws of the country in which the foreign person is found, and -- "(A) the foreign person commits an offense under subsection (a) involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the United States; `(C) the foreign person is a financial institution that maintains a bank account at a financial institution in the United States."
The Patriot Act extends the jurisdiction of the US courts over any person or organisation who commits a money laundering offence involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the UntiedStates. By extension, in so far as every dollar transacation must involve a US bank somewhere along the chain, any transaction that involves dollars is subject to US anti-money laundering laws. Money laundering is taken to encompass any financial transaction which generates an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act.
Section 319(b) of the Patriot Act allows US courts to seize funds in a US account if those funds are held for a non-US bank or financial institution, where the non-US bank or financial institution has received funds that originate from criminal activity, in its non-US bank accounts;
"For the purpose of a forfeiture under this section or under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), if funds are deposited into an account at a foreign bank, and that foreign bank has an interbank account in the United States with a covered financial institution (as defined in section 5318(j)(1) of title 31), the funds shall be deemed to have been deposited into the interbank account in the United States, and any restraining order, seizure warrant, or arrest warrant in rem regarding the funds may be served on the covered financial institution, and funds in the interbank account, up to the value of the funds deposited into the account at the foreign bank, may be restrained, seized, or arrested."
On 30 September 2006, the United States Congress passed The Safe Port Act, Title VIII of which contains the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" that makes unlawful the receipt by a gambling business of proceeds or monies in connection with unlawful internet gambling. The first piece of Federal legislation dealing explicitly with online gambling, the Act makes clear that the US government's intention to stop the flow of funds from Americans to online gaming operators through criminal sanction.
In response to the passing of the Act almost every publicly quoted online gambling company has decided to exit the US market. Neteller chose to adopt a "wait and see" strategy. In an announcement to the London Stock Exchange on October 12 the company said;
"As stated in an announcement of 2 October 2006, the Company, in conjunction with its advisers, continues to monitor the progress of the Act and likely resultant regulations. The Company expects to have a clearer view of how financial services companies can comply and any possible resulting impact on its business as the regulations are drafted in the 270 days following the signing of the Act. In the meantime, the Company will continue to operate its business to minimise any potential adverse impact, maintaining existing customer and merchant support across all the markets it currently serves.
In a statement issued before the passing of the Safe Ports Act the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve jointly stated;
"Even when criminal law cannot be enforced, the Federal government's jurisdiction over financial systems can nevertheless cut off the money sources for illegal businesses."
An expert in international banking law suggested at the time, that the decision to stay in the US gambling market would not ultimately rest with Neteller; "They need banks in the UK and the US to facilitate their transactions, and they need a bank to lodge their monies with, much like any business. If these banks decide that they want nothing to do with a company that violates the new Act, then the company concerned may have no choice but to leave the US market."
Shares in Neteller had recently come of their lows on the back of stories that Dermot Desmond was stake building in the company. This morning, the shares are suspended, and it is investors who must now wait and see.......
It is now also clear, that any company that has ever taken a bet from a US citizen, regardless of when, remains open to prosecution. In this regard, Ladbrokes' bid for 888 PLC, is now looking increasingly uncertain...
0 Comments about Neteller:
Post a Comment
<< Desirability of Opening a Business