Alderney revises regulations regarding segregation of player deposits

And I thought our government was slow. This should have been done a year ago! Well, actually it should have been in place all along--but to take this long after the FTP debacle is ridiculous.

http://calvinayre.com/2012/07/25/le...ator-requires-segregation-of-player-deposits/

The new regs were made effective July 24, but existing operators will have until Oct. 31 to submit a plan for how they intend to go about implementing the necessary changes, with compliance expected by the end of the year.

Click to expand...

PDF of guidelines http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/userfiles/file/Ald eGambling (Amendment) Regulations, 2012.pdf

the AGCC may “at its discretion, waive the requirement” to keep funds separate “where a person has provided a written guarantee” to (a) make players whole at a later date, should the licensee find itself temporarily unable to do so, and (b) maintain sufficient funds on hand to make (a) possible.

Click to expand...

Gobly goop... Why would they be " unable to do so?" Unless they spent money that wasn't theirs.

-

-

Don't like that bit at all, JSG. Hey, they've provided a "written guarantee" so what could go wrong with that, right? Also, who's going to monitor part B, to ensure that part A is possible? Perhaps the same person providing the written guarantee could also just provide an equally valuable written guarantee as to compliance with part B as well? Great plan, that .

Kind of sounds like a horrible loop hole. They reference the licensee and an "associate" of the licensee.

At first I was thinking, you could hold a license as a "skin" but use the network banking. But if that's true then the network banking should have to keep funds separate as well.

I also suppose if the licensee goes bankrupt, the funds could get caught up in the proceedings to pay creditors. That's also bs. Somehow player funds should be kept so that they are never considered the sites funds.

Charade You Are said:

Kind of sounds like a horrible loop hole. They reference the licensee and an "associate" of the licensee.

At first I was thinking, you could hold a license as a "skin" but use the network banking. But if that's true then the network banking should have to keep funds separate as well.

I also suppose if the licensee goes bankrupt, the funds could get caught up in the proceedings to pay creditors. That's also bs. Somehow player funds should be kept so that they are never considered the sites funds.

Click to expand...

^^This. Exactly this +1 bajillion. Why is it so hard, if you want to run a legit site, to keep player funds isolated? Period. No exceptions. Unless, as JSG speculated, these supposedly "legit" sites are routinely spending money that isn't theirs to spend.

Let's liken this to a live casino.

If a live casino operated like this, the money in your pocket would be theirs to spend, even if you didn't play.

The money in my account is no different than having it in my pocket. Don't reach in my pocket please.

-

Charade You Are said:

This should have been done a year ago!

Click to expand...

Many things aren't necessarily done when they should be. Somethings are just done after the fact to make people feel better too--but really accomplish nothing. And, it was out there for us to know who kept funds separate and who didn't. Most of us didn't care--until Apr 15.
Someone mentioned this in another thread: "they stole the money and caused thousands of people life changing problems."

I bet some people will manage their funds better in the future so that if one site fails it destroys their life. One could say that this event never should have had an adverse effect on people to begin with.

Since 2006, online poker has been on thin ice. I had started to decrease all my funds prior to Apr 15, 2011. In 2010 there were people podcasting about it and telling people to be prepared for exactly what happened. I think we are all a little at fault because we ultimately refused to believe that anything would/could ever happen.

JusSumguy said:

Let's liken this to a live casino.

If a live casino operated like this, the money in your pocket would be theirs to spend, even if you didn't play.

The money in my account is no different than having it in my pocket. Don't reach in my pocket please.

-

Click to expand...

Actually, the better analogy would be the money we exchanged for chips at the casino--not the money in our pocket. The online sites never spent what was in my pocket. The spent what we gave them in exchange for a credit to our poker accounts--the live casino equivilent of chips.

It wasn't like you were depositing money to an FDIC account at a bank!

tbdbitl said:

I had started to decrease all my funds prior to Apr 15, 2011. In 2010 there were people podcasting about it and telling people to be prepared for exactly what happened. I think we are all a little at fault because we ultimately refused to believe that anything would/could ever happen.

Click to expand...

Well I'm blaming you too. While you were w/d from UB, you should have been badgering me to w/d from AP. You were way too polite.

There I was w/d'ing from all the small sites, Bo, Carbon, Doyles, Gohard, thinking the bigger ones were safe.

I'm still dragging my feet on w/d from Cake.

Charade You Are said:

Well I'm blaming you too. While you were w/d from UB, you should have been badgering me to w/d from AP. You were way too polite.

There I was w/d'ing from all the small sites, Bo, Carbon, Doyles, Gohard, thinking the bigger ones were safe.

I'm still dragging my feet on w/d from Cake.

Click to expand...

I put everything out there as did everyone else. I just took the funds out from where I wasn't playing and left just enough for the micros!