Check from bank of Nevis/ Ny No good ????

[krackman]

I received a call from Royal sports yesterday telling me "the check I was mailed 10 days ago( which I deposited on 6/30) was no good because there was a problem with The bank of Ny" and royal was calling to apologize and asked if they could western union the money to me. I said if that check was bad I cannot believe my bank did not call me to tell me it was no good. I told him I would call him back in 5 minutes after
I called my bank and according to my bank's automated account info the money is available to me so I assume it cleared and was fine.
So with that I called back and told Royal everything seemed ok and he said that "there was 5 checks written from the problemed account and I was one of them and as of 6/30 the checks would not be good" So who knows maybe it went through that fast I told him don't worry I would let him know if I received a call from my bank or had any problems. He said "by the way for inconviencing me and the 4 others they were adding $250 to our sportsbetting account"

Royal is one of my favorite outs for they are not scared to book a bet and have always shown themselves to be in a class of there own when it comes to customer service and the like. THEY WERE GOING TO WESTERN UNION ME THE $ RIGHT THEN AND THERE ( Which I would not of accepted anyway because of the id deal )

I beat this place out of 25k in the last 3 months and they are adding $250 to my account for a minor problem. This just goes to show they are a "bring it on book"

I remember reading JD's post about the bank of Nevis and now it has me thinking was this a bank of Nevis problem or a bank of NY problem?

[This message has been edited by krackman (edited 07-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by krackman (edited 07-09-2000).]

[JohnnyDeMarco]

Krackman,
See G7 thread started by Grand Central Sports. Royal Sports is not at fault here, they will take care of you.

[krackman]

JD I never implied they were not going to. One of the purposes of my thread was to share this with the board before one of the other 4 holders of these checks may of found bettorsworld and posted on this matter in a negative light.

I will say it again "ROYAL IS TOPS IN MY BOOK"

[PabloSonLoco]

Krackman,
You said you don't like Western Union because of an id. What is your preferred method of receiving funds? What is your opinion of bank wires?

[Max the Knife]

Krackman they may be good books by why have problems like this like you always say with all goo books why deal with problems. Have you ever tried Caribi or Royal Island in costa rica they have payouts 5 days a week owner got back into business.

[Grand Central Sports]

Krackman,

The Bank of Nevis has 2 U.S. accounts. One in New York and one in Florida. The bank in Florida has not closed their account yet and may not. You may have received a check drawn on the Florida bank. The only checks we had problems with, were the Bank of New York checks.

I will know more this afternoon on what The Bank of Nevis is going to do to comply with the F.A.T.F and whether or not they will remain in the Offshore Sportsbook Industry.


Peter Jacoby
[email protected]
1-800-213-3370

[krackman]

Pablo- I really love the way the books let you transfer $ so that is my favorite way of moving money around . When I do receive money it is usually a bank check but I did wire money through my bank once and had no problem but I would think that with a bank wire it leads to more of a paper trail than a bank check. But I could be wrong.


Max- point taken .. I thought Royal Island was under the unified flag so I have stayed away from them but I know caribi is solid Thanks!

Peter at G.C.- Thanks yes please keep us informed and yes that was the bank of NY branch that the problem was with.

[This message has been edited by krackman (edited 07-10-2000).]

[Tom0Co]

Antigua and Barbuda passes FATF test: The country not listed as non-cooperative

High Commissioner to London Ronald Sanders has announced that Antigua and Barbuda has passed the test of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) of countries that are fully co-operative against money laundering.

Mr Sanders said that on 22 June the FATF published a list of 15 countries as non-cooperative and five Caribbean countries were among them. The report identifies the five as: The Bahamas, The Cayman Islands, Dominica, St Kitts-Nevis and St Vincent and the Grenadines.

The High Commissioner led the Antigua and Barbuda discussions with the FATF, an agency of 29 of the world's richest countries with headquarters in Paris.

Mr Sanders said that "This is a major achievement by Antigua and Barbuda which has been tarred with an unhelpful image in the past." He said "credit for this achievement belongs to a team of us, led by Prime Minister Lester Bird, who were determined that Antigua and Barbuda would establish strong and effective machinery of an international standard to fight money laundering."

The FATF report has called on its 29 members, including the UK, the USA, Canada and France, "to request their financial institutions to give special attention to businesses and transactions with persons, including financial institutions and companies in the countries identified as being non-cooperative."

The Antigua and Barbuda diplomat said that Antigua and Barbuda "would continue to remain engaged with FATF to ensure that we keep our anti-money laundering regime under regular review."

====

Antigua and Barbuda not alarmed at OECD Tax Haven listing: Calls for dialogue

Antigua and Barbuda's High Commissioner to London, Ronald Sanders, disclosed that he received a letter on 26th June from Jeffrey Owens, the Head of Fiscal Affairs of the OECD, advising that Antigua and Barbuda is among 35 jurisdictions named "as meeting the technical criteria set by the Organisation for being a tax haven".

Mr Sanders said that "the letter from the OECD was not without some positive elements." He revealed that it emphasised 'that the present indication of tax havens is not intended to be condemnatory or a "blacklist".' It also stressed that what the OECD calls 'co-ordinated defensive measures will not be implemented until July 2001, and then only with respect to jurisdictions appearing on a list of uncooperative jurisdictions at that time'.

Over the last year, the Antigua and Barbuda diplomat has been leading his country's discussions with the OECD on tax havens and the FATF on the prevention of money laundering.

Last week, the FATF - a sister organization of the OECD - gave Antigua and Barbuda a clean bill of health as a jurisdiction that co-operates fully against money laundering.

High Commissioner Sanders said, "My government is not greatly alarmed by the news. For some time now, we have been urging the OECD to meet the original 47 jurisdictions they identified as tax havens in a multilateral forum for a constructive dialogue. For reasons best known to themselves, the OECD has been reluctant to do so, preferring to deal with each of these jurisdictions on an individual basis.

My government has always felt that a more productive approach would be to get everyone in a room and to set agreed standards and timetables that would be applicable to all simultaneously, including OECD members.

We still believe that this would be the best approach, and we continue to call on the OECD to agree to such a forum".

The High Commissioner said that, in issuing its list, the OECD has left 12 months open for dialogue. He said "If it is serious about such a dialogue, then it should agree to a meeting with all the jurisdictions in one place and at the same time. It may find that perceived differences on the matter of tax evasion could be bridged in a spirit of genuine international co-operation by both sides".

Of the 35 jurisdictions named, 15 are in the Caribbean. Ten are independent members states of CARICOM, three are British Overseas Territories, one is a US territory and the other is Dutch.

[Max the Knife]

Royal Island 1-800-520-1808 ask for david krackman

[JohnnyDeMarco]

TomOco,
I don't want you to take this the wrong way. First off, I enjoyed my conversation with you a couple of weeks ago. I just have one problem. You come to this site asking questions and making observations like the rest of us do. When I talked to you on the phone-much more of the same. It turns out that you are some kind of investigative reporter with your own agenda and your own web site. I think it would be fair to me and the rest of the BW audience if you identify yourself a such. For what it's worth the answers you got from me would of been the same anyway, it just seems out of professional courtesy you would have indentified yourself as a reporter upfront.
No hard feelings anyway.

[Tom0Co]

John,

I'm not a reporter, no one has ever paid me for an article of any kind. You did ask me if I was a reporter when we talked, and I said no, but that I did have a website. It was not my intention to mislead you or anybody else the wrong way. I think of myself as fair and direct, I gave you my real name and location. I really don't understand how my questions or observations are different from anybody elses here?

[intheknow]

I was told this morning that the Bank of Nevis was never accused of any money laundering. They just didn't comply to the G-7 criteria for reporting in a timely manner. The Bank of Nevis will make the changes neccessary to comply and continue business. The Bank of New York closed the account for some feel good measure. High ups at the Bank of New York will be going to jail for there part in the Russian Money Laundering thing. The two are not connected. The Bank of Nevis, like a lot of other banks Israel included (our greatest ally in the Middle East)did not change their procedures quick enough for the F.A.T.F. All should be cleared up in a few days to weeks and all will be back to normal.

[JohnnyDeMarco]

TomOco,
Like I said before-no hard feelings. I'm a big guy. I guess I just didn't understand your position. No harm-no foul.

[Tom0Co]

InTheKnow,

Not that I disagree with anything in your post, it's just that I don't think it's that clear cut. There's been an official warning out to domestic U.S. banks by the FATF since April '99 regarding the possibility of money laundering with offshore banks that are on the non-cooperative list, which includes St Kitts-Nevis. Many U.S. banks will not do business with banks on the non-cooperative list. However Bank of New York did business with Nevis as well as other offshore banks. If the Feds apply enough heat, Bank of New York may back down... I don't know. If Bank of NY backs down I doubt there will be any domestic U.S. banks that will do business with the non-cooperatives. In any event the real sh't doesn't hit the fan till next year at this time, July 2001. Right now it's all positioning.

Aside from what actually is happening, it just seems that the Feds can win a battle here and there but never the war. Most of the internet shops tried to set up legally and go offshore. Now that its being taken away and becoming restrictive and if ever gets to the point where the U.S. is succesful it wouldn't be surprising to see illegal domestic shops doing business on the net/phone with agents in most cities... back to Square One 2000 Style.

[intheknow]

Tom,
I'm not that worried about it now after talking to the manager of the Bank of Nevis. All the Bank has to do is comply with the procedures set down. I don't think any of the bank transactions we do can be called money laundering. As soon as the guidelines are changed it's business as usual. One to two weeks tops.