Nowornever Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, Brodie said: Chief, you are correct but as I keep saying the NZ TAB is behind the $1k limit not the DIA! From an earlier post from RUSTY One of my good mates works at DIA and specifically within the AML CFT compliance unit. I bailed them up over lunch today and asked about this $1k v $10k issue. Apparently it (the $1,000 figure) was a deal struck between the TAB and the DIA. Originally the DIA wanted it to be $500!!! They settled on $1,000. We both have an employment background working with a lot of different legislation. There is no breach of the Act here with the TAB doing what they are doing. Pissing a lot of their customers off, yes perhaps, but not a breach of the legislation. Nothing in the Act to say they cannot do what they are doing. Who is right here? Brodie or RUSTY? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 12 minutes ago, Nowornever said: From an earlier post from RUSTY One of my good mates works at DIA and specifically within the AML CFT compliance unit. I bailed them up over lunch today and asked about this $1k v $10k issue. Apparently it (the $1,000 figure) was a deal struck between the TAB and the DIA. Originally the DIA wanted it to be $500!!! They settled on $1,000. We both have an employment background working with a lot of different legislation. There is no breach of the Act here with the TAB doing what they are doing. Pissing a lot of their customers off, yes perhaps, but not a breach of the legislation. Nothing in the Act to say they cannot do what they are doing. Who is right here? Brodie or RUSTY? won't be the brodster he is way too busy emptying the sandpit and telling lies 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Nowornever said: From an earlier post from RUSTY One of my good mates works at DIA and specifically within the AML CFT compliance unit. I bailed them up over lunch today and asked about this $1k v $10k issue. Apparently it (the $1,000 figure) was a deal struck between the TAB and the DIA. Originally the DIA wanted it to be $500!!! They settled on $1,000. We both have an employment background working with a lot of different legislation. There is no breach of the Act here with the TAB doing what they are doing. Pissing a lot of their customers off, yes perhaps, but not a breach of the legislation. Nothing in the Act to say they cannot do what they are doing. Who is right here? Brodie or RUSTY? Nowornever, Where does it say in the flippen Act that it is to be $1k for Casinos or TAB? If the DIA wanted and had agreed on the $1k then why the hell has it not been written into the flippen act? Answer me that one Mr Noworknowall???? I can tell you from experience that the NZ TAB tells porkies! Edited August 1, 2019 by Brodie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 12 minutes ago, Rangatira said: won't be the brodster he is way too busy emptying the sandpit and telling lies Ranga, you are a dickhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 The DIA want to identify money launderers. That is an undisputed fact. The TAB monitor and then restrict certain successful punters. That is an undisputed fact. Not all possibilities and outcomes need to (although if it was up to me, they would) be written into legislation (or into an Act). There are always grey areas within any Act, and that's why there will always be a need for lawyers. In this case the figure of $10k is mentioned within the Act. But there is nothing in the Act to say the figure may be $1000 for TABs. This is why I asked my good friend that investigates this stuff for the DIA about it recently. My opinion is that the two agencies have joined forces in a partnership, not only because the Act says they must in a collaborative fashion, but they have each gone a step further than what the legislation allows for, in an attempt to get a bit more "bang for their buck" with this arrangement. It is a bit like "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Both agencies are getting the intel they want out of this, for their own different purposes and benefits. Having said that, it is not illegal for them to do this. Nowhere anywhere does it make it an offence. At that end of the day, what they (DIA and TAB) are doing, is not illegal under the Act. Both agencies, especially the DIA have an almost bottomless pit of financial resources to throw at it, which includes their legal team, to double check everything is above board. This legislation didn't pop up overnight either. The Privacy Act has a dozen principles that must be followed. I think principle numbers 1 and 11 from memory must be adhered to with this situation, mainly on the TABs behalf on how they handle personal data. The thing is, we are buggered and they have got us by the short and curlys. If one doesn't like it, one can only suck it up or walk away as there is nothing anyone can do to get any change from the current process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, Brodie said: Nowornever, Where does it say in the flippen Act that it is to be $1k for Casinos or TAB? If the DIA wanted and had agreed on the $1k then why the hell has it not been written into the flippen act? Answer me that one Mr Noworknowall???? I can tell you from experience that the NZ TAB tells porkies! Well 5 minutes ago, Brodie said: Originally the DIA wanted it to be $500!!! The DIA is setting the terms here according to Rusty But I believe all businesses need to do a risk assessment that determines the dollar level. https://www.dia.govt.nz/AML-CFT-Information-for-the-NZ-Racing-Board Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 May not be illegal however if what you are saying is correct then the TAB could have said "we will report $10k transactions as per the act but if you want to go lower than that then you need to legislate." As Brodie suggests the TAB saw an opportunity to clamp down on successful punters. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Nowornever said: Well The DIA is setting the terms here according to Rusty But I believe all businesses need to do a risk assessment that determines the dollar level. https://www.dia.govt.nz/AML-CFT-Information-for-the-NZ-Racing-Board And just for point of clarification those bloody things referred to as "guidelines" and "policies", are different to legislation. But we all knew that. Us punters are a smart bunch haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, Rusty said: The DIA want to identify money launderers. That is an undisputed fact. The TAB monitor and then restrict certain successful punters. That is an undisputed fact. Not all possibilities and outcomes need to (although if it was up to me, they would) be written into legislation (or into an Act). There are always grey areas within any Act, and that's why there will always be a need for lawyers. In this case the figure of $10k is mentioned within the Act. But there is nothing in the Act to say the figure may be $1000 for TABs. This is why I asked my good friend that investigates this stuff for the DIA about it recently. My opinion is that the two agencies have joined forces in a partnership, not only because the Act says they must in a collaborative fashion, but they have each gone a step further than what the legislation allows for, in an attempt to get a bit more "bang for their buck" with this arrangement. It is a bit like "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Both agencies are getting the intel they want out of this, for their own different purposes and benefits. Having said that, it is not illegal for them to do this. Nowhere anywhere does it make it an offence. At that end of the day, what they (DIA and TAB) are doing, is not illegal under the Act. Both agencies, especially the DIA have an almost bottomless pit of financial resources to throw at it, which includes their legal team, to double check everything is above board. This legislation didn't pop up overnight either. The Privacy Act has a dozen principles that must be followed. I think principle numbers 1 and 11 from memory must be adhered to with this situation, mainly on the TABs behalf on how they handle personal data. The thing is, we are buggered and they have got us by the short and curlys. If one doesn't like it, one can only suck it up or walk away as there is nothing anyone can do to get any change from the current process. At the end of the day I am all for stopping any money laundering that could stop any terrorism or crime. Just like the airports making it difficult going through security just a sign of the times but necessary in today's climate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: May not be illegal however if what you are saying is correct then the TAB could have said "we will report $10k transactions as per the act but if you want to go lower than that then you need to legislate." As Brodie suggests the TAB saw an opportunity to clamp down on successful punters. Exactly. 100% correct. They (the TAB) could have said that, and perhaps they did try that (I have zero sources at the TAB), but by the end of the negotiation period, it didn't result in that. Brodie on the money (how much money was that Brodster, more than $1,000 haha just jokes mate). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Nowornever said: At the end of the day I am all for stopping any money laundering that could stop any terrorism or crime. Just like the airports making it difficult going through security just a sign of the times but necessary in today's climate. FFS Noworknowall! Which part”of punters putting on $2 isn’t money laundering, or assisting terrorism, do you not understand???? You are clearly a government paid worker going by your support of a stupid policy. What chance has the TAB got of being more successful if the bosses can not negotiate a sensible amount as to what could constitute money laundering in this day and age??? Edited August 1, 2019 by Brodie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Would be interested in the thoughts of the Racing minister. On why a punter has to jump through hoops to collect their big payout after putting on a few gold coins. Hopefully common sense prevails sooner rather than later and that type of situation can return to normal transmission. I doubt it will, but here is hoping. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, Brodie said: FFS Noworknowall! Which part”of punters putting on $2 isn’t money laundering, or assisting terrorism, do you not understand???? You are clearly a government paid worker going by your support of a stupid policy. Incorrect. Semi retired. And every time I collected money from my TAB account in the past be it 1000 or 50,000 I still had to present ID to recover it from my account so will not impact me much if I still have to do it going forward. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiplash smile Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 12 minutes ago, Brodie said: FFS Noworknowall! Which part”of punters putting on $2 isn’t money laundering, or assisting terrorism, do you not understand???? You are clearly a government paid worker going by your support of a stupid policy. What chance has the TAB got of being more successful if the bosses can not negotiate a sensible amount as to what could constitute money laundering in this day and age??? what is money laundering as far as the tab are concerned brodie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shodsie Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 brodie....... the tab can get all the info they want now,without all the bloody hassles......... this is going to be a bloody pain in the arse and they know it......... you got too remember you only need a verified account and pin no...... dosn't mean it has too be your account.......... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 36 minutes ago, whiplash smile said: what is money laundering as far as the tab are concerned brodie? Wouldn’t have a clue Whiplash, I doubt they do either. There is no logic to the policy. 46 minutes ago, Nowornever said: Incorrect. Semi retired. And every time I collected money from my TAB account in the past be it 1000 or 50,000 I still had to present ID to recover it from my account so will not impact me much if I still have to do it going forward. You are lucky then that the TAB allowed you to get your balance to 50k. We’re you a restricted punter or a losing punter? If you were restricted what was your restriction? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, shodsie said: brodie....... the tab can get all the info they want now,without all the bloody hassles......... this is going to be a bloody pain in the arse and they know it......... you got too remember you only need a verified account and pin no...... dosn't mean it has too be your account.......... There are only so many accounts you can use though. You watch there is going to be major ramifications over this BS. I am not bothering anymore, hope it blows up in their faces, they deserve it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiplash smile Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 only a govt monopoly;y and overpaid civil servants could get away this absolute fuckin rort! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 12 hours ago, Brodie said: Wouldn’t have a clue Whiplash, I doubt they do either. There is no logic to the policy. You are lucky then that the TAB allowed you to get your balance to 50k. We’re you a restricted punter or a losing punter? If you were restricted what was your restriction? Come in Nowornever! Would be interested in your answers to my questions, or have you gone to ground? Semi-retired? What does that mean, you are part time government paid worker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Sorry Brodie been busy. Some of us have a life outside of whingeing about restrictions on online forums. On 1/08/2019 at 9:27 PM, Brodie said: We’re you a restricted punter or a losing punter? In the interest of anyone that might be listening I am going to say losing punter! 23 hours ago, Brodie said: Semi-retired? What does that mean, you are part time government paid worker? Well I suppose I could be fully retired but I choose to manage my own properties. I have never worked for a Govt agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted August 3, 2019 Author Share Posted August 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Nowornever said: Sorry Brodie been busy. Some of us have a life outside of whingeing about restrictions on online forums. In the interest of anyone that might be listening I am going to say losing punter! Well I suppose I could be fully retired but I choose to manage my own properties. I have never worked for a Govt agency. Good to hear you have a life, not sure you answered my question about being restricted or not? If you aren’t restricted I would not think that you ever had a $50k balance in your account otherwise I would say you are the type of person that the AML people are after! You must still be busy if you haven’t got time to answer a simple question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 I think the bone only has the marrow left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.