After July 15th It will Be Illegal to Exchange The Iraqi Dinar in the U.S.

[Flash101]

We are Grandfather'd if we have receipts

[umbertino]

I hope to hear from Adam on this subject!!!

Me too.

[Gibbs427]

Please correct me if my thinking on this is wrong.

Reading the qualifications, section "1" says we are qualified IF our net worth is in excess of $1M.

If we hold 1M dinar and it's revalued worth is $3M to $5M (whatever the rate comes out at), doesn't that automatically make us in possession of well over the minimum $1M in net worth???

IF my thinking is correct, we have nothing to worry about.

Section 413(a) of the Act alters the financial qualifications of who can be considered an accredited investor, and thus a qualified as eligible participant (“QEP”). Specifically, the revised accredited investor standard includes only the following types of individuals:

1) A natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with spouse, is at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of such investor's primary residence;

2) A natural person who had individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years and a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year; or

3) A director, executive officer, or general partner of the issuer of the securities being offered or sold, or a director, executive officer, or general partner of a general partner of that issuer.

Read more:

Edited June 19, 2011 by Gibbs427

[umbertino]

This would have to be unconstitutional, Discrimination against the low income people. How could that be right?

Yep. And not only low income. Also middle income people.

[Flash101]

Calm down everyone we are OK its a waiting game now. Let's see what it RV's at before blowing off steam

Remember past post's about two months ago about BIG RUMORS before it RV's

[Kanga]

It took me a long time to read all 6 pages, WOW.

So lets study this for a bit. Disregarding it appears to even more limit our GOD given freedom of being USA citizens. Lets study a work around this problem.

Ok, so this applies to accredited investors. Some of us, if this is true will go to another country and cash out there.

Lets do another work around the issue. Lets set up a corporation after cashing in one 25,000 Dinar note. Then deposit the rest of the Dinar into the corporation as a gift. Sure you owe gift tax. You legally cash in all of your Dinar.

Simple, effective, and a great work around! :twocents:

[SKJ]

Thanks again Phoenix for comming on here with your post and explanation.

I agree this new law is great news because it confirms the removal

of the artificial program rate. It also proves the rate is to be

changed very very soon.

Some of the people on this site like SLADE & KEEPM are

clueless to what is about to take place with the dinar and are the reason

most don't post here anymore.

I have been a long time listener of your nightly broadcast & reader

of Lakehouses blog and hopefully one day to be invited to become a member of your site.

Thanks Again!

This seems to be about Broker Dealers and currency exchange. It seems they are restricting who can sell or cash in foreign currency. This is from a Morgan Lewis Site: Time Running Out on Retail Currency Business for SEC-Registered Broker-Dealers http://www.morganlewis.com/index.cfm/publicationID/0ca3d2c0-9259-4997-b139-7f211f428ad8/fuseaction/publication.detail

Retail Forex Transactions

The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) provides that only enumerated regulated entities are permitted to "solicit" or transact in off-exchange foreign currency transactions (forex transactions) for non-ECPs.[6] These regulated entities include U.S.-regulated banks, SEC-registered BDs, FCMs, and Forex Dealers. Covered forex transactions include forwards and options conducted in the over-the-counter market as well as off-exchange futures and leveraged transactions that do not result in actual delivery of currency. An ECP is defined in Section 1a(18) of the CEA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, and includes, for purposes of transacting in foreign exchange, (i) a corporation, partnership, organization, trust, or other entity (other than a commodity pool) that has total assets exceeding $10 million; (ii) an individual that has in excess of $10 million "invested on a discretionary basis";[7] and (iii) a commodity pool that is formed and operated by a person regulated under the CEA (but only if all of the participants in the pool are ECPs).

Spot transactions are excluded from the scope of the regulation, as are physically settled transactions that are not "offered, or entered into, on a leveraged or margined basis, or financed by the offeror." Spot transactions are narrowly defined to include only physically settled transactions settling in two business days and transactions that create an enforceable obligation to deliver among persons that have the ability to do so in connection with a line of business.[8] Neither the SEC nor the CFTC has provided interpretive guidance on what it means for a transaction to be entered into on a leveraged or margined basis or to be financed by the offeror. Although it would be appear contrary to the common meaning of the term "financing," a currency conversion carried out by a BD in connection with a securities purchase for a retail customer could be interpreted to be a "financing" due to the settlement risk. As a result, to the extent that the statute was to be interpreted in this way, BDs would not be eligible to carry out those conversions for retail customers after July 16, absent SEC relief. While a BD could avoid this result by settling the foreign currency conversion T+2 (ahead of the T+3 settlement for the security), that approach would impose additional market risk on either the customer or BD, depending upon how the one-day pricing risk was allocated.

Broker-Dealers Offering Retail Forex

Although the CEA provides that enumerated regulated entities may act or offer to act as counterparty in retail forex transactions, the Dodd-Frank Act added Section 2©(2)(E)[9] to the CEA, which provides that an otherwise regulated entity, such as a bank or BD, for which there is a federal regulator, may not offer or enter into retail forex transactions unless offered pursuant to rules of the applicable federal regulator.[10] The applicable regulator for BDs is the SEC. However, to date, the SEC has not published rules and the staff has informally suggested that the SEC is not likely to do so. As a result, as of July 16, 2011, BDs will no longer be able to effect transactions to purchase or sell currency for their retail customers, unless the currency transaction will be physically settled in two business days or otherwise falls outside the coverage of the CEA (e.g., because the transaction is not leveraged, margined, or financed). The CEA does not include exemptions for hedging or de minimis transactions.

The prohibition on soliciting and transacting in retail forex applies to every type of BD. As a result, clearing firms will not be able to facilitate retail forex trades for customers of their U.S. and foreign correspondents. A correspondent BD would not be allowed to handle execution of retail foreign exchange itself (e.g., through its institutional foreign exchange desk) unless the customers are ECPs. BDs that direct retail forex to another entity that is appropriately registered for the business (e.g., an FCM) would not be affected.

The CFTC's ability to fix this problem is limited. The CFTC is not allowed to regulate or have its rules apply to a BD. The CEA expressly provides that a BD may not qualify to carry out this activity by routing the business through an FCM that is part of the BD. In its forex rules, the CFTC has similarly provided that a BD may not address the problem by dually registering as a Forex Dealer.[11] As a result, unless the SEC acts, retail forex may only be conducted by a regulated entity that is outside of a BD.

BDs who currently conduct retail forex transactions for their customers should work with their customers to open separate accounts for the business at an FCM, bank, or Forex Dealer. In terms of legacy transactions, it is not clear whether or not they would continue to be enforceable and legal if carried by the BD. As a result, absent SEC relief, BDs may want to consider novating them to a properly regulated FCM, bank, or Forex Dealer.

Investment Advisers

Investment advisers are also impacted by these rules. Under the CEA and CFTC rules, a person who exercises discretionary authority over a retail forex account carried at an FCM or Forex Dealer must itself register as a CTA. The CEA excludes from this requirement other regulated entities that are permitted to act as counterparty to retail transactions, but does not exclude registered investment advisers. Since BDs will no longer be a type of authorized entity for such activity, financial advisers and other types of registered investment advisers (RIAs) will no longer be able to advise retail customers on foreign exchange transactions conducted through an FCM or Forex Dealer unless they are licensed as a CTA with the CFTC. To the extent that the retail foreign exchange transactions on which an adviser provides advice are executed through a bank, a discretionary adviser will not be required to register as a CTA.

Conclusion

Section 4(a) of the CEA provides that contracts executed in violation of the CEA are illegal. As a result-notwithstanding that many of the retail forex transactions carried out today may in fact be outside of the class of transactions regulated by the CEA, as may be much of the advice on forex that is provided to retail customers by investment advisers-given the lack of clarity and the fact that transactions conducted in violation of the CEA pose risks regarding the enforceability of trades, BDs and investment advisers should examine their retail foreign exchange activities and consider moving their affected business to an FCM, Forex Dealer, or a bank.

If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact any of the following Morgan Lewis attorneys:

New York

P. Georgia Bullitt

Michael A Piracci

F. Mindy Lo

[1]. Pub. L. No. 111-203 (2010).

[2]. As an example, if a customer places an order to purchase ordinary shares of British Petroleum, payment must be made in British pounds sterling. If the customer only has U.S. dollars in his or her account, the BD executing the transaction must purchase the pounds by settlement date to deliver in payment for the ordinary shares. Settlement of the stock purchase is typically T+3, or longer than the two business days referenced in the Commodity Exchange Act for "spot" currency transactions that are excluded from the requirement that a regulated entity act as counterparty. Whether the conversion may be legally carried out by a BD depends on whether the BD would be deemed to be "financing" the conversion or not.

[3]. See http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2010-21729a.pdf.

[4]. See 76 Fed. Reg. 28358 (May 17, 2011).

[5]. See 76 Fed. Reg. 22633 (Apr. 22, 2011).

[6]. Section 2©(2)((i)(II of the CEA

[7]. This provision is stricter than the current definition that counts as an ECP a natural person having more than $10 million in assets.

[8]. Section 2©(2)((i)(II) of the CEA.

[9]. Section 742© of the Dodd-Frank Act.

[10]. Section 2©(2)(E)(ii)(I) of the CEA prohibits an otherwise regulated entity, such as a registered BD, from entering into a forex transaction described in 2©(2)((i)(I) of the CEA, unless done pursuant to rules of a federal regulatory agency. The transaction described in section 2©(2)((i)(I) of the CEA is a transaction in foreign currency that "is a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery (or an option on such a contract) or an option" not executed or traded on an exchange. The scope of what constitutes a transaction that would be covered by the provision is not clear and has been the source of prior litigation. See CFTC v. Zelener, 373 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2004), reh'g denied, 378 F.3d 624 (7th Cir.).

[11]. 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(h)(1).

Terms of Use & Privacy Policy Site M

[Travelin_the_Narrow_Path]

Thats it.

You can all kiss my @ss.

The fact that the moderators on this forum allow people to be slandered by trolls and assulted by people wilth mental issues is bull crap.

The fact the the moderators allow this tells me they condone such low life.

Liebel is a crime and the fact that the moderators allow and condone crimminal acts on a public forum is very telling.

You may not have noticed but you are missing many posters from this forum and this lack of forum moderation and the blatant attacks on posters who try to bring forward information is the reason people are gone.

People come here and try to bring forward information and try to answer questions and be helpful but the moderators allow the threads to sidetracked and over run by trolls and low lifes.

You can now add me to the list of people run off...this place is the lowest of the low and is over run by trolls, low lifes and dirtbags.

You won Slade!

I will never be back on this sewer called a forum to be insulted by your nasty lies again.

I will no longer be insulted like this...you people are sick.

Phoenix

Phoenix, DUDE, you are bigger than Slade! Don't let 'em get to ya! look at my profile. People don't like what I have to say, especially if it has to do with our hijacked government officials or our illegal president. SO WHAT. Opinions are like you-know-what. You are bigger than that! Don't let others take your power away! Did anybody physically come to your house and hit you? Did anything physically happen to you? NO. For all we know posters on this forum could be 8 year old kids who have nothing better to do. OR, for allwe know posters on this forum could have 8-year old IQ's. I do appreciate that this forum allows posters to share their opinions. Don't take it personally.