International Marriage Broker Act of 2005

[BC]

Tiger,

Way upthread I mentioned that I see the possibility of someone using this law to their advantage by complying.  I think RVR is probably in a great position to make a move in this direction.  Considering (what I believe are) his views and the early stage of his business in RU I really think he has nothing to loose and everything to gain.

Surely a 'niche' market for the moment, but I think the first K1 processed at the embassy will be noted accordingly when the first prospective bride can proudly state that the couple used his agency and that the foreign owned agency followed these new guidelines to a 'T'. 

Win by example....

[TigerPaws]

BC,
 
 In principle I agree with you, I see a rare opportunity for an enterprising businessman to capitalize on the IMBA and the decline of the honest agencies by providing a far more exclusive and extensive offering of services. This world by no means be inexpensive for the gentleman looking for a RW but in general you get what services you are willing too pay for and if the price structure was fair and reasonable for the services provided a businessman could make a nice profit by building a respectable business.
 
 The oppertunity is just waiting for someone too come along and open their doors.

[Jet]

Way off topic, but:

"Our goverement seem to be very good at getting corporations to leave America"

And they are getting better at it all the time.

 You would be amazed at the number of Mega Yachts we see owned buy some very famous and of course wealthy people which are NOT U.S. flaged. Over New Years the marina here at Paradise Island (Bahamas) was full of them.

 

Take a cruise down the new river or along the intracoastal and virtually every "documented" vessel is flying a Caymen flag.

[Jet]

I do find it interesting that none of the agency owners are letting the cat out of the bag as far as their next moves. My personal speculation is the we are going to see a lot more "travel agencies" and a lot less "marriage agencies" in the months to come, for those that choose to stay stateside. It seems like the most cost effective loophole.

[TigerPaws]

Jet,

 I really hope we hear what is going to happen because the whole thing is very interesting, I suspect there is a great deal of unanswered questions being poised to lawyers about this dumb law.

 

[KenC]

I do find it interesting that none of the agency owners are letting the cat out of the bag as far as their next moves. My personal speculation is the we are going to see a lot more "travel agencies" and a lot less "marriage agencies" in the months to come, for those that choose to stay stateside. It seems like the most cost effective loophole.

Jet,

I don't look at the change you proposed as a bad thing.  I have always thought that "Mail Order Bride" was a derogatory and misleading tag line any way.  If more men and women looked at agencies as "introduction" sites, they would be better off.  It seems to me that the men and women that truly bought into an agency arrainging a marriage were the very same people that got themselves into trouble in the long run.  Maybe with the change, these people will now step up and take responsibility for their own actions instead of having a fallback position of blaming someone else for their own failures.

KenC

[BC]

Jet,

You may be right.. but in this game your website showing up in google under 'travel' is not going to hack it..

prosecutor:  "Why does your website appear on page one when I Google 'russian bride' but it appears on page 352,689,752,896,541,236 when I Google 'travel russia..  remember you just denied one minute ago that your business was targeted at the MOB market.. ?"

The links upthread from the immigration attorney are quite interesting and informative.

[TigerPaws]

KenC,
 
 I agree the term Mail Order Bride has been a misnomer and what the majority of agencies are is really Introduction Facilitators, I will have to go back and read the IMBA as well as some of the analysis because that could be the big loop hole the agencies are looking for.

[Jet]

BC,

In a court of law it doesn't really matter where google shows your site, as long as your books show the business as selling travel. If meeting chicks at the destination just "happens" after you have provided an airline ticket to a customer who paid you for it, the prosecutor is going to need to be able show that the money paid WAS NOT for the service provided. A slippery slope for the gov't.

[Admin]

BC,

In a court of law it doesn't really matter where google shows your site, as long as your books show the business as selling travel. If meeting chicks at the destination just "happens" after you have provided an airline ticket to a customer who paid you for it, the prosecutor is going to need to be able show that the money paid WAS NOT for the service provided. A slippery slope for the gov't.

Of course, what REALLY counts is how a jury will see things.

The problem is - to get a case progressed to the point of a jury actually seeing and hearing evidence, there is a HUGE expenditure of funds by the person(s) who has been charged. The mere threat of prosecution is, or ought to be, enough to dissuade all but the most well-heeled (and funded) of the agencies.

My guess is that - if an agency owner is charged with violation of these provisions - they would spend at least $100,000 to get the case in front of a jury - and probably more - maybe MUCH more.

One of the problems the agency owner faces is - there are not many who feel sympathetic towards their plight. They will be entirely on their own. And you can bet the other side will play all the "internet pimp" and "human trafficking" cards they can get away with.

This really is a serious problem for anyone risking the possibility of charges being brought against them.

Just my opinion.

- Dan

[TigerPaws]

Dan,
 
 I agree which is why I believe the vast majority of existing agencies with any ties to the U.S. will cut those ties or at the very least drive them deep underground.

[Jet]

Absolutely agree, this is not for the "Jacks & Kevins" to attempt, but with the legal and financial backing of companies like EC, AFA, and Anistasia, my guess is they aren't going to just close their doors and move out of town (at least not without a fight).

[TigerPaws]

Absolutely agree, this is not for the "Jacks & Kevins" to attempt, but with the legal and financial backing of companies like EC, AFA, and Anistasia, my guess is they aren't going to just close their doors and move out of town (at least not without a fight).

Jet,

 I hope you are right but I do not believe they will take up the fight that is unless they band together and pool their resources then they might stand a chance but if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court we are talking 10 years and maybe 1/2 mil or more.

 

[Jet]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Just like your Italy/Morroco scenario, the Feds are going to follow the money, and if they can't link the cash to the "crime" it'll never get to court.

 

[BC]

Quite sad but your chances of getting a case heard by the supreme court are probably better (and cheaper) if you are sitting in jail.

Even bad laws wield power.

[TigerPaws]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Just like your Italy/Morroco scenario, the Feds are going to follow the money, and if they can't link the cash to the "crime" it'll never get to court. 

Jet,
 
 How right you are if it were me I would double shell the accounts through the Principality of Monaco then through Liechtenstein and finally back to Monaco. Getting the money would be a simple trip to any coutry and bringing it back 9,999.00 dollars per person at a time.
 

[BC]

LOL Tiger..

guess  K1's could be the courriers..

[edit] maybe give a bonus for additional K2's!  How about finding a way to make the RW search tax deductible?

[TigerPaws]

BC,
 
 If the U.S. government wants to make things more difficult so be it, there are always loopholes and work around's a person just has to be creative. The new IMBA only applies to U.S. owned, associated and or controlled agencies, if a couple meets through "other" means then the new law simply does not apply.
 
 Hum.... I guess that would mean when the girl is interviewed for the K1 she says a friend or relative introduced her.

[philb]

A friend of mine just emailed this to me.  Thought it might be of interest.  He got this of the Blue Sapphires web site.

Important notice to all clients
In accordance with our terms of service and in connection with the enacted US law called International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 on March 4 2006 The Angelika Network and all affiliated web sites will be required to discontinue the direct sales of contact information to all clients, without the specific consent to do such by the foreign client.

We will also be unable to service any non-USA resident client in any manner.

Because of this, we advise all clients to utilize any remaining address credits and European clients to use any remaining mail forwarding funds before the 4th of March. Memberships have the entire balance of due addresses placed on your account so you will not need to wait to receive these credits and may use them now.

We deeply regret any inconvenience this may cause you. We have carefully reviewed the law and are confident that the quality and value of our service will not deteriorate for US clients although the service will change slightly to adhere to these new regulations.

The owners of the Angelika Network are committed to acting in the best interests of all our clients, male and female in spite of this law. Our desire is that these people currently using the service outside the US would be able to continue doing such, Therefore we are offering to sell our European business, software and database and well as transfer all our existing clients to a suitable purchaser. We offer this for $600,000 which would provide the new business owner with approximately a 25% annual return on the investment. For further information please contact Larry Gucciardo at world-digital@earthlink.net or +1 512 913 9218


 

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]The exact same notice is at http://www.daisybride.com/

[/size][/color]Important notice to all clients   In accordance with our terms of service and in connection with the enacted  US law called International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 on March 4 2006 The Angelika Network and all affiliated web sites will be  required to discontinue the direct sales of contact information to all  clients, without the specific consent to do such by the foreign client.
  We will also be unable to service any non-USA resident client in any manner.
  Because of this, we advise all clients to utilize any remaining address  credits and European clients to use any remaining mail forwarding funds  before the 4th of March. Memberships have the entire balance of due  addresses placed on your account so you will not need to wait to receive  these credits and may use them now.
  We deeply regret any inconvenience this may cause you. We have carefully  reviewed the law and are confident that the quality and value of our service  will not deteriorate for US clients although the service will change  slightly to adhere to these new regulations.
  The owners of the Angelika Network are committed to acting in the best  interests of all our clients, male and female in spite of this law. Our  desire is that these people currently using the service outside the US would  be able to continue doing such, Therefore we are offering to sell our  European business, software and database and well as transfer all our  existing clients to a suitable purchaser. We offer this for $600,000 which  would provide the new business owner with approximately a 25% annual return  on the investment. For further information please contact Larry Gucciardo at  world-digital@earthlink.net or +1 512 913 9218  

[Bruno]

We will also be unable to service any non-USA resident client in any manner.

I don't see the problem with non-USA resident client ???

What are the foreign bride ??? They are non-USA resident client ??? These law was make without sex distinction !

Will American site become site with American women for American men ? But in these case, it is not more a international marriage agency.

 

 

[TigerPaws]

[color="blue"][size="4"]Bruno,

 Right now that is what it looks like, any U.S. owned, baised or controlled "agency" will be a U.S. only agency.
[/size][/color]

[Jet]

We will also be unable to service any non-USA resident client in any manner.

I don't see the problem with non-USA resident client ???

What are the foreign bride ??? They are non-USA resident client ??? These law was make without sex distinction !

Will American site become site with American women for American men ? But in these case, it is not more a international marriage agency.

 

 
[/quote]
 

Bruno, the problem is that the US gov't cannot force foriegn clients to abide by American laws, but they can force american companies to abide by American laws - so the only way for the agencies to comply is by excluding foriegn clients. Foriegn brides are NOT clients, because they don't pay (or pay equal fee for equal service).

[Bruno]

Foriegn brides are NOT clients, because they don't pay (or pay equal fee for equal service).

So, Foreign bride are product... return to the good old MOB definition... make your shopping...

Not sure what will be the result for agency but all can be more difficult and expensive for American man... and now, agency have a excuse for never give contact information of lady... open door for letter scam...

[Admin]

So, Foreign bride are product... return to the good old MOB definition... make your shopping...

Not sure what will be the result for agency but all can be more difficult and expensive for American man... and now, agency have a excuse for never give contact information of lady... open door for letter scam...

You are correct about it being a bad law. Still, it is the law, at least for now, and the playing field is changed as a result.

- Dan