Is multi-signature legally an 'escrow' account which could require a license?

[jspilman]

Let's take the great state of California, for example...

"Persons or companies performing escrow services over the Internet in California, or performing escrow services over the Internet for consumers in California, are subject to the licensing requirements of the Escrow Law"

With regard to Internet escrow companies, “escrow” also includes any transaction in which one person, for the purpose of effecting the sale or transfer of personal property or services to another person, delivers money, or its Internet-authorized equivalent, to a third person to be held by that third person until the happening of a specified event or the performance of a prescribed condition, when it is then to be delivered by that third person to a grantee, grantor, promisee, promisor, obligee, obligor, bailee, bailor, or any agent or employee of any of the latter.

I guess the question is, if you are a 3rd party in a multi-signature transaction, has the money been "delivered" and is it being "held" by the third person? Technically no, but probably the state would not agree.

[1714821142]

1714821142

[1714821142]

1714821142

[1714821142]

1714821142

[1714821142]

1714821142

[Viceroy]

I'd like to pose an additional question regarding the above post.  

Doesn't the quoted part explicitly mean that "all of the escrow agents" who are not licensed as escrow agents in California in these forums are in direct violation of California law?  

http://www.corp.ca.gov/Laws/Escrow_Law/FAQs.asp

[americandesi]

Let's take the great state of California, for example...

"Persons or companies performing escrow services over the Internet in California, or performing escrow services over the Internet for consumers in California, are subject to the licensing requirements of the Escrow Law"

With regard to Internet escrow companies, “escrow” also includes any transaction in which one person, for the purpose of effecting the sale or transfer of personal property or services to another person, delivers money, or its Internet-authorized equivalent, to a third person to be held by that third person until the happening of a specified event or the performance of a prescribed condition, when it is then to be delivered by that third person to a grantee, grantor, promisee, promisor, obligee, obligor, bailee, bailor, or any agent or employee of any of the latter.

I guess the question is, if you are a 3rd party in a multi-signature transaction, has the money been "delivered" and is it being "held" by the third person? Technically no, but probably the state would not agree.

Hey mate.. did you get an answer to this.?
Am also trying to find if multi-signature falls into escrow category as per state rules.

[odolvlobo]

Let's take the great state of California, for example...

"Persons or companies performing escrow services over the Internet in California, or performing escrow services over the Internet for consumers in California, are subject to the licensing requirements of the Escrow Law"

With regard to Internet escrow companies, “escrow” also includes any transaction in which one person, for the purpose of effecting the sale or transfer of personal property or services to another person, delivers money, or its Internet-authorized equivalent, to a third person to be held by that third person until the happening of a specified event or the performance of a prescribed condition, when it is then to be delivered by that third person to a grantee, grantor, promisee, promisor, obligee, obligor, bailee, bailor, or any agent or employee of any of the latter.

I guess the question is, if you are a 3rd party in a multi-signature transaction, has the money been "delivered" and is it being "held" by the third person? Technically no, but probably the state would not agree.

It seems to me that in a multi-signature transaction, the third person is an arbitrator, not an escrow, unless the third person actually holds something. IANAL.

[Nagle]

With regard to Internet escrow companies, “escrow” also includes any transaction in which one person, for the purpose of effecting the sale or transfer of personal property or services to another person, delivers money, or its Internet-authorized equivalent, to a third person to be held by that third person until the happening of a specified event or the performance of a prescribed condition, when it is then to be delivered by that third person to a grantee, grantor, promisee, promisor, obligee, obligor, bailee, bailor, or any agent or employee of any of the latter.

Search Google for "Internet escrow fraud" for why California did that.

[SherdonIke]

Google don't have a good answer for this question