EukerVoorn

"This second company (IWest) had their headquarters in Israel and did their billing through Israeli banks which were aware of the scheme (until Visa withdrew the license from some Israeli banks, some have even settled for CCBill for whom it did not matter what was paid for, the main focus being that money was moving. Some Russian / Israeli citizens were never particularly choosy...). There was no problem to bill for any kind images, and the hosting of nude images was not a particular problem for these companies - let alone for the Non Nude Models. At this time almost 100% of the websites were hosted in the United States because it was the only place where it was affordable. The Web sites have generated such traffic, that a human being can hardly imagine how big the interest really is. I have the 2001 statistics of a website containing naked pictures of children and adolescents. During the month of June 2001, a total of 200 million visits to the site took place (this is not page views, but unique visitors but on a daily scale - it is likely that a good part of visitors this month visited the site on many days and have been counted multiple times. My estimate is that there were about 15 million unique visitors during this month). The ratio between visitors and buyers, however, is very small. The same site in June 2001 a turnover of approximately U.S. $ 60,000 made at a price of about $ 30 which is approximately 2000 customers. Even Web sites that still exist, such as Met-Art.com bought productions in 2000 with 11-14 year old girls, and everything was billed through the very serious CCBill (this series are no longer at Met-Art Journal)."

So Visa knew in 2001 already that CCBill processes for CP sites. I think the problem is at Visa/MC, they're the ones who need to clean up their act and tell all the processors they work with to stop processing for anything that smells like piracy or CP.