Slashdot Log In
U.S. Arrests Online Gambling Company Chairman
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Sep 07, 2006 04:19 PM
from the pokemon-next-on-their-hit-list dept.
from the pokemon-next-on-their-hit-list dept.
imaginaryelf writes "Reuters reports that U.S. authorities have arrested Peter Dicks, the chairman of U.K. based online sports betting company Sportingbet Plc, while he was passing through Dallas. Just two months ago, the CEO of another U.K. based online sports betting company, BetOnSports, was arrested on U.S. soil as well. They are both charged with violating the 1961 Federal Wire Act, which can be broadly interpreted as declaring all forms of online gambling illegal in the U.S. Is online gambling the Alcohol Prohibition of the 21st century?"
Related Stories
[+]
WA Law: 5 Years in Prison for Gambling Online 535 comments
tpoker writes "Online gambling has been an ongoing legal issue for the federal government, but Washington State has recently decided to take matters into their own hands. The Seattle PI reports, 'Beginning next month [June 7th], Washington residents who play poker or make other types of wagers on the Internet will be committing a Class C felony, equivalent under the law to possessing child pornography, threatening the governor or torturing an animal. Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.'"
[+]
Technology: WA Law Means Linking to Gambling Websites Illegal 300 comments
tpoker writes "Following a previous story on Washington State making online gambling a felony, the Seattle Times reports that the first legal salvos have begun. 'The first casualty in the state's war on Internet gambling is a local Web site where nobody was actually doing any gambling. What a Bellingham man did on his site was write about online gambling. He reviewed Internet casinos. He had links to them, and ran ads by them. All that, says the state -- the ads, the linking, even the discussing -- violates a new state law barring online wagering or using the Internet to transmit 'gambling information ... Telling people how to gamble online, where to do it, giving a link to it -- that's all obviously enabling something that is illegal.'"
[+]
News: U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act 334 comments
SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."
[+]
Betting Against Online Gambling 175 comments
conq writes "BusinessWeek.com has an article looking at the possible consequences if anti-gambling legislation is passed. From the article: 'Just how much of a setback is the proposed legislation for the $12 billion industry? While online gambling companies generate half their sales from U.S. gamblers, the industry is operated almost completely by companies beyond the reach of U.S. regulators. [...] It's a lot of smoke and mirrors and misstatements.'"
[+]
Technology: Internet Gambling CEO Arrested by FBI 298 comments
tightpoker writes to mention the news that several key individuals associated with online gambling site BetonSports have been indicted in a Missouri courtroom. Founder Stephen Kaplan, CEO David Carruthers, 9 other people and four corporations have been charged with crimes ranging from racketeering to fraud. The Sunday Time reports on the story as well, addressing fears this may be a prelude to a crackdown on all online gambling by U.S. law enforcement. From the article: "Nigel Parson, leisure analyst at Williams de Broë, said the move would 'throw online gambling stocks into a spin,' adding: 'David Carruthers is a prominent advocate of online gambling. The fear that this is an escalation of the anti-lobby will trouble markets.' Greg Harris, an analyst at Cannacord, said: 'It is too early to say if this is part of a broader strategy on prevention of internet gambling in the U.S. or if it is the Department of Justice flexing their muscles and trying to influence legislation.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
JFK, not DFW (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:JFK, not DFW (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:JFK, not DFW (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Like driving on the left hand side of the road? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is either harrassment or just the US thinking it has rights to push the rest of the world around.
Parent
Re:Like driving on the left hand side of the road? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Our government isn't in the habit of arresting foreign nationals for activities that are perfectly legal in their country of origin. But if he was providing illegal services to U.S. citizens then he put himself at risk. Why that is such a shock to you people I don't know, unless you just need another excuse to America-bash. People complain bitterly when a Google or a Yahoo complies with the laws of another country when they disagree with those laws, fully expecting that those companies should simply break that country's laws with impunity. And maybe they should: but the principle works both ways
Now, having said that
Parent
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Not the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember Dmitry Sklyarov [wikipedia.org]?
Perhaps this is all a fiendish plot to cut down on US tourism...
Parent
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't laugh - a lot of people are paying extra so they won't have a stopover in the US on the way to another destination, just to avoid the hassles, even if they have never done anything wrong.
This is just going to make the situation worse. The losers are the US air carriers, and services based in the US.
Parent
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I lived in Toronto for 13 years, and I decided to go to New Zealand to visit some friends and see how the place is like for a longer term basis. Quickest way to get from Toronto, Canada to Auckland, New Zealand is probably take a flight from Toronto to LA, then from LA to Auckland. Seeing how soem of my muslim friends got treated in the US (more like his parents, who are elderly), me being "non-white", more tech savvy (I brought my computer along, I love my Shuttle box), I don't want to take the chance of having dealing with American customs and risk having my data inspected, so I took the long way, went to Hong Kong (I was born there), which was nice because I got to see my relatives and do some shopping, before leaving for Auckland a week later. My return journey will be the same, and I will never step foot in America again, even as a stop over (aside from the Anchorage technical stopover, but we never were allowed to get off the plane, which is fine with me).
Even though the whole journey is about 8 hours longer in total flight time, it's worth it for me. Cathay Pacific gets my business also because they are one of the best airlines in the world. The price was right too, my mom's travel agent was able to secure the flight I took (round trip) for only CND$2200, which is definitely unbeatable. My parents told me they recently took a flight with Air Canada from Toronto to Vancover, they said the service was appalling and the staff did not know what to do, and the food and flight was expensive (CND$800 per person). It's absolutely disgraceful that North American airlines are completely backwards and behind in terms of service (given the cost) compared to their Asian counterparts.
Parent
No, not gambling... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No, not gambling... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a smoker wants to smoke in a public park, let them. It's a public place meant for everyone. You can't please everyone.
If a smoker comes though and blows smoke in my general direction, it should be considered socially acceptable for me to go fart in that smoker's space too.
Thing is, my space belongs to me. I find having cigarette smoke blown in my direction akin to invading my space. I find it more disgusting than the smell of fart, and more harmful to my health.
I think we should start a campaign where we go and fart in smoker's spaces.
Parent
Re:No, not gambling... (Score:4, Funny)
The trouble with that plan is that we all carry lighters.
Parent
So the second guy is a moron... (Score:3, Interesting)
Second one gets arrested - man, how dumb to you have to be to fly through the US when you know you're likely to get arrested? It's not like international flight lists are ignored these days. Passengers that may pass on domestic flights aren't going to escape scrutiny on international (especially incoming) flights.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Our laws, your country... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remind me again why people think the US is imperialist?
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way they could have arrested him legally, if he broke a law in the USA WHILE in the USA.
You cannot break US laws outside the USA, so in the UK what he does is perfectly legal.
Why isn't the british diplomacy concerned about the kidnapping of a UK citizen? In the 18th century they would have sent the gunboats already.
Parent
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an analogy. Say I'm in Mexico with a trebuchet and tons of pot. Let's say for the sake of argument that we paid off the federales, and we can operate with impunity. Let's say you're in Texas with a catapult. If you send me money via your catapult and I send you bales of dope via my trebuchet, I'm guilty of selling drugs in the US, even though I never set foot on US soil.
See?
Parent
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:4, Informative)
The reasoning is that it's because there was no crime committed. It's legal to gamble in Vegas, just like it's legal to smoke pot in Amsterdam. Americans can't be arrested for smoking pot in Amsterdam any more than they can be arrested for gambling in Vegas. It all depends on where the action took place, and whether or not the action was a crime in the place it was committed.
The guy in the article was arrested because the gambling took place within an area where it's illegal -- namely, somewhere on US soil. He couldn't get arrested if the gambling only took place in Mexico or The Netherlands or Djibouti or wherever else gambling may be legal*.
*I have no idea if gambling is legal in Mexico, The Netherlands, or Djibouti. I was just pulling country names out of my ass to make a point.
Parent
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:4, Insightful)
He WAS in the US while breaking this law.
I was leaning towards his rights until I found out that his site lists US phone numbers and EST calling times, and 77% of his business is from the US. It isn't like he's got a few people he didn't manage to keep off the site. He actively encourages them to break the law.
Disclaimer: I stole those facts from above posts. They could be totally wrong. But I doubt it.
Parent
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:5, Informative)
Could it have something to do with a vote dealing with a ban on Internet gambling coming up in the legislature in the next couple weeks? Could it have something to do with the fact Carruthers has been a vocal opponent of the upcoming bill. Strange that. The man is arrested based on his involvement in running an Internet gambling company. Yet referencing the vote on banning Internet gambling requires using the future tense.
Perhaps using a 1961 law that only questionably relates to the Internet and even more questionably relates to an individual operating out of a different country is not quite so sound...
http://www.reason.com/sullum/072606.shtml [reason.com]
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/09/sullum_ on_internet_gambling_ar.php [scienceblogs.com]
Parent
U.S. a no go zone (Score:5, Insightful)
You won't know until you are on American soil.
Re:U.S. a no go zone (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1998 I went to the US to do training and none of this was a concern. The programmers boot camp I went to sucked by on one of my two weekends off in the 10 week hell I went to the Kennedy Space Center and I loved it! I always wanted to go back and take a look at the Grand Canyon. Now I wouldn't go if they paid me.
Fuck 9/11. Fuck the terrorists. Fuck the people who've used it as a power grab. Fuck the blind sheep who'll let them until its too late. I've had a gut full of this bad behaviour from all sides.
Parent
still wonder how this is illegal for a non-residen (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, were the USA we can do what ever we want... I often wonder how we'd react if say Bill Gates was arrested in Communist China for being an "obscenely rich capitalist"..
21st Century Prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Marijuana is the Alcohol Prohibition of the 21st century.
17 / 135 points (Score:5, Funny)
> L
You are sitting in an airplane seat, in the coach section of an airliner. The airliner is descending.
> I
You are carrying:
>READ TICKET
I don't see any ticket here.
>READ TICKET STUB
The ticket stub is for an intercontinental flight from Great Britain to Mexico, with a stopover in Dallas.
>DALLAS?
I don't know how to dallas.
>DOES THIS PLANE HAVE A STOPOVER IN DALLAS?
I don't see any plane here.
>LEAVE PLANE
Your seatbelt holds you in the seat, preventing you from standing up.
>OPEN SEATBELT
You cannot open that.
>UNFASTEN SEATBELT
Unfastened.
>LEAVE PLANE
You need to stand up first.
>STAND UP
You are now standing. The passenger sitting next to you looks agitated.
>LEAVE PLANE
The exit doors are locked, as the plane is still in flight.
>FUCK
I don't know how to fuck.
The plane is about to land in Dallas. You are likely to be arrested by a grue.
>ARE THEY GOING TO ARREST ME?
I don't see any they here.
>EXIT
You cannot exit now.
Your sword is glowing faintly.
>QUIT
You cannot quit now.
Your sword is glowing faintly.
Gambling Hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
No. The War Against Drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
They ask if you're american and block you. (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy at my deli never asks for ID when I buy lottery tickets and all the bingo I played as a kid at church was when I was under 18... but you let one american bet the Packer's to win the SuperBowl and bam! You're in jail.
We have a goverment that outlaws things so they can profit from doing it themselves. When the Mega-Millions jackpot is $25 million, you know how much money they make? Let's just say the goverment is taking more than half before showing you that number.
Jxn (Score:4, Informative)
The Constitution provides Congress with "Power
In this case, the person apparently set up a server in the UK and used it to conduct business with people in the US. Furthermore, in doing so, he apparently violated US laws which prohibit people from engaging in this form of commerce where it involves the US, regardless of where the person happens to be while doing it.
The same sort of thing occurs regularly within the US. For example, if a person in Maine has a website which is part of a business, buying or selling something (as opposed to being merely informational), then they are engaging in interstate commerce nationwide. An Alaskan user who buys something from their site has engaged in commerce with them, and now the person in Maine is subject to Alaskan law. This is the price of doing business with people across borders in our legal system: the differing laws on both sides of the border apply, because the transaction as a whole is occuring in both, not just in one or the other.
The actual situation is a bit more complex than this, but this is the gist of it.
If the person who was arrested doesn't wish to get in more trouble in the future, then he's going to either need to comply with US law, or stop doing business that crosses the US border. Or he can try to avoid going to the US or having assets in the US so that he simply stays outside of our reach, despite violating our laws. (N.b. that airspace counts: there are plenty of instances of people flying on planes, and getting served while crossing the airspace of a particular jurisdiction, by someone that followed them on the plane and waited for the right moment. Landing in that jurisdiction isn't required.)
In any case, this isn't much of an example of our stretching ourselves. If you want to see that, I'd suggest looking at the Alien Tort Claims Act. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, or with our general approach to this.
To those who would argue that repressive countries such as China or Saudi Arabia could try the same thing for basically innocuous things like pointing out how repressive they are (as opposed to something arguably more serious, such as illegally running gambling operations), let's remember that they are repressive countries and thus no one should ever want to go there until they clean up their act. As many idiotic and downright evil things as the US has been doing lately (or historically), we're not quite that bad, and I hope we're soon to get significantly better.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny. Pretty much sums up how I feel about the prohibition industry.
Re:Prohibition? Hardly... (Score:5, Funny)
You wanna bet?
Parent
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:5, Interesting)
If the US government did that, then you'd be complaining about censorship.
The problem is that this guy and his company accepted money from US citizens who were on US soil in exchange for providing a service that is illegal in the US. It would be trivial for him to refuse credit card transactions for cards where the address on record is in the US, and at least then he'd have plausible deniability. Of course, doing so destroys most of his market, so it's easy to see why he wouldn't do that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the US government did that, then you'd be complaining about censorship.
Furthermore, the US government can't do that. It's not technically feasable. We don't have a single, nationwide firewall like some countries do that can be configured to block out arbitrary foreign sites.
I suppose it's far easier to arrest a single foreign national -- even though what he's doing is perfectly legal in his own country -- than it is to arrest his American customers, who really are committing crimes on US soil. Less
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:4, Interesting)
I now hereby dub YOU "Bad Analogy Guy, Jr." (in reference to your previous post, of course).
Last time I checked, using and selling drugs are BOTH illegal in the U.S. Therefore, both users and dealers should be arrested.
Whether the law makes sense or not makes little difference to the law enforcement community. This guy broke a U.S. law, and he was arrested for it.
The REAL question here is whether he broke the law on U.S. soil, which really boils down further to the question: where exactly is a website located? Is it located where the server is located? Or is it located where the person using the website is located? If it's the former, then the U.S. people who used the website could be considered to be gambling in a foreign country, and not on U.S. soil, because the website is technically located in the U.K. (and thus they were not breaking U.S. law). But if the latter question is true, then the administrator of any website can be held accountable by the laws of any country any user connects from, even those laws that contradict each other.
Either way, the U.S. government is going to do the same thing with online gambling that they did with alcohol: ignore it, then ban it, realize that ban creates crime, unban it, tax the ever living hell out of it, and finally protect the industry forevermore as a revenue stream.
Wait, it'll happen.
Parent
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:5, Interesting)
In the last three cases we expect the citizen to follow the law, because to restrict or monitor access would be UnAmerican. Gambling is a "vice" crime so to the law enforcement "religion" it's different. The fundamental problem is that it's easier for the govt to collar these guys illegally than it is to fix the real problem going on in the country. Also, "rightist" state legislatures and law enforcement work very hard to delay, subjorn, etc. the Will of the people to change these backwards laws. For them "Law" is the "religion" and so they should not "compromise" even if the people vote for it.
Parent
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:5, Insightful)
He let's Americans gamble on his site, so he lets them break the law. That's illegal. At least that what I'm guessing their logic is. My guess is that their claim to him is a little tenuous to say the least. I bet he refused to bar access from US betters. The US's stance is hardly unknown, especially if you are in that industry.
I think that "online gambling is prohibition" comment is rather ridiculous. Online gambling is something people do from home, where one of the big things about prohibition is that it removed a common social activity (going to a bar with friends and to meet people). They are nothing alike except that they are both bans on something popular, and (are likey to get) overturned.
Don't forget that there is a REASON online gambling is still illegal. While that act can be intrepreted that way, Congress could have easily changed that by passing a law. However, don't think that all the casinos in Vegas and elsewhere like the idea of online gambling. That could take away a LOT of a their business if it was legalized. I'd be amamzed if they weren't pouring out money to keep online gambling illegal.
Parent
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:4, Insightful)
Casino winnings are taxed [irs.gov]
If Congress could figure out a way to tax all online gambling winnings, they'd do it in a heartbeat. (Specifically winnings paid out by companies outside the U.S.A.)
As it is now, if you win from some offshore gambling outfit, it is up to you to report your winnings... or not.
To support the Submitter/Editor's assertion that online gambling is similar to prohibition: Politicians caved in to the Prohibitionists because income from the relatively new income tax (just 7 years old) made it possible for the Federal Gov't to do without the cash from liquor taxes.
Prohibition ended in 1934, because income taxes tanked ~60% during the first few years of the great depression.
To summarize: Because (1) the tax revenues wouldn't be that large/needed and/or (2) Congress can't figure out how to enforce taxes, they will continue to 'ban' online gambling. Once 1 &/or 2 gets changes, they'll reconsider.
Parent
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:5, Informative)
"To contact BetonSports Customer Service please call toll free 1-866-481-3057. You may also send email requests to:
customer_service@betonsports.com
Customer Service hours are Monday to Friday, 10am - 10pm EST. "
Hmm, looks like a US number and a US timezone there. May be UK based, but they are definitely targeting business to the US
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Um... (Score:4, Informative)
What a load of bullshit.
So if cocaine was legal in the UK and they sold it to people in the US then the feds shouldn't go after them? (Replace cocaine with any product or service that fits) Just because something is legal in one country doesn't mean one can't face prosecution in another country where it's illegal if that product/service is offered in the other country.
I worked briefly for a company that ran a gambling website in the UK in conjunction with Harrahs casino. On-line gaming is apparently huge in the UK. In order to legally operate the site there were all sorts of checks to verify that a user was based in the UK. It included not only identifying the physical location of an IP address but validating the address of a credit card and other steps. Apparently all legitimite gambling sites in the UK are required to take these sort of steps if you don't want to run afoul of UK gaming laws. If this was a legit UK gaming website then they would have these same checks in place that would prevent people in the US from using it. It's his own fault for violating US laws (that happen to be well known in the gambling community) and thinking that he could travel here without getting arrested.
Parent