Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FBI Arrests Neteller Execs

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Jan 18, 2007 09:19 PM
from the jig-is-up dept.
Alcibaides writes "In a follow-up to the 2006 law attacking Internet gambling, the FBI arrested two former Neteller executives in 'connection with the creation and operation of an Internet payment services company that facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds.' Apparently, the execs were 'ambushed' as they passed through the U.S. on connecting flights. Consequently, Neteller has dropped all gambling-related activity to U.S. customers, a move not expected for several months."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] US Outlaws Online Gambling 579 comments
imaginaryelf writes, "As reported earlier on Slashdot, in the closing hours of the US Congressional session on Friday, September 29, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R.4411.RH) was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006 H.R.4954.EAS. To the surprise of many, the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and Bush is expected to sign it into law this week. This effectively outlaws online gambling in the US, by way of making it illegal for credit-card companies to collect payments for bets. The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Not US Citizens... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sorthum (123064) <slashdot AT sequestered DOT net> on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:29PM (#17674826) Homepage
    This should be interesting, to see how foreign countries react to the detention of their citizens for something so paltry...
    • by clark0r (925569) on Thursday January 18 2007, @10:06PM (#17675250) Homepage
      They wont do anything. I have a friend who works for a poker book publishing company who have an online poker site. His boss has been warned by other people in the business, not to travel to the US because if they arrested him, there would be no help.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2007, @11:04PM (#17675834)
      ok now I am really worried as a Britt living in the US for 7 years. I wanna know what is going to happen to my insurance rates when the police here finally give me all the tickets for driving on the wrong side of the road for 15 years.
      • by EvanED (569694) <evaned@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday January 18 2007, @11:00PM (#17675808)
        The only wrinkle in this case is that it is my understanding they committed the offense while not in the US.

        The only wrinkle?! That's the difference between not committing a crime and committing one!
              • Actually (Score:5, Informative)

                by andersh (229403) on Friday January 19 2007, @01:06AM (#17676818)
                Of course many countries have long-arm statutes - however your examples are plain wrong.

                Pinochet was charged by Spain for crimes against Spanish citizens living in Chile. Spain tried to have him extradited from the UK but failed. He returned to Chile where he died.

                Milosevic was indicted by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity and charges of violating the laws or customs of war and grave breaches of the Geneva Convention. The trial might have been in the Hague however the Netherlands was not the country prosecuting him.

                So both these cases had very little to do with long-arm statutes.
        • SOFA (Score:5, Informative)

          by wasted (94866) on Thursday January 18 2007, @11:42PM (#17676224)

          Everyone inside the sovereign borders of a country should expect to be subject to its laws whether they agree with them or not.

          So the US soldiers who raped that Iraqi woman should be subject to Iraqi law and not US military law?

          When U.S. forces are stationed in foreign countries, they are usually subject to a Status Of Forces Agreement, which states which country has jurisdiction for which crimes. I don't know if we have a SOFA with the new Iraqi government, but if I had to guess, I would guess that we do, and any military member raping an Iraqi woman would be subject to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
  • WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vertinox (846076) on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:29PM (#17674838)
    FTFA:

    NETELLER suspended trading its shares on the London Stock Exchange in light of the detention of founding members Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre. Besides owning stock in NETELLER, the two do not hold any positions with the company.
    I thought the whole point of being a shareholder was that you couldn't be charged for the wrong doing of the corporation?
    • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:58PM (#17675168)
      Not only that, if the linked article is accurate, it doesn't seem that they broke the laws while in the United States. US citizens and banks did. They seem to have simply offered a service online; the service was even based outside the US.

      This also serves to point out another problem with US laws--they are so damn imprecise, broad, so encompassing, that it's simply up to the prosecution to pick and choose who they want to send to prison. Prosecutorial discretion, usually leveraged wisely, has now just become another tool to further political goals and new types of discrimination.

      This is like an American posting on an internet site hosted in Germany something that flies against hate speech laws in Germany from his home computer. Then, while traveling in Germany on a connecting flight to Italy, getting arrested. Ridiculous...and dangerous--this sets up the possibility of backlash as precedent for US citizens traveling to foreign countries to be arrested for "crimes" that were not illegal and performed in the US but flies in the face of foreign laws.
      • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by westlake (615356) on Thursday January 18 2007, @11:03PM (#17675832)
        it doesn't seem that they broke the laws while in the United States. US citizens and banks did, the service was even based outside the US.

        This is the Kazaa defense. The Allofmp3.com defense.

        It doesn't matter where the casino is based. It matters that the casino was being marketed to customers in the U.S. It matters that the casino was accepting payments from U.S. accounts.

        If you have assets in the states that can be seized, they will be seized. If you have people in the states who can be arrested, they will be arrested.

        These are the ground rules when you set up shop off-shore.

        • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)

          by kalpaha (667921) <kalpaha@nOspaM.gmail.com> on Friday January 19 2007, @01:01AM (#17676790)

          Neteller is not a casino. It's an eWallet company that (as far as I understand) was not breaking any laws before the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [masteryofpoker.com] (UIGEA) passed. It is listed in the London Stock Exchange.

          The current issue (arrests of Neteller founders) is not really about gambling, they are not charged under the UIGEA. The charges are for money laundering. A quote from the press release [masteryofpoker.com]:

          "Stephen Lawrence and John David Lefebvre were arrested in connection with the creation and operation of payment services that faciliated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds from United States citizens. [...] This prosecution is part of the United States Department of Justice's effort to combat unlawful internet gambling through, among other things, the implementation of the federal anti-money laundering statute."

          I think the charges are bull, but at least they weren't stupid enough to go with the UIGEA charges. Also I think parent poster has his head up his ass. According to everyone but the US, Neteller was doing legitimate business (unlike Kazaa or AllOfMp3).

  • Worrying... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZzzzSleep (606571) on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:31PM (#17674850) Homepage Journal
    Note to self....
    Don't ever take a flight that stops over in the US if I've done something that the US might not like, even if it's perfectly legal in my country.
  • by squirrl811 (857882) on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:32PM (#17674864)
    Well, I played too much online poker anyways.

    I don't see why the federal government is making such a huge deal out of online gambling, aside from the fact that it is currently not taxed. I don't really think the government deserves any more money, but I'd rather pay a small tax on my gaming than have it outlawed as some mysteriously corrupt moral issue. Other than taxation, how is this any different from the government endorsed lottery or allowed casinos in Atlantic City and Vegas?
    • by ttys00 (235472) on Thursday January 18 2007, @10:32PM (#17675518)
      The reason the government cares is that half a dozen native Indian tribes, who happen to own casinos, have bought a large bunch of politicians. Jack Abramoff was acting as the router to distribute the cash amongst congressmen. They and their constituents don't care about online gambling - they are just voting on legislation the way their "campaign contributors" tell them to vote.

      Also, as you say, tax is part of it. There is a large budget deficit, and outlawing online gambling before raising taxes on casino gambling would go part of the way towards filling the hole in the government's finances.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2007, @10:23PM (#17675432)
        Why would an online casino stack the deck? They make money no matter who wins. The more people playing, the more money they make. If players suspected any sort of Tom-foolery they might leave. The casinos have way more to lose than they have to gain by doing it.
      • by Pfhreakaz0id (82141) on Thursday January 18 2007, @10:43PM (#17675620)
        I have a database of 80,000 hands of online poker (which is small potatoes compared to some). Everything is in statitistical line with what it should be (and yes, I've even ran queries of how often I flop a pair, etc.).

        The house has no interest in stacking the deck. They are making a crapload. The people who say this are generally people who lost a bunch of money playing online poker, probably because (GASP) they aren't very good.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:33PM (#17674876)
    The warmaking industry is apparently a far safer place for an executive to be. After all, their products are only being used to kill people. It's not like they're offering a completely voluntary service like gambling, which of course is among the most terrible things that can be done. I mean, how dare somebody be given the ability to spend their money as they choose!

  • by viking80 (697716) on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:33PM (#17674880) Journal
    It is worrisome how the US is trying to enforce its law on the whole world.

    Many companies/people operate fully within the law of the land they live in. If this is breaking a US law, then the US should work with that government to harmonize the laws.

    This is similar to how Muslim courts found danish cartoonist guilty of depicting mohammed, and condemned them to death.

  • by Macthorpe (960048) on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:33PM (#17674884) Journal
    ...the solution for these people who want to run a business like this is to never go to or trade within America. Ever.

    What a sad state of affairs.
  • Out of Curiosity... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sorthum (123064) <slashdot AT sequestered DOT net> on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:34PM (#17674902) Homepage
    ...are they being charged with violating this new law, or with other laws that are already on the books? Since they haven't done anything but own stock in the company since 2005, one would think that they couldn't be accused of crimes they committed before they were classed as illegal...
  • by Tet (2721) <slashdot&astradyne,co,uk> on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:35PM (#17674914) Homepage Journal
    the FBI arrested two former Neteller executives in 'connection with the creation and operation of an Internet payment services company that facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds.'

    Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculous two faced nature of American anti-gambling laws, this is just beyond a joke. As I understand it, the two former execs in question had left the company before the SAFE Port Act was passed. So they've been arrested for setting up a company that is 100% legal in their country of origin, and was legal at the time in the USA as well (in fact, it's still legal for non-gambling related payments), and they no longer have anything to do with the company in question, aside from still holding shares.

    "Land of the free", huh? I'm lost for words. The American legal system is just a joke.

  • by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:44PM (#17675022) Journal

    The U.S. Internet Gambling laws were only passed because British companies were dominating the market. If it the law was passed for moral reasons as its proponents (and much of the press) reported, then why not shut down Las Vegas too?

    It shows how one sided the U.S. is when it comes to trade. Britain is a loyal (sickeningly loyal) friend of the U.S., and look how they get treated. With friends and enemies alike, the U.S. like thugs and wonders why it's become so unpopular.

    BTW U.S. = government and big business. Not talking about your average Joe, who is as much a victim as everyone else.

  • dangerous world (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2007, @09:47PM (#17675052)
    As a former employee of Neteller, I've got to say that this is a pretty scary situation.

    Neteller wasn't a sketchy operation being run in some warehouse. It employed over 500 people in Canada and paid taxes to the government here.

    The company had a lot of dealings with various state governments in the US and had agreed to several restrictions long before the recent bill passed that made online gambling in the US completely illegal.

    The firm employed nearly 100 software developers, many were consultants and contractors that were flown in from california. I'm sure that I'm not the only ex-employee now concerned about having to deal with the US government in the future.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday January 18 2007, @10:27PM (#17675474) Homepage Journal
    The offline casinos, not just in the US, must love this action. I wonder how much they paid for it?
  • by rahvin112 (446269) on Thursday January 18 2007, @11:35PM (#17676158)
    For those of you screaming that the US is engaged in trade protection because they don't outlaw gambling completely I would like to point out a few things. The US is a republic composed of individual states which have more power and authority than our federal government. As a result of this 99% of all the vices (gambling, alcohol, etc..) are controlled at the state level. What this means is that in the US there are certain localities that have approved gambling, but many others (in fact the majority of the country) that doesn't allow it (much like alcohol, yes there are dry counties in the US).

    As a result of trying to maintain state harmony, US federal laws have long held the position that gambling by wire is Illegal. This current law is just an extension of that long historic policy (existing since the days of the telegraph). Not only is this to appease the states and localities that don't allow gambling but it's also because gambling draws organized crime, and without heavy regulation (and even with it in some cases) cheating by the casinos becomes the norm.

    So contrary to what you may think, if online gambling were legal in the US it would be absolutely dominated by the large corporations that run the casinos in Vegas. These casinos would JUMP at the chance to be involved in online gambling if they could (as 10 years ago they tried quite extensively to lobby congress to allow it), so any lobbying by the industry now is simply to allow a fair playground of enforcement of the US gambling by wire laws that already exist. Regulation of an enterprise historically and currently used as the single largest source of illegal money laundering isn't a bad thing, and you will have trouble getting sympathy from any significant percentage of US citizens who are bombarded by stories of lives destroyed by gambling addictions. And really, much like any crime, if you market your crime to citizens of another country and knowingly break that countries laws you need to be careful where you travel. For example, if I was going to go to China I wouldn't want to have ever been tied to anti-china activity as it would likely get me arrested. As another example, lets consider the south American drug lords, they don't bring drugs into the US personally nor do they in some cases do anything illegal in their own countries (at least that they are willing to prosecute them for), but many are sought for extradition to the US because they engage in an activity that creates crime in the US. In reality this is no different, as gambling online is unequivocally illegal in the US, but there are corporations and casinos engaged in actively breaking US law. Much like the drug lords they will pursue them for creating the market to violate US law although I doubt they will seek extradition of anyone.

    Lets just be clear, it had nothing to do with Britain dominating the industry, it had everything to do with preserving the current laws by adapting them to the internet. The industry is a victim of it's own success, had it remained small there might have never been action by the US congress, and the FBI wouldn't be trying to make an example of someone to try to scare the rest of the industry into not being active participants in the breaking of US law.

    Finally, it's apparent whoever arrested them didn't really know what was going on. They couldn't bring a case against the men simply for the fact that it would violate habeas corpus. With no current active role in the company (if true) their case won't go past the preliminary hearing.