Amazing we have Jay Cohen, one of the most respected people in the gambling world put up a great post that basically says what I and other have been saying and then we get a poster, backed up by JJ, ignore it and repeat incorrect information. I guess just the wisdom you have to expect from a posting board.
At times yes, but we have all covered these topics before. This always happens when we talk of the legality of the offshore business. Instead of knowing the laws and their application, seems many in the forum just want to believe conclusions they came to long ago for whatever reason, law be damned. These are important issues for us all and we all deserve the truth on them. We can all disagree on a game or questions of ethics and have fun being spirited in doing so, but something like the law should yield a lot more agreement than conflicting opinions.
Who cares?
People love taling about this stuff over and over and over and over again.
It is illegal, so is drinking and driving but people do it, and until they get caught it doesn't really matter.
How many people read this site? How many different people have placed bets off shore? How many have you heard of that got prosecuted? There might be some, but I have never heard of any.
TAKING a bet, and MAKING a bet are completely different. Even when locals get arrested and buried, howmany of the guys betting with them get thrown in jail? They might not colect their winnings, but they don't get in trouble. Again, there may be some unique cases, but if there was a precedent it would have been cut and pasted here.
Also how many bills have been proffered to Congress to get SPECIFIC legislation in place to make internet gambling illegal? How many have gotten ANYTHING done?
Even when the government tries to make it hard for people to even send money offshore, there are still ways to do it. So if they cannot stop something that is as simple as sending money (which is traceable and relatively easy to regulate) how can they stop the act of gambling? I mean after 9/11 they STILL can't stop monetary transactions that are used for a so called "illegaL activity. And they have all the new Domestic Protection laws on their side.
This is all good fodder to piss and moan about, but in terms of reality it is way down on the list. It is so low that it doesn't even warrant a second thought.
Until something is actually PASSED, and then stands up in a court of law, and finally the person is convicted and sentanced. It doesn't even matter.
Hopefully all this sh it will result in the US government or some "smart" politician to promote a bill that would legalize it and then have it regulated by the government. of couorse that brings up some questions as well, but it would certainly make it a lot safer to play.
I would much rather be forced to lay -110 online through a company that is listed in LA, that get -105 in some place listed in Panama, or ANY foriegn country. We might not like the government sometimes, but whentheyare there when we need them, that whole story changes. Ask anyone that gets screwed in Vegas. The process is fair and reasonable, and often times the player is proven right, and gets their winnings.
Why do you think all the places in that other post got away with stealing money? Because there isn't anything anyone can do about it when they do. If Pinnacle, Olympic, CRIS, Bo Dog, any or all of them decided to just disappear there is a damn thing anyone could do anywhere to get money from them. What regulation is there? Because they claim to be liscenced and regulated? Well they slip the right guy the right amount, and problem solved.
To me, THAT is a lot more scarey than worrying about some bill some guy in bumfuckcounty is looking to get passed.
People love taling about this stuff over and over and over and over again.
It is illegal, so is drinking and driving but people do it, and until they get caught it doesn't really matter.
How many people read this site? How many different people have placed bets off shore? How many have you heard of that got prosecuted? There might be some, but I have never heard of any.
TAKING a bet, and MAKING a bet are completely different. Even when locals get arrested and buried, howmany of the guys betting with them get thrown in jail? They might not colect their winnings, but they don't get in trouble. Again, there may be some unique cases, but if there was a precedent it would have been cut and pasted here.
Also how many bills have been proffered to Congress to get SPECIFIC legislation in place to make internet gambling illegal? How many have gotten ANYTHING done?
Even when the government tries to make it hard for people to even send money offshore, there are still ways to do it. So if they cannot stop something that is as simple as sending money (which is traceable and relatively easy to regulate) how can they stop the act of gambling? I mean after 9/11 they STILL can't stop monetary transactions that are used for a so called "illegaL activity. And they have all the new Domestic Protection laws on their side.
This is all good fodder to piss and moan about, but in terms of reality it is way down on the list. It is so low that it doesn't even warrant a second thought.
Until something is actually PASSED, and then stands up in a court of law, and finally the person is convicted and sentanced. It doesn't even matter.
Hopefully all this sh it will result in the US government or some "smart" politician to promote a bill that would legalize it and then have it regulated by the government. of couorse that brings up some questions as well, but it would certainly make it a lot safer to play.
I would much rather be forced to lay -110 online through a company that is listed in LA, that get -105 in some place listed in Panama, or ANY foriegn country. We might not like the government sometimes, but whentheyare there when we need them, that whole story changes. Ask anyone that gets screwed in Vegas. The process is fair and reasonable, and often times the player is proven right, and gets their winnings.
Why do you think all the places in that other post got away with stealing money? Because there isn't anything anyone can do about it when they do. If Pinnacle, Olympic, CRIS, Bo Dog, any or all of them decided to just disappear there is a damn thing anyone could do anywhere to get money from them. What regulation is there? Because they claim to be liscenced and regulated? Well they slip the right guy the right amount, and problem solved.
To me, THAT is a lot more scarey than worrying about some bill some guy in bumfuckcounty is looking to get passed.
Jay C said:
Jay- Thanks for posting your thoughts. I have one question for you asfar as one of your statements. Lets say that you are a english citizen and you own a sportsbook in a country, such as Antigua, that deals with American clients. You feel that they are open to prosecution from the US? I am asking an honest question, because that just does not seem right to me. You can be prosecuted for taking a bet from an American, who is not breaking the US laws, by calling in a bet?
<!--StartFragment -->
Indeed, there is a *huge* gap between between the DOJ's public position and what has been proven in a court of law.
The DOJ has taken the "position" that companies assisting offshore sportsbooks and casinos are "aiding and abetting illegal activity" and can be subject to prosecution under the same tenuous legal statutes. They've used this "theory" and strong arm tactics to get advertisers to drop offshore book advertisements. Yet the DOJ's theory has never been tested in court.
The DOJ has also taken the position the Wire Act covers internet communications. This (AFAIK) has also never been proven in court, and congress is of the opinion that the Wire Act does not prohibit Internet wagering (hence a new legislative proposal every year to fill the gap).
The DOJ has taken the position that it can prosecute foreign individuals and foreign companies operating within the laws of their own country (even explicitly authorized and licensed), for violating U.S. law, despite no ties to the U.S. The DOJ has brought charges under this theory (e.g. Dmitry Sklyarov and ElcomSoft for violating DCMA), however it has yet to win a case.
The last theory simply cannot hold up in a free society. If this theory were true, any country could prosecute you for violating their laws on the Internet. Iran could charge you with blasphemy, France could prosecute you for not censoring your website under French laws (Yahoo's CEO has been indicted in France), Saudi Arabia for usury, China for dissident speech, etc. The Internet could not exist, only national intranets.
The Isle of Man has just recently revised their regulatory regime allowing Internet Casinos licensed in Isle of Man to accept U.S. customers.
It is up to the DOJ to both *prove* its theories, and it *enforce* them. Business and individuals should not bow down to untested theories and extra jurisdictional claims of overzealous politically aspiring lawyers. I should think as much of the DOJs position than I would of the old Soviet Union claiming capitalism is immoral and illegal and that I must join the world proletariat.
Jay Cohen was wrongly prosecuted. The U.S. not only respects the right of a citizen of China, Cuba or the old Soviet Union to escape tyrannous laws and regimes by leaving, and living in a freer country, it often assists them. Yet a U.S. citizen cannot be afforded the same liberty and can never be free anywhere in the world from the ideologues of DOJ?
Welcome Jay. Great of you to contribute your wealth of knowledge and experience.Jay C said:
Indeed, there is a *huge* gap between between the DOJ's public position and what has been proven in a court of law.
The DOJ has taken the "position" that companies assisting offshore sportsbooks and casinos are "aiding and abetting illegal activity" and can be subject to prosecution under the same tenuous legal statutes. They've used this "theory" and strong arm tactics to get advertisers to drop offshore book advertisements. Yet the DOJ's theory has never been tested in court.
The DOJ has also taken the position the Wire Act covers internet communications. This (AFAIK) has also never been proven in court, and congress is of the opinion that the Wire Act does not prohibit Internet wagering (hence a new legislative proposal every year to fill the gap).
The DOJ has taken the position that it can prosecute foreign individuals and foreign companies operating within the laws of their own country (even explicitly authorized and licensed), for violating U.S. law, despite no ties to the U.S. The DOJ has brought charges under this theory (e.g. Dmitry Sklyarov and ElcomSoft for violating DCMA), however it has yet to win a case.
The last theory simply cannot hold up in a free society. If this theory were true, any country could prosecute you for violating their laws on the Internet. Iran could charge you with blasphemy, France could prosecute you for not censoring your website under French laws (Yahoo's CEO has been indicted in France), Saudi Arabia for usury, China for dissident speech, etc. The Internet could not exist, only national intranets.
The Isle of Man has just recently revised their regulatory regime allowing Internet Casinos licensed in Isle of Man to accept U.S. customers.
It is up to the DOJ to both *prove* its theories, and it *enforce* them. Business and individuals should not bow down to untested theories and extra jurisdictional claims of overzealous politically aspiring lawyers. I should think as much of the DOJs position than I would of the old Soviet Union claiming capitalism is immoral and illegal and that I must join the world proletariat.
Jay Cohen was wrongly prosecuted. The U.S. not only respects the right of a citizen of China, Cuba or the old Soviet Union to escape tyrannous laws and regimes by leaving, and living in a freer country, it often assists them. Yet a U.S. citizen cannot be afforded the same liberty and can never be free anywhere in the world from the ideologues of DOJ?
Number 13 said:
Well that was dirty pool. If Jay had worked as a top guy for Canbet would they have done the same thing. What about a dual UK/US national working in the UK? This jurisdiction argument is simply part of a greater US arrogance where judicial authorities believe they can apply US law to the entire world.
Great points Adam. You succinctly summed up a lot of good arguments. Many Americans don't understand why there is such hate for the country outside the borders and hypocritical positions like this certainly help drive it. Whenever I am on foreign land I without fail here a statement begun with, "dont get me wrong I love a lot of things with the US, but I don't undertand why your government thinks it is ok to..." and then just fill in the argument. It is sad, we still have such goodwill and admiration from the world's citizens and squander it on being egotistical. Our leadership simply thinks whatever it does has good intentions for its own interests and therefore can't be questioned.
Jay C said:
While this is indeed the DOJ position they have been cautious. Some time ago the head of bet365 was in the US (New York, I believe) very publically asking that the profits from US bettors be taxed so as to regulate the industry.
DOJ could easily have pounced and charged him in a similar fashion. I guess there is some liability to being a US national andprotection to being a foreigner?
Of course it doesn't make sense to me. But I am telling you that is their position. If a foreign national is charged in some sweep, is he going to have the balls to come here and fight them? Probably not.
Ace, yes, an English citizen as you described would be open to prosecution by the US. Being a foreigner is not a defense. Just because they haven't done it yet, doesn't mean they can't. And that is the position from the horse's mouth.
Look, we all know how arrogant the US and DoJ can be. They do what they want, when they want.
Here's a little tidbit from the WTO talks. In an effort to find common ground about where Antigua and the US could agree, Antigua talked about all of the different aspects of online gambling seperately.
The DoJ sat there and maintained that all they do is enforce the laws that Congress passes. (I won't even get into the fact that prior to my case the DoJ's publicly stated position was that "offshore gambling was out of their jurisdiction and the offense hasn't been made on US soil.")
OK, fine they just enforce the laws, read on.
The 5th Circuit FEDERAL Court of Appeals ruled that the Wire Act (1084) did not apply to casino gambling, only sports and horse racing. They did this when they were throwing out the case of the deadbeats who were trying not to pay their credit cards because it was an "illegal" activity according to those who freely participated in such activities.
So in the WTO talks Antigua said, what about online casino gambling?, at least you can agree to honor the WTO decision for that topic since your own appellate court has rules that you have no law against it.
They said, the US was not a party to that decision and the 5th Circuit was wrong and therefore they don't recognize the decision.
Nice, huh? Only the rest of the world is supposed to bow down to all of the holy opinions that come out of the federal courts, but when the DoJ doesn't like it, it is deemed wrong and therefore irrelevant.
HOW ARROGANT CAN A COUNTRY BE???
Ace, yes, an English citizen as you described would be open to prosecution by the US. Being a foreigner is not a defense. Just because they haven't done it yet, doesn't mean they can't. And that is the position from the horse's mouth.
Look, we all know how arrogant the US and DoJ can be. They do what they want, when they want.
Here's a little tidbit from the WTO talks. In an effort to find common ground about where Antigua and the US could agree, Antigua talked about all of the different aspects of online gambling seperately.
The DoJ sat there and maintained that all they do is enforce the laws that Congress passes. (I won't even get into the fact that prior to my case the DoJ's publicly stated position was that "offshore gambling was out of their jurisdiction and the offense hasn't been made on US soil.")
OK, fine they just enforce the laws, read on.
The 5th Circuit FEDERAL Court of Appeals ruled that the Wire Act (1084) did not apply to casino gambling, only sports and horse racing. They did this when they were throwing out the case of the deadbeats who were trying not to pay their credit cards because it was an "illegal" activity according to those who freely participated in such activities.
So in the WTO talks Antigua said, what about online casino gambling?, at least you can agree to honor the WTO decision for that topic since your own appellate court has rules that you have no law against it.
They said, the US was not a party to that decision and the 5th Circuit was wrong and therefore they don't recognize the decision.
Nice, huh? Only the rest of the world is supposed to bow down to all of the holy opinions that come out of the federal courts, but when the DoJ doesn't like it, it is deemed wrong and therefore irrelevant.
HOW ARROGANT CAN A COUNTRY BE???
Adam, while they do want to tighten up the language to make sure the wire act covers the internet, I don't think the argument that the internet is not a "wire communications facility" passes the laugh test. Believe me, we discussed it at length.
You think you can convince a judge or a jury that the internet does not use wires or a central hub of some sort, more power to you.
You think you can convince a judge or a jury that the internet does not use wires or a central hub of some sort, more power to you.
Jay- Thanks again for posting, I know first hand what the US Govt is capable of and it is truelly amazing and sickening. It is just simply unbelievable that they can say someone is breaking the law by accepting bets from a US citizens, when they do not even make it illegal for the US citizen to place the bets. Simply arrogant beyond belief!!
