<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by scott:
I posted this earlier concerning the recent subpeonas, mabey it will help:
scott
Certifiably Crazy
posted October 02, 2003 04:50 PM
We're on the wrong track in some of the threads on this important development. This is of major concern for this reason:
On 6/11/03 the Dept of Justice issued a letter to the Nat'l Assc of Broadcasters warning them that carrying such adds was AIDING & ABETTING illegal activities. Nothing to do with 1st Ammendment & free speach issues. This could carry over to line services or other facets of the offshores that they could target.
Usually the Feds attack on Secetion 1084 of Title 18 of the US Code. We're all familiar with that. This is different in that they now say Section 1952 & in particular Section 1955 are involved.....ScottyS
Posts: 133 | From: Nevada | Registered: April 04, 2000<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice, accurate post Scotty.
Fish,
If offshore gambling were legal, Jay would be here posting in this thread today.
OMT,
If you're going to use Wild Bill as your counsel, stock up on some vasiline. It won't hurt as much.
I posted this earlier concerning the recent subpeonas, mabey it will help:
scott
Certifiably Crazy
posted October 02, 2003 04:50 PM
We're on the wrong track in some of the threads on this important development. This is of major concern for this reason:
On 6/11/03 the Dept of Justice issued a letter to the Nat'l Assc of Broadcasters warning them that carrying such adds was AIDING & ABETTING illegal activities. Nothing to do with 1st Ammendment & free speach issues. This could carry over to line services or other facets of the offshores that they could target.
Usually the Feds attack on Secetion 1084 of Title 18 of the US Code. We're all familiar with that. This is different in that they now say Section 1952 & in particular Section 1955 are involved.....ScottyS
Posts: 133 | From: Nevada | Registered: April 04, 2000<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice, accurate post Scotty.
Fish,
If offshore gambling were legal, Jay would be here posting in this thread today.
OMT,
If you're going to use Wild Bill as your counsel, stock up on some vasiline. It won't hurt as much.
Oldman, there are about 15 States that have passed laws vs Internet wagering. That being said the Feds say it violates Title 18, Sec 1084. They've had it stand up in Federal Court although a couple lower rulings have been in our favor. It's illegal AS FAR AS THEY'RE CONCERNED. Once again this is a different area of attack....ScottyS
I think there's a paradox that comes into play here. While it's true that the Patriot Act gives the government more powers to prosecute criminal activity, there are less resources manpower-wise to do so. I have read articels where they talk about since the FBI is shifting its focus to anti-terrorism there is less manpower to prosecute the other offenses.
To me what would ne the death knell of the industry was if they could ever find a case where a terrorist organization laundered funds thru a book. Then the government would really get after them, but absent that, I think they got bigger fish to fry.
To me what would ne the death knell of the industry was if they could ever find a case where a terrorist organization laundered funds thru a book. Then the government would really get after them, but absent that, I think they got bigger fish to fry.
Joey C,
You know more about offshore than I will ever know and I readily concede that. However, banning portals would be like banning anti-war demonstrations during the Viet Nam war which is difficult to do in a true democracy. For example, I can advocate resisting legally imposed property tax, but that does not make me a criminal.
According to a lwayer friend, as far as "aiding and abetting" goes - very murky. For instance, if a broker says invest on enron, very difficult to prove that that said broker is aiding and abetting a fraud. Hard to criminally prosecute.
Again, maybe overly optimistic, but I still see the Rx being here next year.
You know more about offshore than I will ever know and I readily concede that. However, banning portals would be like banning anti-war demonstrations during the Viet Nam war which is difficult to do in a true democracy. For example, I can advocate resisting legally imposed property tax, but that does not make me a criminal.
According to a lwayer friend, as far as "aiding and abetting" goes - very murky. For instance, if a broker says invest on enron, very difficult to prove that that said broker is aiding and abetting a fraud. Hard to criminally prosecute.
Again, maybe overly optimistic, but I still see the Rx being here next year.
