Internet Gambling CEO Arrested by FBI

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.'"

Comments

Oy ve...

[hrieke]

So all of this does, outside of keeping all Gambling Web site owners out of the country, is?

Re:Oy ve...

[TubeSteak]

A lot of things.

It rachets up the pressure on the Senate to pass a bill outlawing internet gambling in the United States of America.

It suggests to the Average-internet-gambling-Joe that 'he might be next'

It fscks up the stock prices of these online gambling companies.

As always, if you've got the time, hit up Google News
http://news.google.com/news?q=gambling+arrest
Some random snippets
"The Justice Department is seeking the forfeiture of $4.5 billion, cars and computers from the defendants, including Betonsports PLC and three other companies."

"Several of the defendants live outside the United States, which will make them hard to catch, said U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway in St. Louis."

"Last week, the House passed a bill that would make it illegal for American banks and credit card issuers to make payments to online gambling sites. The bill's fate in the Senate is uncertain, in part because of exemptions granted for horse racing and state lotteries."

Re:Oy ve...

[hrieke]

1. So internet gambling is illegal in the USA, great, so that no effect on this guy's company that's based in Costa Rica, and incorporated in England.

2. One more law in the book so when they do toss the book at someone, but the avg Joe will not even factor this in when it comes time to place a bet.

3. For a day or two.

4. For every road block in place, there will be a way around it. Maybe not Paypal, but eGold

Re:Oy ve...

[HiVizDiver]

1. So internet gambling is illegal in the USA, great, so that no effect on this guy's company that's based in Costa Rica, and incorporated in England.

What worries me about this, is that it could be the first steps towards the government regulating and controlling content on what has been, up to this point, a relatively free and open Internet here in the United States.

Re:Oy ve...

[topham]

Oh no, they won't regulate the internet; they will just arrest people operating legal business that they dislike.

The U.S. allows gambling; it bars Internet gambling but allows other domestic gambling. This type of selective treatment of business is actually against international trade agreements. This won't stop the U.S. from prosecuting and sentencing.

I'm waiting for the kidnapping charges; as U.S. law enforcement have taken such steps in the past and I expect they will over this issue.

Hey Authorities...

[William Robinson]

I bet 200 bucks, that there will be dupe of this stroy within 2 days.

Re:Hey Authorities...

[cosmicj]

I'll raise you $50 and call.

Re:Hey Authorities...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how good the odds of that are, does that really count as "gambling?"

After all, we could bet $20 that the sun will set tonight...

Re:Hey Authorities...

[Randolpho]

I think you're bluffing.

Re:Hey Authorities...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a bet if it is a sure thing!

Re:Hey Authorities...

[rstrickster]

Hmm, does that mean /. will get a summuns to appear before the Senate for allowing online gambling? This is an odd way to test that bill.

Watch the share price fall

[jonv]

BBC article here

It's only a matter of time

[vijayiyer]

internet gambling does not allow the government to take their cut and is therefore in direct competition with them. Expect many more such crackdowns soon.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[M-G]

That, and those poker chips block the Internet's tubes....

Also, with midterm elections looming, it doesn't hurt for the Republicans to crack down on some 'immoral' activity to appease their 'values' voters.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Jtheletter]

If by values voters you mean Indian casinos contributing to campaign coffers. It's interesting to note that many of the reps against online gambling seem to have no problem at all supporting local tribal casinos. It's all about who's greasing palms and playing nice with the government (ala taxes).

Re:It's only a matter of time

[UglyTool]

Also, with midterm elections looming, it doesn't hurt for the Republicans to crack down on some 'immoral' activity to appease their 'values' voters.

Completely off topic, but out of curiosity...

Where, in the bible, does it say anything about the morality or immorality of gambling? It speaks out against adultery, incest, rape (especially where it says the rapist has to marry the girl), but I must have missed the meeting where they added anything about gambling.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[voice_of_all_reason]

Where, in the bible, does it say anything about the morality or immorality of gambling? It speaks out against adultery, incest, rape (especially where it says the rapist has to marry the girl)

Suddenly, "magic golden plates" don't seem so crazy, do they?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[gowen]

True, but "Voted least crazy religion" is not a great selling point on your advertising literature.

They'd be better off sticking with the tried and true "Sole chance of avoiding everlasting damnation", or failing that, "We allow up to 7 wives".

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Tx]

Searching google for "bible gambling", the first hit gives us this:

Question: "What does the Bible say about gambling? Is gambling a sin?"

Answer: Gambling can be defined as "risking money in an attempt to multiply the money on something that is against the odds." The Bible does not specifically condemn gambling, betting, or the lottery. The Bible does warn us, however, to stay away from the love of money (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5). Scripture also encourages us to stay away from attempts to "get rich quick" (Proverbs 13:11; 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10). Gambling most definitely is focused on the love of money and undeniably tempts people with the promise of quick and easy riches.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Where, in the bible, does it say anything about the morality or immorality of gambling? It speaks out against adultery, incest, rape (especially where it says the rapist has to marry the girl), but I must have missed the meeting where they added anything about gambling.

The Bible doesn't really talk about gambling. OTOH, the Quran might; I wouldn't know. But you don't need a religious text to see the problem.

Weathly people tend to invest their money in stocks, banks, government and corporate bonds, and so on. It's like gambling, except you win in the long run. Poor people tend to invest their money in the lottery or the casino. In the long run, they lose.

So the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, except for a lucky few. If you think Wal*Mart or Nike are exploitive, they are nothing compared to gambling estalishments.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Tweekster]

Guess who plays poker...EVERYONE
If it is "real" gambling being shut down, most people dont care, but anyone politician that fucks with online poker will be looking for a new job very quickly.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[jandrese]

That is disappointingly vague. The admonishment against get rich quick schemes is good advice, but hardly seems against the spirit of the friendly low stakes gambing that most people take part in. "Love of money" is even more vague.

Ultimately, gambling is one of those things that reminds me of grade school where the entire class was forbidden from some activity because one or two people were unable to behave. It's ultimately unfair, but mostly unavoidable if you care at all about people with poor self control (gamblers and other addicts). Social problems never have easy solutions.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[edmicman]

Maybe they'll finely curb the inane fad that is Texas Holem' Poker (online or off). Seriously, the poker fad is played out, gone the way of mass produced "retro" emo tees that are unique in that EVERYONE has one.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Tx]

So the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, except for a lucky few. If you think Wal*Mart or Nike are exploitive, they are nothing compared to gambling estalishments.

Both rich and poor gamble, and I haven't seen any particular evidence to show that gambling plays a significant role in the poor getting poorer. And actually there's nothing particularly wrong in the relatively poor "investing" in, say, the lottery, so long as the stake is small enough. Buying a dollar lottery ticket once a week gives you a (very long) shot at getting very rich. Investing that same weekly dollar in a "sensible" investment may earn you a few thousand dollars over your complete working life (barring stock market crashes etc). Contrary to the arrogant assertions of many that a lottery is "a tax on the stupid", most players are well aware of the odds, and are willing to sacrifice that few thousand dollars they could earn from "sensible" investments, for the outside chance of becoming fabulously rich. It's a perfectly rational risk-versus-reward choice.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Usagi_yo]

The U.S just arrested a CEO of a foreign Corporation for doing internet business that was contrary to U.S law. Next time we complain about Google or Yahoo bending over backwards to adhere to Chinese law, we should take into account our own policies.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[gowen]

Indeed.

Given that the vast majority of gamblers lose, wouldn't not gambling constitute a stronger demonstration of a love of money?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, using terms like "crackdown" implies that there was something wrong with an act of voluntary association (in this case peaceful gambling) in the first place. It's a subtle, but highly effective use of propaganda which profits the power elite (the people who control government) in the long run. This isn't an attack on individual freedom, but a "crackdown" on "illegal activities".

It works for drug prohibition, why not gambling? Hell, they could use it on just about any peaceful, voluntary activity they want to assimilate for the benefit of perpetually-expanding government.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Surt]

Their values voters care about lots of 'morals' issues not well documented in the bible. You might as well ask: where's the prohibition against human cloning in the bible?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Bemopolis]

Cool -- I always thought Bill Bennett read slashdot. Hey Bill!

Bemopolis

Re:It's only a matter of time

[TubeSteak]

Where, in the bible, does it say anything about the morality or immorality of gambling?

You aren't the first person to ask that question.
http://www.google.com/search?q=gambling+bible

I'll give you the quick summary:
The Bible doesn't specifically prohibit gambling. However... The Good Book says not to love money or seek quick riches & gambling is never(?) shown as a form of recreation or 'fun' to be emulated.

So, gambling is considered somewhat sinful, and the free flowing booze in casinos adds some extra zesty sin.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[BenjiTheGreat98]

I would say based on the provided verses he has given that friendly 5 dollar poker night with the guys doesn't really fall under 'sin'. You definitely aren't looking to get rich quick with that and when the stakes are pretty low like that, is it really about the money or playing cards with your buddies? I'd say it's about the time with your buddies.

Maybe it also depends if sin is in the eye of the beholder. But that's a whole other arguement.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[TubeSteak]

Buying a dollar lottery ticket once a week gives you a (very long) shot at getting very rich. Investing that same weekly dollar in a "sensible" investment may earn you a few thousand dollars over your complete working life (barring stock market crashes etc).

Here's the catch: the more money you have, the greater the return 'over your complete working life' and even in the short term.

Unless you have millions of dollars to throw around, you can't realistically get in on the types of investments that kick back very high returns.

Unless you're a Congressman or Senator. Then you're set.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Brickwall]

Didn't Moses freak out when he came down from the mountain, and found his people "casting lots"?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[TubeSteak]

The U.S just arrested a CEO of a foreign Corporation for doing internet business that was contrary to U.S law.

The guy was still a U.S. citizen, had been arrested in 1980something & currently had an arrest warrant out on him.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[pete6677]

That's how ALL gambling laws are determined. How many states have lotteries, but outlaw all other forms of gambling? Hardly any government official is against gambling as long as they get a cut.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[rainman_bc]

he Bible does warn us, however, to stay away from the love of money (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5).

Then every bastard priest in the vatican ( the richest city-state in the world) should be subject to eternal damnation no?

Look out, here come the bible thumping troll mods to make sure that comment's never seen haha!

Re:It's only a matter of time

[WindBourne]

Reminds me of the trumped up crap against the russian oil barron. Have to wonder about our gov. now.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[pete6677]

I hear you. Maybe next they can outlaw the stores selling poker equipment, trying to cash in on this stupid craze. And get it off of ESPN. Since when was poker a sport?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[cayenne8]

"I haven't seen any particular evidence to show that gambling plays a significant role in the poor getting poorer...most players are well aware of the odds..."

This is my thought too. I like to gamble, I study how to play the games and get the odds to the best of my favor that I can. I don't plan on winning all the time, basically, any funds I take to gamble with...are to lose and not care. That money is the price for that form of entertainment. I try to win, I hope to win, but, I do understand human mistakes and 'bad runs' of the cards can hit you at times. Probability can swing very wild at times in the short term view of a session or two.

If a person doesn't understand gambling or doesn't take the time to learn what is going on and what realistic expectations are (hoping to get rich overnight), well, they get what they deserve. It is no different that a person buying a car, and not knowing how to bargain, what the car dealer has up his sleeve for tricks to get money out of you. If you are too stupid or lazy to work for your best deal, again, you deserve to get what comes to you. Gambling, like many things in life...require you as an individual to put forth some effort to know what is going on, and to know if you can't do it or it is a personal risk, then you must avoid said activities.

But, just because some people can't handle adult activities...doesn't mean that all adults should be banned from them....

Re:It's only a matter of time

[UglyTool]

I wanna see how far offtopic I can get...

See, that's what I love about the bible. You can pick a couple of verses that are in the ballpark of what you are against, and use it to prove (or disprove) whatever it is you are for (or against).

I know it's a Simpson's reference, but let's say that it's my bible...

In the episode A Star is Born-Again (EABF08), Ned has a list of scriptures in one hand, declaring that adultery is bad, and a list in the other hand that says it might be okay. All of the scripture blows in the wind, except one, which apparently means that it's okay. The painfully devout Ned ends up consummating with her.

I wonder if we can use the bible to prove that Microsoft are indeed the devil, and put religious zealotry to some good use for a change.

Now that's good flame!

Re:It's only a matter of time

[rainman_bc]

It's ultimately unfair, but mostly unavoidable if you care at all about people with poor self control (gamblers and other addicts). Social problems never have easy solutions.

Under that premise, we should outlaw:

Buffets -> ever seen the size of the fat bastards at a Buffet? Those poor fat bastards are doomed if they continue to eat at that rate.
Candy -> sure it's okay once in a while, but causes tooth decay
Alcohol -> it's the scourge of society - too much alcoholism
Casino Gambling -> wtf is the difference between gambling online and gambling in a casino? Only difference I see is the greedy govt doesn't get a cut. Tough shit for them for not legalizing internet gambling IMO.
Sex -> too many pervs out there that can't control themselves. We should sterlize everyone.

I realize that I'm drawing a slippery slope, but I'm just doing it to prove a point. Truth is, some people just can't control themselves with anything, and we shouldn't outlaw choice. /me works for an internet gambling company in a round about way.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[cayenne8]

"nd get it off of ESPN. Since when was poker a sport?"

Well, what if they made it full contact poker?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[kabocox]

The U.S just arrested a CEO of a foreign Corporation for doing internet business that was contrary to U.S law. Next time we complain about Google or Yahoo bending over backwards to adhere to Chinese law, we should take into account our own policies.

The article made it sound like the guy and his companies were avoiding paying US gambling taxes. Personally, I'm all for avoiding paying any nation's taxes, but if you want to live life by that, then you ought to stay out of the countries that will jail you for not paying their taxes! I hope this CEO knew that he had felony warrants on him before he traveled to the US. Otherwise the guy deserved to get put in jail. I'm of the opinion that if Yahoo or Google violates Chinese law then they should be punished by Chinese law. I take it is as if that's the rule of the land where you want to operate then you better play by that government's rules or face lack of freedom if you ever visit that country. Sounds pretty straight forward to me. Yahoo and Google could violate Chinese laws all day long, but they better not plan their company vacation for China! The same applies to the US except both companies have more property in the US that the government would happily seize if either company was violating US law.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[UglyTool]

Didn't Moses freak out when he came down from the mountain, and found his people "casting lots"?

I just read that as making clay models of the guy saved from Sodom...

Re:It's only a matter of time

[aftk2]

Reps probably equals "Representatives."

Interesting to see how your mind works, though. Knee-jerk, much?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

That is incorrect. Individual winnings are taxed.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[whoop]

Ultimately, it's about your priorities. Don't put money/get rich quick/luxury items above your family, self, God, etc.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Jtheletter]

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I pretty much despise both major parties since they're both in it for the same reasons: more power for themselves. That was also why 'reps' [representatives] was lowercase. Some people love to see bias everywhere. And to the grandparent AC poster: trust me bub, when I post to tear apart the Republicans, you'll know it.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[adsl]

All gambling is EVIL. Except when it is State run, when it's very nice thank you.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Richy_T]

Indeed. And it gets worse. Here in Tennessee, one of the prizes you could win in the govt run lottery was a trip to Las Vegas

And gambling is outlawed here why exactly?

Rich

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Hektor_Troy]

In other words, if you want to be a really good and devout christian, you have to outlaw capitalism, as that is based on the love of money. Neat ...

Re:It's only a matter of time

[gowen]

Who's Bill Bennett? Wikipedia tells me he's a Canadian politician, in which case: I don't get it.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[kalirion]

That, and those poker chips block the Internet's tubes....

Unlike the horses which race straight through under their own power.


I love the Daily Show.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Every casino I've ever been to has been clogged with values voters.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[cmdr_beeftaco]

i thought it was about free drinks, what does the bible say about free drinks?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[bradr98]

David is not, was not, never has been a US Citizen. He is a UK Citizen. Others named in the Indictment are US citizens

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

*phew* Good thing I don't give a crap about those people... oh, no, wait... even though *I* don't think that government should protect people from themselves, since enough idiots out there DO, I still get fucked. Great.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

> The admonishment against get rich quick schemes is good advice, but hardly seems against the spirit of the friendly low stakes gambing that most people take part in. "Love of money" is even more vague.

It's not the activity so much as the motive. I hope you don't play friendly games with the dream of becoming insanely rich, anyhow. Love of money is when you put it ahead of things you shouldn't, like your family.

So no, there's nothing wrong with gambling in and of itself so long as there aren't bad motives behind it. That aside, the Bible elsewhere condemns drunken revelry* and lust, which might also be associated with casino activities, but both behaviors were optional in all the casinos I've been to in Vegas, and I visited several when I was there.

* The Bible doesn't condemn drinking (obviously: Communion traditionally involves wine, after all), but it does condemn drunkenness in a few places, deriding it as foolish, among other things.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[suffe]

But, I thought the balls from the lottery cleared those right out.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[suffe]

I think you are missing the point. A CEO was arrested. I'll say that again, a frickin' CEO was arrested!

Fine, I'm just being silly. But not entirely.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Breakfast Pants]

So I'm guessing booze is only sinful if jesus didn't craft it out of water?

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Memnos]

In essence you are correct, the taxman does always cometh. But I wager that the supranational internet can get around it. I also wager that some bright hacker will out a Congressman or two playing PartyPoker.

I further fear to wager, but I do, that our Calvinist, Puritanical heritage will blind us to some real problems we face; the USA sometimes seems fated to cut its nose off to spite its face.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Some_Llama]

Booze is only sinful if not used in moderation. Jesus didn't prohibit the drinking of wine (mormons will argue about this tho) and infact made it available, looking to the teachings of solomon you see that drinking is one of man's pleasures, but drunkeness to excess (alcoholism) is one of man's downfalls (stumbling blocks).

Re:It's only a matter of time

[Memnos]

I have a brain-injury that renders me unable to perceive sarcasm. Your post may have been a breakthrough in my recovery from this terrible affliction, and I thank you. The foregoing was not sarcasm (like I would know if it was, given my "mental condition" (; ) but rather plaudits for you getting to the point. (I know people that work for the Lottery in Florida, and they are embarrased, to say the least, about what they do.)

Re:It's only a matter of time

[ray-auch]

Think french law also, and german and....

When Yahoo US posted material legal in the US and not legal in France (but accessible from France), they got fined in France.

What did they do ? - Try and get the US courts to rule that US (1st amendment) law applied to their internet site. Appealed all the way to the supremes (who have declined to take it - ie. the US establishment is ducking the issue so far).

Sooner or later they will have to face it, as some non-US country is going to arrest a US CEO in transit to make the point. Then the US will have to face up to the fact that using your legal system to impose your values beyond your borders is going to work for other countries too. Countries whose values the US doesn't like but is going to end up having to live with.

How long before Chavez tries to collect massive retrospective taxes going back a few years (following Putin's example) ? Where would US oil execs ba able to go then - nowhere where Venezuela has an extradition treaty and, probably more importantly, nowhere where it could buy an extradidtion for a million or so barrels of cheap oil.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[SonicSpike]

Personally I would venture to say that the brick-and-mortar casinos are heavily funding the coffers of those politicians that are pushing this through. It's another classic example of big business using government as a tool to regulate in their favor against small business and their competition.

The best way to avoid this is to make the government limited so that it only carries out its most basic functions. That's why I'm a (L)ibertarian.

You can read more here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191483&cid =15736452
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191483&cid =15736383

Re:It's only a matter of time

[dr_light]

Wouldn't be a bad idea to at least keep it the hell in check. Just look what it's come to: Walmart wages, RIAA suing disabled people for downloading hip-hop music, Windows activation tying your copy to one computer only so they can milk you for every computer you own, trying to charge for lyrics, (what's next, sending people to jail for humming a tune because it could be considered a public broadcasting?)

Re:It's only a matter of time

[blang]

When Yahoo US posted material legal in the US and not legal in France (but accessible from France), they got fined in France.
What did they do ? - Try and get the US courts to rule that US (1st amendment) law applied to their internet site. Appealed all the way to the supremes (who have declined to take it - ie. the US establishment is ducking the issue so far).

That's not called ducking the issue. That's called following the law. US supreme court does not have jurisdiction in France. The supreme court has no standing to change french law. If Yahoo thinks that taking it to supreme court will help them, they deserve all they can get for being morons.

Many countries have extradition laws. Most countries who are against death penalties will not extradite unless they get a guarrantee that death penalty will not be used. It is up to the local country to decide whether they should extradite or not, and even if there are agreements to extradite, there is no guaranteews these will be honored.

International law is tricky, and to be effective each country has to give up a little bit of sovereignty. We have an international criminal court, human rights commision, the international court of Justice (only states can bring a case before it). Civilized countries bring their grievances to an international court. Barbarian nations (such as post-millenium USA) does otherwise.

The boogey man issue you are trying to paint does not seem to be all that important. If anything the real issue is the tendency to unilateral action and disregard for international law the last 6 years, something that has set us back 20 years.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[mink]

All I have to say is this:
http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/2000/08/24/bo ll/index.html

Of course they lost

[Anonymous Coward]

The government gets a healthy cut from the earnings in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Politicians get hefty contributions due to the earnings from Native American casinos. And lotteries like Powerball are the government's own game.

So it's no wonder that online gambling sites lose, and will continue to lose in court. You've got to pony up to the bosses if you want to work in this town. (Preferably, both Democrats and Republicans.)

Re:Of course they lost

[oahazmatt]

Actually, it's not just online gambling.

There are numerous "cashless" casinos in my area. There was a surge of them. You bought a monthly membership, vouchers, however each one chose to set up, and you would compete for material prizes such as televisions, event tickets, and so on. Most of these casinos also donated 10% of their monthly earnings to charities.

The problem came about first when the local government realized they weren't getting anything special from these gambling halls, and when a small, small, small yet vocal group protested them, saying how their significant others were throwing away large amounts of money to be part of these casinos. This group launched a campaign and instead of seeking help for their loved ones, just wanted the places shut down. Not getting a lot of incentive from the casinos themselves, pressure was put on. I believe only two of the "game rooms" are still in business now.

Re:Of course they lost

[toy4two]

Our local video arcade should be shut down then if your town shut these down. They give tickets and let kids claim prizes, same concept. Its amazing the minority lobbying group in town got this place shut down. What is this country coming to.

Re:Of course they lost

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Christianity, and it's coming to a town near you.

Re:Of course they lost

[master0ne]

oh no, oh no, you shouldnt have done that, i can see it now, an army of soccer moms protesting video arcades due to their kids spending all their allowence and lunch money on those infernal machines, instead of better things.. like oh say heroin and a glock. you need to learn to keep your comments to yourself, you just ruined it for all of us buddy!

What's the penalty interest?

[darcling]

"The indictment charged Carruthers, Kaplan and nine other individuals ... with tax evasion, racketeering and conspiracy. Gary Kaplan has not paid federal wagering taxes on $3.3 billion on wagers taken by the firm, according to the indictment."

So what's the interest on $3.3 billion? I don't know, but I bet it's not cheap...

Re:What's the penalty interest?

[Rob T Firefly]

So what's the interest on $3.3 billion?

I personally am very interested in $3.3 billion. Thanks for offering.

offtopic?

[hackstraw]

I can't tell if this post is offtopic or not because I am unclear as to what the YRO section of slashdot actually means.

So, with the context of this article, is it my right to be the victim of fraud and racketeering? Is it my right to violate copyright if I think the law is wrong? Is it my right to be a web hermit?

My point is that the YRO section seems to be confused between the controversial stuff like copyrights and patents and generic legal stuff like this article where I would imagine that few or no slashdotters would see this as being controversial or a violation of or rights or the people who are being arrested.

Of course, I did not read the article, but it seems as though these guys were bad guys and got caught for it. So, my thoughts are, gambling is bad m'kay. Getting arrested by the FBI when your being bad is bad m'kay. My rights do not appear to be violated and this does not seem like a controversial YRO article m'kay.

Re:offtopic?

[Anonymous Coward]

They arnt bad guys, they just ran a gambaling website. The us claimed even though the business is run offshore they are evading tax. They are paying tax in the country the company is based in. American companies dont pay tax on earnings to the UK made from people in the UK who buy american stuff online. Why should this company be paying the US Govt.

Re:offtopic?

[Valharick]

But just because you think gambling is bad, doesn't mean someone else believes the same. I think smoking is bad, but it's not my place to tell anyone else what to do.

Re:offtopic?

[Rob T Firefly]

Of course, I did not read the article, but it seems as though these guys were bad guys and got caught for it. So, my thoughts are, gambling is bad m'kay. Getting arrested by the FBI when your being bad is bad m'kay. My rights do not appear to be violated and this does not seem like a controversial YRO article m'kay.

I personally don't much like gambling, but as I see it this does apply to your rights online in that the crackdown on online gambling is defining a couple of rights you do or don't have. Is it or is it not illegal to run a gambling site out of this country? Is it or is it not illegal to use one, even if it's based somewhere that has no problem with it? If gambling is legal in Las Vegas, should I be able to set up a server there and run web casinos off it? Or can I patronize an offshore gambling site if I'm sitting at my PC in Atlantic City? Decisions are being made and precedents are being set which further delineate just what rights we do have online.

Re:offtopic?

[darcling]

You have the right to gamble online... just not in the US : )

Re:offtopic?

[M-G]

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't violate your rights. Yeah, the guys running the site sound like they're probably scumbags and fraudsters. But the feds are clearly going to go after online gambling operations as much as they can. So any gambling site is going to be a potential target. And when Congress is debating a bill to further restrict onling gambling, but carve out exceptions for interstate lotteries and horse betting, it's a bit hard to not see a double standard: I can bet on horses, but not poker. Sounds like my rights are involved.

Re:offtopic?

[b0s0z0ku]

So, with the context of this article, is it my right to be the victim of fraud and racketeering?

"Racketeering" is a generic term for "heading a criminal enterprise." Illegal gambling falls under that umbrella - but no one was forcing the gamblers to play, so I don't see anyone being hurt! The only entities being "defrauded" are the US and State governments, since they don't get their share of the profits of the operation in taxes. In that, I don't see how different this is from going to a casino in Europe and playing there. Either way, unless you win, there's no way the US is getting a tax profit. If you do win, I'd suspect that electronic winnings may actually be easier to track and tax than cash winnings.

This is nothing more than a money grab by the US government. Moral of the story: don't fly through the US if you do something to keep money away from its government!

-b.

Re:offtopic?

[kisrael]

Is it my right to violate copyright if I think the law is wrong?

Huh? Are you referring to other articles or what?

All in all, it seems to be a matter of dumb, nanny-state laws. Depending on how you view "rights", a crackdown on Internet Gambling might indeed involve YRO.

Also, I have to raise an eyebrow at arrests at airline stopovers. It might have been careless on part of the guy arrested, but it seems like a way for our government to do an end-run around extradition laws of other countries.

Re:offtopic?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:
"...has not paid federal wagering taxes...Misuse of the Internet to violate the law...harm legitimate businesses...punish and seize the profits of individuals who disregard federal and state laws."

The guy lives in Costa Rica. The reason that people went after him was due to the government not getting a cut of all the profits he was getting for people in the states using the online gambling sites.

My question would be whether this can be used as a precedent in later cases. If online actions, deemed illegal, by people inside the United States to services outside of the United States can be cut off and the people running the service be prosecuted, what is to say that *anything* deemed illegal that has any sort of dealing online where some organization or government body isn't getting money, can't also follow the same path?

And why don't we hear about people who used the service getting arrested?

The rights being violated are not neccesarily spelled out, but you should have the freedom to put your money where you want, or don't want. If this can be used as a precedent, then music (or now lyric), movies, tv shows or games downloading from out of country servers could be prosecuted by the *United States* as opposed to a local power. It would be like saying the United States has jurisdiction everywhere to prosecute anyone who violates our "state and federal laws."

Re:offtopic?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if your website in the US contravenes: Chinese, Iranian, North Korean law, (the list keeps lengthening) Americans can be detained / arrested if their plane lands/has to land in one of these countries?

Re:offtopic?

[planetmn]

Also, I have to raise an eyebrow at arrests at airline stopovers. It might have been careless on part of the guy arrested, but it seems like a way for our government to do an end-run around extradition laws of other countries.

Why? He knowingly came into a country that wanted him arrested. And he got arrested. If you violate US laws, and the US gov't wants to arrest you, don't step foot inside the country. Not particularily hard to do. I find this problem of yours to be inconsistent with your nanny-state laws stance. You want to hold people accountable for their actions, and not protect them. Well, he wasn't protected, and now he's being held accountable for a choice on his part.

-dave

Re:offtopic?

[kisrael]

No doubt about it, the guy was dumb if he knew about the stopover and went for it anyway.

But still, what if some shlub happened to have a playboy in his suitcase and his jet had to make a planned or unplanned stopover in some nation where such material was an arrestable offence? I think it's right to not applaud stakeouts based on airport stopovers. I'm not saying that the USA doesn't have the right to do such a thing, I just think it's an ugly precedent. (Hence the "raised eyebrow" in my original post, rather than more of a shout of outrage.)

Re:offtopic?

[planetmn]

But still, what if some shlub happened to have a playboy in his suitcase and his jet had to make a planned or unplanned stopover in some nation where such material was an arrestable offence? I think it's right to not applaud stakeouts based on airport stopovers.

If you step foot in a sovereign country, you are held accountable to those laws. Why should a portion of an airport not be subject to the same laws that govern the land surrounding it?

Honestly, I have no problem with it. If Bin Laden were to spend the rest of his life, flying around your airport "safe harbors" to plan out future attacks, I would sure as hell be pissed if he wasn't arrested because he was in "safety." The world is not a playground game. Learn the rules and either follow them, or face the consequences.

-dave

Re:offtopic?

[kisrael]

Why should a portion of an airport not be subject to the same laws that govern the land surrounding it?
For similar reasons that embassy's are considered part of the nation they represent?

Honestly, I have no problem with it. If Bin Laden were to spend the rest of his life, flying around your airport "safe harbors" to plan out future attacks, I would sure as hell be pissed if he wasn't arrested because he was in "safety."

I wouldn't advocate for 100% "safe harbor", but I still don't like it as a tactic, especially for fairly victimless crimes.

Re:offtopic?

[nelsonal]

Actually American companies do pay tax on earnings when a foreign subsidiary sells something (they get credits for foreign taxes paid, and on earnings reinvested in the foreign country). That's why so many companies were reincorporating in Bermuda a few years ago (they could stop paying American taxes on foreign income). Following Sept 11, congress gave a one year tax break on repatriating foreign earnings and billions were repatriated (which is one of many reasons dividend yields are up in the last few years).

Re:offtopic?

[nelsonal]

Yep, and you can try to call your consolate for help. If you violate the laws of another country you can either be extradited (by your country) or arrested if you foolishly set foot in that country only national soverignity keeps you safe in your own nation. Why is this news to people?

Re:offtopic?

[planetmn]

For similar reasons that embassy's are considered part of the nation they represent?

Embassies are considered part of the nation they represent (and are purchased as sovereign lands). But you advocate an anarchist (anarchy in it's original meaning: no government, not necessarily some violent, lord of the flies interpretation) situation. Embassy grounds are subjects to the laws of their country (i.e. US Embassies are subject to US laws). So what sovereign nation would those sections of airports belong to?

especially for fairly victimless crimes

Fraud and racketeering are victimless? Since when? They aren't violent, and they aren't necessarily all that serious, but there are still victims. And how do you propose dividing laws into ones where "you can be arrested at airports" and those where "you can't be arrested at airports?"

-dave

Re:offtopic?

[bradr98]

In this case the indictment was sealed. No one knew that Mr. Carruthers or the others named were wanted by the DOJ. I'm sure if it had been public knowledge, or if the company had been served, there would have been different travel arrangements made. Whether or not the public company (BOS) would make Mr. Carruthers available to answer, or if the UK would extradite him would of course be a completely different story. But the document in question was sealed on June 1st and sealed tight.

Re:offtopic?

[kisrael]

I'm not "advocating" anything, I'm thinking about alternate setups while looking askance at tactics of my law enforcement officials.

Now, are "fraud and racketeering" the actual crime that a disinterested party would say he was arrested for, or is it "running an online gambling site"?

And how do you propose dividing laws into ones where "you can be arrested at airports" and those where "you can't be arrested at airports?"

I'm not proposing much of anything. I think it's clear that there's a subjective element to the enforcement of laws. I don't think it's unreasonable or contradictory to wish that law enforcment save such tactics for more serious crimes.

If "friendly" nations like the UK won't extradite a guy, then maybe that's a sign that a seal inictment is an assholish tactic.

Hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Danger Will Robinson... They are coming to take you away!

bad word?

[preppypoof]

the summary says that this is a precedent for a crackdown on all online gambling. So now online gambling is a menace to society?

My question...

[KingSkippus]

Before I jump to conclusions, my question is this: Are they really guilty of fraud and racketeering (very serious crimes that should be severely punished), or is this just an excuse to try to stop online gambling? I would be interested in seeing and hearing the evidence that gets presented before making up my mind.

Of course, both sides are going to claim what will support their viewpoint.

On the one hand, the DoJ has been itching for any excuse to go after these folks for a long time, which doesn't help the perception of them. If they had remained legally neutral to the matter and just stuck to what the law says, I sure would be more comfortable that they actually have our best interest at heart and that they're not just pandering to right-wing nutcases.

On the other, the online gambling industry is one that is notoriously rife with fraud, and it's entirely possible that these guys are scum that have been doing what they're accused of or worse. For the sake of their industry, I hope that they have realized the scrutiny that they've been under and have made very diligent efforts to stay clean and legitimate and can prove so in court. Otherwise, these two may very well have doomed their entire industry, even the players that are 100% honest and that just want to provide an entertainment service.

I think that the most telling sign of what the truth is is whether the DoJ starts chasing down all online gambling houses for "fraud" and "racketeering." At any rate, it will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

Re:My question...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a public company on the London Stock Exchange. In the jurisdiction in which they are based their business is legal. The US is only pro free trade when it suits them, and will lose this argument at the WTO, though that may not be for 5 years or more.

Re:My question...

[jfengel]

The article says that they had "not paid federal wagering taxes on $3.3 billion on wagers taken by the firm". At a guess, if the house is taking a 2% cut, at a 30% tax rate, that's almost $20 million that they owe. That's enough money to justify arresting somebody and having them extradited.

(There's a whole big deal going on between the US and Britain with respect to extradition, having to do with levels of proof, but I'll assume for the moment that they've got some proof on this guy. It's a separate argument.)

I've never been exactly sure what "racketeering" is. It's kind of the US-white collar equivalent of what the Soviets used to call "hooliganism": a generic crime applied to people doing scuzzy stuff in bulk where you don't want to (or can't) pin any individual crimes on them.

The charge makes me nervous, because its vagueness makes it subject to abuse. But tax evasion is a crime I an understand. There's also the fraud charges, which is a more specific crime but I don't see specific allegations in the article. Presumably they're in the indictment. It lets them avoid having to test their dubious bans against internet gambling directly.

Re:My question...

[sahala]

On the other, the online gambling industry is one that is notoriously rife with fraud, and it's entirely possible that these guys are scum that have been doing what they're accused of or worse.

While it's possible that there are some shady businesses with online gambling, particularly in the referral/affiliate ring, what examples are you referring to when you say that it's "notoriously rife with fraud"? I agree there are some edgy business practices in the past, and I know specifically of a gambling site in the past that went belly-up and afterwards refused to pay back depositor's money. In the last 2 years, however, the well-known online poker rooms seem to be very trustworthy -- and it's in their best interest to do so, just as it has been in the best interest of brick-and-mortar casinos to run a clean operation.

Re:My question...

[jadavis]

and that they're not just pandering to right-wing nutcases.

"Pandering" only generates enough political points to be worth maybe some rhetoric during a campaign, but not enough for any action to take place.

In this case, there are major arrests and major charges. That means that something much more important is going on. Either:

(a) Actual crimes took place
(b) There is a lot of money involved.

My money is on (b). In this case it's from other forms of gambling like Indian Casinos and state lotteries. Can't blame the right-wingers for everything. In this case, it's just more bought-and-paid-for politicians on both sides of the line.

Re:My question...

[yali]

I've never been exactly sure what "racketeering" is. It's kind of the US-white collar equivalent of what the Soviets used to call "hooliganism": a generic crime applied to people doing scuzzy stuff in bulk where you don't want to (or can't) pin any individual crimes on them.

Actually, in the U.S. charging someone with racketeering involves showing that they committed multiple individual felonies, most of which are quite serious. The idea, as I understand it, is that if you are committing multiple crimes in an organized fashion (part of an "enterprise") the overall offense is considered worse than the sum of the individual crimes.

Re:My question...

[Krommenaas]

"On the other, the online gambling industry is one that is notoriously rife with fraud"

Is it? There are plenty of obscure fraudulent sites, sure, but when you say "the industry" I'm thinking of the big companies whose stock is publically traded. I'm not aware of any cases of fraud from such companies. I've worked for one of the major online gambling companies in Europe, and frauding customers was simply unthinkable there, and it would have come as a big surprise if one of our competitors would have turned out to do it. The profit margins are so high that it would be crazy to risk the trust of your customers anyway.

Re:My question...

[DDLKermit007]

Those online gambling sites are about as reputable as Las Vegas Casinos back in the mob days. Theres a bit of a consumer protection thing going on here. In the US B&M gambling places are pretty heavily scrutinized to try and make sure no fishy buisness is going on with advertiseing and that the games aren't rigged (I like in Las Vegas and deal with a few casinos). These companies that are outside of the US? No oversight whatsoever. Plus the whole thing where the government wants it's cut on something like 3.3 billion. I hate taxes as much as the next person, but something like gambling where proffit is assured? Not to mention online? Tax the shit out of it. Nothing "productive" is going on there with that money. Some of it miaswell benifit the taxpayer (we get some nice taxbreaks here b/c of it).

Re:My question...

[tehcyder]

But tax evasion is a crime I an [sic] understand

By this logic Canada, Russia, Japan, Nigeria and Finland (et al) should also be trying them for tax evasion.

It's ludicrous.

Re:My question...

[Cederic]

he's not being extradited, he was arrested in Dallas.

Whether the firm's operations are liable for US tax is very questionable. Use of extradition in a case such as this would cause a massive amount of bad feeling towards the extradition laws and work badly against future US prosecutions of actual crimes.

Re:My question...

[jadavis]

Theres a bit of a consumer protection thing going on here.

So you are saying that they are breaking the law? If they are, they should be punished. If not, they should not be punished. If this is not illegal, perhaps we should make a law, but we can't apply laws retroactively.

Tax the shit out of it.

Sure, I agree, as long as the U.S. has jurisdiction. But these people are claiming that the U.S. does not have jurisdiction on that money, since it was made by an overseas corporation. If one of the owners is living in the U.S., they would be liable for capital gains taxes and income taxes on their share, but not corporate taxes on a non-US corporation.

I really think the main issue here is campaign finance contributions from Indian casinos and political pressure from state lotteries. The reason that I suspect this is because online gambling has been going on for years and they haven't done anything about it before. Also, with the extremely high profits, it seems unlikely that the gambling sites had any motivation to break other laws or rig the games.

Amazing

[voice_of_all_reason]

What part of "bread and circuses" does this latest incarnation of fuedalism not understand?

Re:Amazing

[wiredlogic]

You can't buy as much local bread if you divert your funds to a foreign circus. That's the problem.

Why was he in the US?

[ToxikFetus]

I thought most executives of gambling sites lived outside of the U.S. to avoid this very problem. If his company was taking in billions, there's no reason why he couldn't afford a nice estate in the Caymans.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[b0s0z0ku]

I thought most executives of gambling sites lived outside of the U.S. to avoid this very problem. If his company was taking in billions, there's no reason why he couldn't afford a nice estate in the Caymans.

He was living outside the US. He was changing planes on a flight from London to Costa Rica. Next time, sir, after you get out of jail, may I suggest booking a flight via Toronto? It's safer, and the security people are a good deal less hostile.

-b.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[ptbarnett]

I thought most executives of gambling sites lived outside of the U.S. to avoid this very problem.

RTFA (and the moderator that marked your posting insightful should do the same).

Carruthers was arrested by FBI agents in Dallas on Sunday afternoon as he was returning to his home in Costa Rica from a trip to the United Kingdom.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[spacefight]

Because he's an idiot. I've read in an article in Forbes Asia, that the founder of bodog.com never steps down on U.S. soil because of exactly this reason.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[Amouth]

I wonder.. if he didn't go through customs and was jsut going from one international flight to another and didn't go through a passport check then he wasn't on US soil.. i know it sounds weird but if you are international connecting flights if you don't go through US customs where they check your passport and stamp it.. you arn't on US soil so the FBI wouldn't have juristiction. I would like to know how all that played out..

Re:Why was he in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

The lesson is: Don't take connecting flights that go through the US.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[badfish99]

Unlike in most other countries, you can't change planes in the US without going through US immigration.
So, for example, if I happen to want to go to Cuba (which is perfectly legal for me to do), I have to first get a US visa so that I can change planes in Miami.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[BobTheLawyer]

You are most certainly on US soil if you're at a US airport getting connecting flights. You may be thinking of embassies.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

America, land of the free, home of the trumped up charge and legalised hostage taking for political capital.

Here's hoping all those involved in this blatantly ridiculous act get arrested, charged and jailed. The man has never committed a crime on US soil, but for some reason the US thinks it can charge him for things he has LEGALLY done, overseas - just because they aren't getting a pay off.

It stinks.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[BattleTroll]

Because he was a dumbass. If you're worried that the US DoJ is coming after you, don't land on US teritory. That's a leason to all those out there doing things the US federal government doesn't like - don't come here expecting a warm welcome.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[kbmccarty]

Um, since when are there direct commercial flights between Miami and Cuba?

Re:Why was he in the US?

[Amouth]

my experience with interntational connecting flights was going through Paris.. and i wasn't alowed to leave the interntaional terminal area as i wasn't cleared for a visa..

Re:Why was he in the US?

[bradr98]

In fact Calvin in the U.S. quite frequently, as early as last weekend according to reports. He is also scheduled to host a Gaming Marketing Conference in Las Vegas next week.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[badfish99]

I supposed there were, so that you people could visit your friends and relatives in Guantanamo Bay. I had heard there were a lot of US citizens working there as prison guards.

Re:Why was he in the US?

[OverlordQ]

There are no direct flights to Cuba from the US unless you're riding in a Military plane.

Bad news for poker players.

[purpledinoz]

This is bad news for those poker sites and poker players around the world. A lot of online gamblers are American (which means a lot of fish are American), and taking those players out of online gambling will make it less profitable to play poker online, which will drive away poker players from the online sites. If you're into stocks, I would imagine there'll be a lot of money to be made on shorts.

Re:Bad news for poker players.

[MrSquirrel]

Or if you're into gambling, now might be a good time to switch to stocks. The stock market is just legalized gambling anyways.

YRO

[LunaticTippy]

I see it like this: Some people think they should have the right to gamble online. Other people think they shouldn't. Other people yet might think gambling online should be legal, but taxed and regulated.

Right now, there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US. Because of that, all online gambling businesses are breaking the law. This particular case might be cut and dry, but the larger issue of our rights online can still be debated.

I think gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math, and should be 100% legal.

Re:YRO

[Zzesers92]

Right now, there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US. Because of that, all online gambling businesses are breaking the law.

wait one minute there.... the absence of a law legalizing online gambling does not, in fact, make the activity illegal. There's no law legalizing mowing your yard (oh God, at least I hope there's not!), but it is legal to do so. IMO, gambling is something should remain regulated at the state level regardless.

On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe the Federal government has a law criminalizing online gambling. But it seems like these guys are (like most of the "gambling bad guys" from yesteryear) getting hit with TAX law. That doesn't make online gambling illegal, the Feds have just make it impossible to run an online casino AND pay federal wager taxes on the income. Who's the real crook? Note they're dragging years of non-online gambling into this story as well, trying to make a case against online gambling by throwing traditional bookmaking in the mix.

For me, if they get these guys for not paying US wager taxes on gambling wages placed by US citizens, then any online retailer who only collects Sales Tax for the state their entity exists in should be charged with racketeering too.

Re:YRO

[prichardson]

"I think gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math, and should be 100% legal."

Plenty of people who know on an intellectual level that the odds are against them don't know this on an emotional level. There's a compulsion (not always) to test the odds or a feeling that this might be the time. Some people find their emotions on the matter too strong to overcome with what they know about gambling.

That said, I still think it should be legal, but gambling addiction should be confronted as a problem in our society.

Re:YRO

[LunaticTippy]

Gambling is very regulated in the US. Here in Colorado, for example, playing cards for money is illegal unless you are at a casino ($5 stakes) or are playing with "social contacts" and the house gets no cut.

It's treated more like drugs than yardwork here. Damned Puritan founders.

Re:YRO

[gowen]

That said, I still think it should be legal, but gambling addiction should be confronted as a problem in our society.

Right. Alcoholics and nicotine addicts can get help. Gamblers and crackheads are stigmatised as criminals, and help is not nearly so easy to come by.

Re:YRO

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people think they should have the right to gamble online. Other people think they shouldn't.

Why? In a lot of the USA-centric discussions, everybody just assumes that gambling is something that's obviously bannable, nobody seems to mention why it should be banned. So why is it that the USA government thinks gambling is so bad it should be illegal?

Re:YRO

[Surt]

I think gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math, and should be 100% legal.

It's only a tax if at least some of the gambling losses go to the legitimate government of the gamblers (state lotteries), which is typically not the case with offshore online casinos.

And in any case, people who want to make gambling illegal are generally in favor of that position for the same reason that many people oppose drug legalization: the addiction problem. When you legalize things that lead to addiction, addiction rates have a tendency to go up, and it's challenging to argue that the addiction is good for people. What you can typically argue more effectively is that by driving these addictions underground, it becomes harder to monitor the dangers, and that a violent criminal element tends to develop around the addiction, and that maybe this isn't a net gain (but this is extremely difficult to prove, try to imagine running the study to determine: how many people were hurt/killed by alcohol gangs during prohibition vs how many people are hurt/killed by drunk drivers in the legalized alcohol regime).

Re:YRO

[farker haiku]

I think gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math, and should be 100% legal.

Yeah, that comment is good regarding things like the lottery, where you are statistically never going to win, but in a poker room where there are only 9 different opponents that is not the case. Gambling in a poker room online is only a tax on people who can't do math, but not everyone. There is no set statistical probability of losing money. It's not like Blackjack, or Roulette, or Craps. The house isn't playing against you.

While I do tax those that are bad at statistics, I know my math, and I am the one taxing them. Considering that I have never lost money at a poker table on line (over time), and you most likely have never made a study of poker, at least keep an open mind about the possibility that poker might not be as much of a game of chance as you think it is.
There is definate skill involved. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to sit at any table I'm at.

Re:YRO

[pete6677]

The purpose of YRO is to post sensational stories that get a reaction out of the Slashdot tin-foil-hat crowd. When Slashbots gather by the thousands to post comments and trolls, OSDN gets more ad revenue. Following the money trail should adequately explain the purpose of YRO.

Re:YRO

[BladesP9]

It may be a tax on those that are bad at math, but when Grandma can't pay her pill bills because of her online (or Atlantic City) gambling addiction and then whine and scream to Uncle Sam about how bad they need prescription drugs that you and I and everyone else is going to pay for - then that will affect YOUR taxes. Say nothing of the lives that are ruined by addictive behavior. Lives whose reconstruction is usually funded by taxpayer dollars none of which came from gambling.

Re:YRO

[LunaticTippy]

I agree, but you leave out one important point.

The house wins every hand. You'll continue to do fine until enough good players come along. If it is as profitable as people claim this should happen any day now. I'm also wary of online poker because cheating would be so easy.

In any case, the best place to be is renting the table out.

Re:YRO

[tshak]

I think gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math...

This is OT but this kind of comment is made at least once per gambling newstory and I feel compelled to dispell this myth. Gambling is not inherently negative sum. Otherwise casinos wouldn't be raking in millions on gambling. But on a given day they are not guarunteed to win. Many casinos take a loss in the short term. The point is that they are, for the most part, making *good* gambles. The people playing games the the casinos are, for the most part, making *bad* gambles. There are many people who are good at math who gamble and who regularly make good gambles at the expense of someone else making a bad gamble. The popular game where this happens the most right now is Texas Hold'em poker (and many other poker games). There are other games as well, including certain forms of stock trading. So, while it's fair to say, "The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math", it's not fair to say the same about gambling in general. The casinos are very good at math which is why they make so much money gambling.

Re:YRO

[rainman_bc]

Right now, there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US. Because of that, all online gambling businesses are breaking the law.

Bull shit. These online gambling companies are off shore in places like Costa Rica, Gibraltar, Malta, Bermuda, etc, and they adhere to the laws of the nations they are incorporated in.

What if these US people went to Costa Rica to gamble in a Casino there? Would the US government have a problem with that too?

Yes, there's a slight technicality... Where is the gambling occurring? The server is in Costa Rica, the PC is in the US. Are you playing in the US or are you playing in Costa Rica?

Truth is, the US government cannot go after the business in Costa Rica because it is a legal business in Costa Rica.

The guy that was arrested is up on some very unique charges for his activities in the US, not for operating an off shore gambling site.

Re:YRO

[Bryansix]

I think gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math, and should be 100% legal.

While this is true for the majority of people it does not apply to everyone. Ever hear of a career gambler? These are people who play only skill based games and they play them right. This means that even though they may not make money directly from playing on average, the retention rates are high enough that when they play in a Casino the money they keep in combination with the cash back they get through comps programs means that they have a net income from gambling.

Online Casino's are even easier to take money from. Many offer deals where they will give you 20%, 30%, sometimes up to 50% more in credit then what you deposit. Then you just play something with a high retention rate like video poker or blackjack and then you cash out. Most of the time you don't even have to gamble your own money. Then there are the places that give you $50 in non-redeemable credit just for signing up. Talk about a deal.

BTW, I am a Republican and a Christian and I am not against gambling. In fact the Bible says that not gambling is a bad idea. It just depends on how you gamble. It reminds me of the quote from Ned Flanders. "I don't have insurance because that is a form of gambling". Obviously he didn't interpret the Bible correctly.

Re:YRO

[rainman_bc]

On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe the Federal government has a law criminalizing online gambling.

That's not worked very well for Washington State. The amount of people gambling on line has not changed since they made that law.

Re:YRO

[nigelc]

Right now, there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US. Because of that, all online gambling businesses are breaking the law.
Not totally true.
It is illegal to operate an on-line gambling website within the United States (possible exceptions to allow you to buy lottery tickets online, and other things which can line a politician's pockets).
In some states, it is illegal to participate in on-line gambling. In MA however, it is apparently still legal to participate in on-line gambling for things like poker, at least according to my local chief-of-police and a quick phone call to the AG.

Re:YRO

[cayenne8]

"Right now, there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US. Because of that, all online gambling businesses are breaking the law."

So, an American cannot own a business in another country where the company's activity is perfectly legal and sanctioned?

Re:YRO

[LunaticTippy]

Here's a quote from the colorado AG:

Internet gambling sites and telephone sports books are illegal under state and federal laws. Colorado law prohibits the transmission or reception of gambling information by any means. Federal law also prohibits the use of wire communications in interstate or foreign commerce for the placing of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers. In addition, the Colorado Constitution allows only certain types of "gambling," which does not include internet or telephone wagering.

So, now that we've established that it is in fact an illegal activity I'll move on to the next issue. The gov't does not go after a Costa Rican business for one reason: lack of jurisdiction.

The tax laws are quite flexible and easy to prosecute, that is why they use them.

Please don't get so angry with me. I didn't make these laws, and I don't agree with them. But you'd have to be fucking retarded to ignore laws that affect our rights.

Re:YRO

[cayenne8]

"Say nothing of the lives that are ruined by addictive behavior. Lives whose reconstruction is usually funded by taxpayer dollars none of which came from gambling."

What the hell every happened to personal responsibility??? If grandma or anyone else is so irresponsible for their actions, then fuck them. It isn't societies responsibility to save people from themselves, heck, by doing so, we may be skewing Darwin's laws of natural selection in a bad way. I mean, I don't mind helping the ill, the elderly and infimed that can't help themselves, but, if someone is self destructive, then let them go. Or maybe have a modern version of the old 'debtors prison'...let them stay there and work to pay off debt and the meds they need...

I guess I'm just tired of feeling like people have to take care of fuck ups....if they don't want to improve themselves, and stil fuck up...then let them deal with the consequences...about about a 3 strikes and your out for fuckups that can't control themselves...?

Re:YRO

[LunaticTippy]

I can spend an hour or two in a casino and generally walk out with a few extra bucks. I do it to cool off and drink free cocktails. For me the trick is to stop when I'm ahead, not get tempted to go for a bigger take.

I'm quite aware there are good gamblers, that it is possible to make a steady income doing it. Watch out for getting banned from casinos though! A friend of mine could count cards, got banned for life from every casino on the strip.

In any case, pointing out the few winners changes nothing. Offshore or Vegas, legal or not, casinos make mighty heaps of dough. It should be obvious where that money comes from. I can't believe people keep falling for it, it's not a public service. It's too bad they're all gung-ho to ban it. Taxing and regulating it would be better. Otherwise it's just a dollar-suction-out-of-the-US device. Why not have American businesses profit instead?

Anyway, I've met lots of people who claim that they can make money reliably from casinos. I've seen giant casinos tearing theirselves down and rebuilding every 3 years because they have so much money they can afford to. I believe my eyes before anything else.

Re:YRO

[hackstraw]

Alcoholics and nicotine addicts can get help.

Hmm, I never considered prison "help". DWI, which is a part of alcoholism, is a felony and/or death sentence in many states/countries in the world. Timothy Leary, who was able to clear the drug laws in the US because of their original unconstitutionality, has been arrested for smoking a cigarette. http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/94q2/leary.html

Gamblers and crackheads are stigmatised as criminals, and help is not nearly so easy to come by.

Nobody likes a crackhead, even a crackhead. I don't understand gambling even though I have an addictive personality. Its the physical part that is the bitch for me to get over. Not gambling will not kill you. Stopping drinking can and does kill people.

Oh, and gamblers have ripped off alcoholics method of getting a better life as well as people that fuck too much, do drugs, cocaine, and even those that are 'addicted' to hanging out with such people.

Re:YRO

[LunaticTippy]

Not if you break US law.Colorado example

If they ignored the juicy target of US wallets they'd be fine.

What I don't understand is why doesn't the US gov't just legalize it. They'd get giant taxes, they'd get to regulate it, and US companies could reap massive profits. It's idiotic to fight it - impossible and pointless. Of course, I feel the same way about recreational drugs, prostitution, and high explosives.

Re:YRO

[rainman_bc]

Please don't get so angry with me. I didn't make these laws, and I don't agree with them. But you'd have to be fucking retarded to ignore laws that affect our rights.

Not angry at all :)

Thing is, these laws have yet to be tested against the constitution. Don't forget these interenet gambling companies are worth literally Billions of dollars, and can afford to hire the most expensive team of lawyers you've ever seen to challenge these laws, if they were finding their revenues were impacted.

There's a fine line between what the government says is illegal and what's really illegal according to the SCOTUS.

Re:YRO

[gowen]

DWI, which is a part of alcoholism

No. It isn't. Related sure, correlated perhaps. But basically different.

Re:YRO

[Bryansix]

I agree that most people lose money in casinos and in online gambling everytime they gamble. The reason why is that they never walk away with the profits. Greed takes hold and they end up giving back all of thier winnings to the casino. The casino has a (virtually) unlimited supply of cash and will continue to play but the player has to give up at some point and walk away a loser. Then there are those who fall to addiction and play well beyond thier means. They usually do not play smart but some of them do. Still they do not know when to quit so they lose money.

The whole point though is that greed and addiction are the sins here. The government already allows gambling so we know thier stance. So when it comes to online gambling the government logically should be trying to legalize it and regulate it. Instead they have been against it from almost when it started. It doesn't make sense really.

Re:YRO

[LunaticTippy]

If the big US casinos got behind the idea, it'd be a slam-dunk. They're scared of the future, just like a lot of other huge highly profitable industries. There will always be a market for huge ridiculous casinos, just like there will always be internet gambling. They need to realize it will be with them or without them. Why not with them?

OTOH, if casinos are against it (like now) there will be an even better-funded and more experienced lobbying effort against online gambling.

Re:YRO

[LunaticTippy]

Good points. It doesn't make any sense. I suspect that compulsive shopping causes far more troubles than compulsive gambling, but there aren't many anti-shopping efforts.

Too many times people judge an activity by the few who cannot handle it responsibly. Too many times people try to legislate behaviour.

Re:YRO

[cl0r0x70]

More to the point, in the case of poker, gambling is a way for people who are GOOD at math to take advantage of people who are BAD at math.

The better players, over time, will come out ahead as statistics even themselves out.

Now horse racing and the lottery (EXEMPT from the legislation) are truly taxes on the ignorant. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Re:YRO

[LunaticTippy]

Hm, there should be tax breaks if you can solve a PDE in the IRS testing office! Tax breaks for people who are good at math.

Re:YRO

[BladesP9]

I'm not saying that's the way it *should* be, but I am saying thats the way it *IS*. Old people Vote. As long as old people vote, then politicans won't throw them overboard. I agree, people should take responsibility - but unfortunately that's not the attitude of everyone nor our government.

Of course you did not read the article!

[bobalu]

Nor consider that other people enjoy gambling and consider it you know part of "life liberty and pursuit of happiness". All that dumb stuff. Personally I don't gamble with my money, I don't enjoy it. But it's totally hyopcritical to allow gambling in AC and Vegas and every state's lottery and Powerball and then arrest a guy who's providing a service to people who want it.

Nobody has a gun to their head, m'kay?

Re:Of course you did not read the article!

[darcling]

Hypocritical? Of course, look at the new gambling legislation - it bans online gambling... but carves out neat little exceptions for horse racing.

"GAMBLING IS BAD! Except on horses, horses are good."

I think John Stewart explains it well (gambling part is towards the end):
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/07/jon-stewart-on- net-neutrality.html

Re:Of course you did not read the article!

[zxnos]

and here in colorado, smoking is bad, unless of course you are gambling...

Stupid Logic

[brunes69]

By this logic, the government would *want* to legalize online gambling, since they could then tax it.

No, sorry - revenue has nothing to do with this. It's "What about the children" syndrome running rampant again.

Re:Stupid Logic

[voice_of_all_reason]

Can't tax the interbutt when the countries are offshore.

Same argument as legalizing drugs. Even if Congress was struck by lightning and everyone suddenly thought it was a capital idea, who's going to pay the price of pot PLUS tax when they can still get it without? (hint: legalizing anything makes its illicit production even easier to conceal)

Re:Stupid Logic

[badfish99]

So was repealing prohibition a bad idea because everone still goes to speakeasies and drinks hooch? Or are you perhaps mistaken?

Re:Stupid Logic

[voice_of_all_reason]

Not exactly an ideal analogy, since alcohol producers were around before prohibition and some managed to stay in business during (by making fruit juice or something) until it was over. After prohibition, we still had this infrastructure which made getting the flow going again easier.

With drugs, at least at the start, it will be so tightly controlled as to be a government monopoly. The prices will be far higher in percentage compared to illicit product compared to alcohol (which sees very little bootlegging now).

Cigarettes are somewhere in the middle because now the taxes are being hiked up very quickly in a short period of time. Smuggling them is a huge business, but not at the level of prohibition alcohol.

Re:Stupid Logic

[skarphace]

...who's going to pay the price of pot PLUS tax when they can still get it without?

Who's going to pay the proce of tobacco PLUS tax when they can still get it without?

Re:Stupid Logic

[jandrese]

By that logic, who would pay taxes for _anything_ since it should be easy as pie to sell Twinkies, screwdrivers, or anything else under the table? Also, why would a seller risk his neck avoiding some 5 or 10% tax (that his customers are paying)? If it were legalized the illicit production would mostly dry up because it's much much easier to operate inside of the law than out. Given the choice, I doubt few dealers would choose a life in the worst part of town hounded by the police and thrown in jail every so often. Even the cushy suburban dealers would be estatic not to have to deal with Central American paramilitary cartels as their primary supplier. The concept that legalizing drugs will increase illegal production seems highly counterintuitive to me.

Not to mention that the government will have a much easier time tracking users and abusers if they don't feel that they have to hide from the cops.

On the other hand, I'm rather libertarian about what people do with their lives. As long as it doesn't harm other people, I don't think it should be illegal. I do think lots of stuff should be regulated however, to prevent people from becoming a completely unproductive junkie, but I don't think making the activity illegal is the proper answer. In other words, I don't want anybody stepping in until it's clear that what they're doing is interfering with their life in a substantal way.

Re:Stupid Logic

[badfish99]

Well, Coca-Cola was around before cocaine was prohibited, and has continued to make a living by simply removing the active ingredient from their patent medicine. I suppose they will go back to their original formula one it is legal again: it will surely be better than the stuff they make now.

Re:Stupid Logic

[ray-auch]

Can't tax the interbutt when the countries are offshore.


In the same way, you'd say they can't stop it.

But they are having a pretty good go at that by legislating against the money (credit card) transfers.

Just amend that bill to tax the transfers to online gambling companies instead of prohibit it outright.

Re:Stupid Logic

[voice_of_all_reason]

Just amend that bill to tax the transfers to online gambling companies instead of prohibit it outright.

Just send your money to an overseas bank, then conduct the transaction from there.

Re:Stupid Logic

[mrchaotica]

hint: legalizing anything makes its illicit production even easier to conceal

Exactly! That's why the huge black-market cigarette trade is the most serious issue facing us today.

Oh wait, there is no such thing! In reality, most people tend to abide by the law, and pay the (50% or whatever) cigarette tax. They'd do exactly the same if pot was legalized too.

Re:Stupid Logic

[rainman_bc]

By that logic, who would pay taxes for _anything_ since it should be easy as pie to sell Twinkies, screwdrivers, or anything else under the table? Also, why would a seller risk his neck avoiding some 5 or 10% tax (that his customers are paying)?

Ever know people who own a restaurant? Any business that receives cash in return for services rendered can easily tear up a bunch of receipts and pocket the cash to spend on personal effects.

As long as you show some profit the tax man leaves you alone (generally). Don't kid yourself how heavily these small business owners dig into the cash drawer for their personal spending.

But selling goods, like Twinkies and Screwdrivers are different. You can only show so much shrinkage in your inventory before the tax man gets annoyed and audits you. You have to buy the twinkies in order to sell them, and you probably cannot pay cash for those twinkies.

Re:Stupid Logic

[QRDeNameland]

(hint: legalizing anything makes its illicit production even easier to conceal)

Counterhint: legalizing anything also makes its illicit production far less profitable and lucrative. People will only go to the black market when the tax burden rises to the point where illicit production is profitable again. Of course, burdensome tax is its own form of prohibition; indeed, the US drug laws were initially enacted as taxes. q.v. The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 and the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

Re:Stupid Logic

[cayenne8]

"So was repealing prohibition a bad idea because everone still goes to speakeasies and drinks hooch? Or are you perhaps mistaken?"

Well, there's the rub. It is still against the law to distill your own alcohol, even for private use. Yes, you can homebrew (which believe it or not was still illegal in many states up until about 7 years or so ago, when homebrewers finally got petitions through in all states).

If they legalized pot...well, I guess they wouldn't get too much tax revenue...since people could easily grow the stuff themselves. And growing a proliferant plant is much easier and less time active time consuming than brewing your own beer (which I do like to do as a hobby).

I suppose they could legalize it...but, make it illegal to grow your own, analagous to the distilling laws.

I still think a great deal of opposition to legalizing pot, is from the one industry that stands to lose the most...the liquor industry. That would be heavy competition for them, and the govt. might lose some tax revenues due to lowered booze consumption if pot was legal. Not to mention competition in to the cotton, paper and other materials industries...if pot were legal, gotta guess industrial hemp would be making a comeback...

So...lots of pressures on keeping pot illegal, but not totally analagous to the tax off or liquor, since it is still illegal to run your own still.

:-)

Re:Stupid Logic

[cayenne8]

" Who's going to pay the proce of tobacco PLUS tax when they can still get it without?"

Well, it is a little difficult for the average tobacco user to grow fields of tobacco, have huge dedicated areas to drying and processing it into the modern day cigarette.

On the other hand..it is pretty easy to drop some seeds in the ground or planters on the patio, and grow your own weed.

Re:Stupid Logic

[jandrese]

Wouldn't legalized drugs be like Twinkies and screwdrivers though? Heck, even Restaraunts and service industries have to keep track of inventories, and small businesses are by far more heavily audited than any other sector of the economy.

In the end, the government will still be getting a lot more taxes from them if they were legal than they are now.

Re:Stupid Logic

[J Janik]

It is stupid logic. I know that most of you out there have experienced the idea of "if I can't have it I want it more scenario". This will only cause more problems. Rather than figuring out an amicable solution, we are going to shut it down. Carruthers wants to work with the US to develop a strategy to make online gambling legal and fair in both the eyes of the clients and the government by which we are dictated, I mean we voted in. This in turn will regulate who is legit and who is not. Causing the so called "terrorists" that are funded through americans gambling online(Stated by Representative Leach in an email debate between him and Carruthers found here>>>http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1143 75000762012631-14PeRy_IGy_Ax75SChM_gejdynE_2007040 3.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top)to be cut off. Carruthers seems to be a stand up guy and will disclose any info pertaining to the finances of his business.

Wasn't there an act put in place due to this problem not too long ago? SOX act? Enron? Why cant this be the same for this compnay who wants to do business in the US. make them, no no no, allow them the chance to do business legitimately. If you think about it it is very hypocritical. I for one think if mandates are in place to keep somone from gambling underage and having a help system in place for problem gmablers, online gambling could only help our economy.

Its the same story with prohibition and the criminalization of marijuanna. "If we can't figure out a way to effectively and efficiently make money off of the problem, we should ban it", B S!. I think that if the people in government did their job to appease their constituents we wouldnt have this issue. I think more than anything this is just a distraction to other problems we face in our world. Distract Americans. I like that, maybe Ill make a Tshirt that says "Distracted American"

My two cents. Sorry about the ranting.

J~

Re:Stupid Logic

[patrixmyth]

I enjoy online poker myself, and thankfully I can stop myself from chasing my losses. Obviously, our government has no objection to people shedding their money futiley. There's always the stock market, casinos, racetracks or political contributions to fritter your money on. They (and I) do have an objection to funding the healthcare, retirement and burial benefits of the folks who can't resist clicking away every dime. As long as our society maintains the expectation that we will not abandon these weakest links (and their families), then we are going to have to make some trade-offs. It's not about the logic. It's about the results. I say we compromise and allow the IRS to operate online casinos. That's going to be a very regressive tax, but at least we'd get something positive in return for our losses, and the tax deadline would be a hell of a holiday.

Re:Stupid Logic

[Penguinoflight]

That's not a reason against legalizing drugs. The flaw in your logic is that as long as taxes are reasonable, grocery stores will have a comptitive advantage against "drug dealers". They get more business now, and people can't do without groceries, therefore there is more volume at the store. The extra volume would allow a store to sell for less than a dealer.

Re:Stupid Logic

[ray-auch]

Just send your money to an overseas bank, then conduct the transaction from there.


Applies equally to both cases (ban or tax). Given the industry arguments against the ban, one can conclude that this might represent a significant hurdle for a lot of US consumers / gamblers.

Re:Stupid Logic

[StikyPad]

If they legalized pot...well, I guess they wouldn't get too much tax revenue...since people could easily grow the stuff themselves.

Because people often grow their own tobacco? People are too lazy to grow their own on the whole.. only hobbyists and the cheap/poor would grow their own. And farmers of course.

I still think a great deal of opposition to legalizing pot, is from the one industry that stands to lose the most...the liquor industry.

That's like saying the liquor industry is against cigarettes. Most people will probably just do both.. the fraction of people who will give up one in favor of the other is likely negligible.

Re:Stupid Logic

[FunkSoulBrother]

You can grow your own perfectly good tomatoes, peppers various herb seasonings in a planter on your porch too, yet most people seem perfectly content buying them at the supermarket. I really think most people would pay for the convience of prepackaged marijuana. Just price it right, like a plant at the market.

Now if you try and charge people $20 for fractions of ounces, well sure they'll say fuck you.

Re:Stupid Logic

[cayenne8]

"You can grow your own perfectly good tomatoes, peppers various herb seasonings in a planter on your porch too, yet most people seem perfectly content buying them at the supermarket."

Yeah, but, there's a big difference here...you can get high/stoned on pot, but, not on tomatoes, that would be a big driving force to many people to put the extra effort into it...

Re:Stupid Logic

[FunkSoulBrother]

I still contend it comes down to pricing. You need to price it like a supermarket vegetable, not like a drug. If you could get high off of tomatoes, for instance, I don't think that many people would bother growing their own if you still could get them for $1.99 a pound at the local Safeway.

Now in reality, I'm sure with coporate greed+tax it would come to some ungodly amount for an ounce of weed, but hopefully the market would sort it out.

"Harm legitimate business"?

[dbc001]

"Misuse of the Internet to violate the law can ultimately only serve to harm legitimate businesses."

I don't see how Internet Gambling could harm legitimate business...

Re:"Harm legitimate business"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're not loosing you're money to the real casinos which give money to the state

Re:"Harm legitimate business"?

[badfish99]

It is a legitimate business. At least, it is here in the UK, and in most other countries.

The US makes laws that criminalize activities by non-US citizens that take place entirely outside the US. How else could David Carruthers have been arrested, when his business is based in Costa Rica?

Re:"Harm legitimate business"?

[guruevi]

As you probably know and heard, a lot of those politicians are sponsored by actual gambling enterprises (that have actual buildings). The actual hard-bulding gambling business gets hurt because the people don't have to leave their home anymore to gamble, your neighbours or other people from your church can't see you go online, but they can see you outside the casino. Just like online electronic stores are hurting the electro-farmer down the road, so it is with a lot of other business.

Re:"Harm legitimate business"?

[TubeSteak]

David Carruthers is a U.S. citizen.

He used to be a New York bookie, until he got arrested for something or other gambling related and decided to leave the country.

Re:"Harm legitimate business"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US makes laws that criminalize activities by non-US citizens that take place entirely outside the US.

Yes, just ask Manuel Noriega.

Re:"Harm legitimate business"?

[badfish99]

David Carruthers is a U.S. citizen. On reflection that is irrelevant. Most laws that make things illegal, make them illegal regardless of the citizenship of the person who did them.

The point is that he seems to have been arrested for something that was done outside the US, and that was completely legal in the place where he did it. It's not the first time that I've heard of this sort of thing happening.

Re:"Harm legitimate business"?

[Myopic]

while i agree that the arrest is, you know, 'bad' or whatever, the leagal rationale is:

1. this guy operates a business
2. the business "happens" in the USA, because the "gambling" happens at the user's computer, not at the server off-shore
3. the business violates US law
4. the guy came to the US, so he was arrested

if he didn't want to be arrested, he shouldn't have broken US law then gone to the US -- that's a bad logistical move.

you can think the law is silly, like i do, but we have a similar law for arresting US citizens who go overseas and have sex with children: when the citizens return to the US, we arrest them (if we know about it). you might think that's a silly law, too, but if you don't, then maybe you think it's reasonable to make that arrest; similarly, if you think this gambling law is reasonable, then you would have no problem with the arrest.

so my point is, the appropriate recourse to this silliness is a change to the law, which is best done via the democratic process. don't blame the cops, don't blame the politicians, blame the voters. the voters want it this way, so they get it.

Re:"Harm legitimate business"?

[TarikJax]

True, but as a citizen of the US he can be tried for crimes against US law. You may not think that's fair, but it is a system that is in place to make it possible to prosecute "sex tourists" and the like who go to more permissive (or corrupt) countries to do things they're not allowed in their home country. Whether he actually committed a crime is another matter entirely.

Excellent news!

[Anonymous Coward]

I won my bet with that guy I met on the Internet that he would be arrested by the Feds.

Heh. My captcha image was "collects." As in collecting on a bet.

What about self regulation

[houghi]

I often see people who say that with true capitalism, the market will regulate itself. If so, I hope these people will remember to vote for a part who lets the market actually do this to itself, including gambling, porn and drugs.

Only in Unix-speech less is more. In other speech less (regulation) means less (regulation).

However most likely what these people actualy mean is 'no more involvement, if people do what I want them to do and if people live acording to my values.

Yes, Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus. I'll bet you're into D and D, too. Here's a clue: Normal people don't speak like that, normal people use series of words that make sense and have something to do with the discussion. I'll bet you're saying "whoosh! Right over that guys head". No, I understood every word. It's just that it made me groan so laud that my co-workers though I was having a heart attack. Good. Fucking. Lord. Get out of the basement.

Re:Yes, Amazing

[Gonarat]

What does "bread and circuses" have to do with D and D? Bread and circuses was the Roman Empire's way of keeping the masses in check by keeping their minds off of the real issues. As long as the every day Roman had plenty of bread (food) and plenty of cheap entertainment (circuses), they were happy. Of course, eventually the Empire collapsed and feudalism took over. Thus began the so called "dark ages" in Europe. The Eastern (Constantinople) Roman Empire lasted another 1000 years, but Western Europe ruled by Kings and the Roman Catholic Church.

That said, gambling is a form of "circuses" (entertainment) in our time. The Government is attempting ban Internet gambling, yet still allow track wagering online. This means that I cannot (legally) play Texas hold-em (for money) online, but I can bet on the Kentucky Derby at my computer instead of driving the 10 miles or so to Churchill Downs (yes, I live in Louisville).

Re:Yes, Amazing

[wombert]

Normal people don't speak like that, normal people use series of words that make sense and have something to do with the discussion.

You must be new here.

Yeah. right.

[farker haiku]

"Illegal commercial gambling across state and international borders is a crime," said U.S Attorney Catherine Hanaway of the Eastern District of Missouri in a press release. "Misuse of the Internet to violate the law can ultimately only serve to harm legitimate businesses.

I'm from Missouri, and I know who those legitimate businesses are. Harrahs, Ameristar, The Casino Queen, and The President. And I bet (pardon the pun) that I know who they donate to. I'm looking at you, Catherine Hanaway.

The problem is this...

[Churla]

First they go after big fish in the online gambling market who are operating within the US.
Then they run out of those.
Next they go after big fish in the online gambling market who are operating outside the US.
Other governments tell US to go DIAF
US sees the only other way to address problems as going after the gamblers instead.
US uses this as a reason to further OK tracking all internet traffic.
We know where that goes.

There's no good outcome from this path. But greed will drive politicians to it.

Reminds me of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mikhail Kohordokovsky and Jack Abramoff!

They're terrorists I tell you!

[Chasqui]

Ok, so the US is fighting a couple of wars, holding people indefinitely in GITMO, probably being sucked into another conflict in the middle-east, etc. and THIS is what we spend our time on?
Gambling?
Something is afoot. Methinks it is time to re-enlicit support from the conservative base... elections are around the corner. And we all know that these rich 'moblike' online casino owners are probably funding terrorism, right? Its the perfect issue. You have the 'moral high-ground' and a non-US resident at which to finger-point! Wow. You have to hand it to the Republican party. Machiavelli could have learned a trick or two.

All I care about is SPAM

[erroneus]

Will this reduce online gambling spam? I don't care if those guys continue to operate or not. Let other people waste their money on that crap. It's a personal choice and I decline that form of entertainment... I think it should remain as such.

As for gambling tax revenues, I think there's plenty of law in place already. If the IRS determines that you have income that cannot be explained and they think it's from undeclared income from gambling, then let them prove it. The IRS is more than capable of creating ... err discovering the evidence they need.

But you know? If those guys disappear, will my email get lighter too? I hope so.

WTO response

[Anonymous Coward]

The guys running it are running a legal and listed company in the UK. It's listed on the Alternative Intestment Market. The CEO was leaving the AGM in London to his home in Costa Rica and transfered planes in Dallas where he was arrested.

This is completely ridiculous. The reason the US is having a crackdown is because they need to answer to the WTO for having unfair competition with other nations wrt online gambling. Antigua won the WTO case and the US has to make their laws more fair for foreign companies. Well what did the US Federal government do? "WAH WAH WAH! We'll ban ALL online gambling!"

Good...

[Max Threshold]

Those commercials were annoying.

Now can they please arrest the people who make that HeadOn crap?

Re:Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apply to forehead!

Stacked Deck?

[Doc Ruby]

Why is gambling illegal? Because god says so? Because compulsive adults hurt other people? Because serious criminals commiting other crimes also make and spend money gambling? Because illegal gambling makes the business more lucrative for the illegal "house", while keeping its customers from using police when something goes wrong?

Is gambling inherently any more criminal than drugs? Does criminalizing it help society more than it hurts?

Greed, Vegas and You

[PhantomRogue]

This is nothing more than a play by the Gov't to suck more money out of avenues they were too ignorant to look at in the fist place. Whats the difference between betting online, versus going to Europe and play there.

Additionaly, Dont you have to claim residency in order to owe taxes (not an accountant, so I have no idea)? If you own an internet casino and claim US Residency, you are just asking for trouble.

Also, why wouldnt the Vegas Casino's start the gambling websites. Its legal there... no difference in me betting at the Sands from Vegas versus Betting at the Sands from Pittsburgh.

Fraud changes things.

[ScentCone]

I often see people who say that with true capitalism, the market will regulate itself.

But when an operation (say, a casino or some other service business) is actually lying about what they're delivering for your money, that's different. The market could police itself, but when you're dealing with people who are committing fraud, etc., an established rule of law and a government to enforce it is a lot less... medieval. For some fantastic portrayal of this stuff getting hashed out, I highly, highly recommend watching the entire content of HBO's "Deadwood," from the very first episode.

My Answers

[plopez]

So, with the context of this article, is it my right to be the victim of fraud and racketeering? Is it my right to violate copyright if I think the law is wrong? Is it my right to be a web hermit?

no, grey area due to 'fair use' and extenuating circumstances and yes (if you want to). The question is, is this a case of politically driven harrassment by law enforcement? Also, there is a tendency to equate arrest with conviction, which you are doing (I have to watch myself on this one as well). No one is guilty of anything. But thier business is being disrupted anyway.

Another question is, how intrusive do we want the gov't to be on the interweb?

There is another question in play as well, the DEA was out of work alomost until marijuana was outlawed. Is this just another case of law enforcement run amuck causing a panic to insure job security? Don't they have enough to do fighting terrorism? Are they even serious about terrorism? Etc.

So yes, it could be an on topic discussion.

Re:My Answers

[cayenne8]

"...the DEA was out of work alomost until marijuana was outlawed...."

Well, The DEA was formed in about 1973 by the Nixon admin. Pot had been illegalized in 1937 by the Marijuana Tax Act, which was ruled unconsitutional in 1970....so, shortly there after...pot was added to the Controlled Substances Act of '70 as a Schedule 1 drug...ranking with heroin.

Strangely enough...it was at this period, and also early on during the Carter admin, that pot got close to legalization. Nixon's own commission the Schaefer one...came back and said pot wasn't that bad, and should be at least decriminalized...that infurated Nixon...

Anyway, they've had the guns after pot for a long time before the DEA came into the picture....they're just the latest govt. office against it....

Re:My Answers

[plopez]

I think it actually was the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. They changed names a few times and so I got confused.
  I need to lay off the weed :)

you go get them!!!!!

[stewie's deuce]

Everybody in Nevada, and many state legislators ***KNOW** that gambling and lotteries is just plain wrong and immoral!!!

Thank you

[KingSkippus]

Right now, there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US. Because of that, all online gambling businesses are breaking the law.

wait one minute there.... the absence of a law legalizing online gambling does not, in fact, make the activity illegal. There's no law legalizing mowing your yard (oh God, at least I hope there's not!), but it is legal to do so. IMO, gambling is something should remain regulated at the state level regardless.

Will someone PLEASE mod this up? I've already commented in this thread (wish I could take it back now!) so I can't at the moment.

As for the original poster, what in the world makes you think that there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US? Is it merely that there's no law formally making it legal? PLEASE tell me that there's a reason besides a lack of a law formally making it legal. Because if that's it, please immediately read the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. It's extremely important, it's your friend, and it's what gives you the Constitutional right to do the vast majority of the activities you do every day.

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

but what I thought was interesting is that the US has arrested a non-US national for running a non-US company that provides a non-illegal service (at least in the countries Mr Carutthers runs it from). Apart from the fact that anyone in the US can access the sites and gamble if they choose, I'm sure the business has no dealing with the US at all.

Its like if Canada broadcast tv shows that could be picked up in the US from their Canadian transmitters, by their Canadian companies, whose content was quite legal in Canada, but not in the US. The US would try to enfore their laws on the Canadians if they stepped foot in the country, regardless of the fact that they've done nothing wrong.

America's bored of being the world's police, now they're trying to be the World's lawyers too.

Re:Thank you

[LunaticTippy]

I think there is no legal online gambling in the US because we live in a paranoid, overprotective, easily panicked, safety-obsessed insane asylum.

Seriously, I don't know about every state but in the 3 states I've lived in gambling is highly regulated. Some states even have laws against friends wagering on cards at home, though generally giving a cut to the house is what it takes to make it illegal.

The states that might be most sympathetic (such as Nevada) don't want to cut into the casino's racket.

If you are interested, here is a good resource.

Internet gambling sites and telephone sports books are illegal under state and federal laws. Colorado law prohibits the transmission or reception of gambling information by any means. Federal law also prohibits the use of wire communications in interstate or foreign commerce for the placing of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers. In addition, the Colorado Constitution allows only certain types of "gambling," which does not include internet or telephone wagering.

I'm a big fan of government staying out of my life, but it is idiotic to delude ourselves about what is legal. Those fuckers are eroding our rights constantly. There's precious little that's legal anymore.

Re:Thank you

[KingSkippus]

There's precious little that's legal anymore.

That's true, and if the OP meant that online gambling has been outlawed at a federal level or at the state levels, that's fine. But it sounded like he or she was saying, "There's not a law that allows it, so it's illegal." That's patently false, and if that's what he or she thinks, whoever it is should immediately read the Constitution. (Not that our legistlators actually have...)

Along the lines of what you're talking about, though, you're right. I love how the state and federal government is slowly (and not-so-slowly in some cases) making everything illegal. That way, they can arrest any citizen at any time for whatever reason—or no reason at all—because, well, they're doing something illegal. It's truly sad.

Oh, and by "love," I really meant "hate." ;-)

Re:Thank you

[Brickwall]

"Along the lines of what you're talking about, though, you're right. I love how the state and federal government is slowly (and not-so-slowly in some cases) making everything illegal. That way, they can arrest any citizen at any time for whatever reason--or no reason at all--because, well, they're doing something illegal. It's truly sad."

Didn't Orwell write something like that in Nineteen Eighty-Four?

Why, yes, I am new here!

Re:HOW DO I SHOT WEB

[Anonymous Coward]

You must first to insert four pieces double A battery into powerful unit correct position before activating such. Depressing of button with finger index after selecting of web to shot. Please to make good happy setting before shot of web, or shot may be not optimum.

how will this affect the "legal" online gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

This has possible interesting ramifications for the few "Legal" online gambling sites. There are a few AFAIK legal hybrid online gambling sites operated in the U.S. by U.S. Casino's (and NJ state no less). There is the cyberslingo system run by NJ lottery, you buy a ticket and play the game online. And there is Playaway, where you buy a ticket at the casino and go home to play, which is operating in a handful of casino's in Nevada. Ironically the same system was in Foxwoods in CT but was shutdown by the Attorney General.

http://www.freeplayaway.com/
http://www.ingenio-quebec.com/ingeniointernational /cmd/loteriesMM/concept

on the freeplayaway you can see the sites and play some games.

(-1, wrong) to parent

[linuxrocks123]

If the business is based in the U.S., it pays U.S. taxes. The government is getting its cut as much as it gets its cut from the private casinos in Nevada.

Gambling

[certel]

Not a good sign of things to come with Gambling sites. Although this is more than just online Poker, it's still sad to see.

Very sad

[darjen]

What this amounts to is that Americans have no concept of freedom or property rights such as they claim. If I have $10 and wish to wager it on the outcome of an event that has a certain chance of success or failure, I am not hurting anyone other than myself. The irony is that if they would have paid taxes (which I consider to be nothing more than extortion) on their earnings to the federal government it sounds like they would have been allowed to survive unmolested. It just goes to show the lengths to which our government will go to stomp on our natural rights. The only moral right we have as humans is to proceed with the course of our action as long as it doesn't forcibly harm anyone else. We are denied this every day in multiple ways. I fear that we have been conditioned to accept this as a legitimate cost of being in society. All the while, the fat cats in charge are laughing at how easy it is for them to earn a living at others expense.

Re:Very sad

[Surt]

The only moral right we have as humans is to proceed with the course of our action as long as it doesn't forcibly harm anyone else.

The argument goes that offering gambling to a gambling addict (and by this taking his money) takes advantage of the force offered by neurological addiction, thus forcible harm.

Same argument for offering addictive drugs.

Re:Very sad

[darjen]

The argument goes that offering gambling to a gambling addict (and by this taking his money) takes advantage of the force offered by neurological addiction, thus forcible harm. Same argument for offering addictive drugs.

You're on a slippery slope my friend. Your argument can (and has) been used for alcohol and cigarettes. I believe the eighteenth amendment aptly demonstrated that prohibition does not work, and indeed causes more harm than good in the form of organized crime and gang warfare.

Re:Very sad

[Surt]

But statistically, it is almost certainly the case that legalized alcohol causes more deaths and injury per year in the form of driving accidents than prohibition did in the form of gang warfare. But the gang warfare was highly visible and involved guns, which scare people more than cars, even though they are significantly less deadly, because basically everyone owns a car. Should we give up banning hard core addictive drugs because there is gang warfare surrounding those? Just because prohibition didn't work, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. We have a ban in place on murders too, how well does that work?

I certainly believe alcohol should be banned to the same extent as other addictive, destructive drugs that render the user a danger to those around them. I certainly wouldn't mind accomplishing it in a more effective way than immediate prohibition.

Cigarettes are a somewhat different case. Nicotine, as a mild stimulant, doesn't seem to render the user a significant danger to those around them when operating heavy machinery. It does present a threat via area exposure when smoked, so I think in this case it would be a start to place it in the same category as caffeine, with the additional restriction that in the smoking form it not be allowed in public places and around children, to protect the public from unwanted exposure. However, given the health harm it causes to the user and its addictive qualities, it would also be reasonable for society to consider an eventual complete ban.

Re:Very sad

[darjen]

Should we give up banning hard core addictive drugs because there is gang warfare surrounding those?

Yes, we should give it up, because it causes more serious consequences for innocent people who have nothing to do with the drugs than the harm done to the one person who uses them.

Just because prohibition didn't work, doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

It wasn't right thing to do, because most people use alcohol responsibly, and they shouldn't have to pay the higher costs associated with the bans to cover those who are irresponsible.

I certainly believe alcohol should be banned to the same extent as other addictive, destructive drugs that render the user a danger to those around them. I certainly wouldn't mind accomplishing it in a more effective way than immediate prohibition.

If there is a way to do this that doesn't interfere with my causual beer consumption (in higher costs or otherwise), I would be welcome to any suggestions. Or, are you trying to tell me that I should be forced to abstain from enjoying a couple of my favorite brews after a hard days work?

given the health harm it causes to the user and its addictive qualities, it would also be reasonable for society to consider an eventual complete ban.

Why should anyone be allowed to dictate what people should be allowed to put into their own bodies? Do we not own our own body? If we do, don't we have a right to cause it harm if we so desire? If we don't, then who does? The government? A super size happy meal from McDonald's also causes serious health problems for much of the population. Should those also be banned?

Re:Very sad

[Surt]

Yes, we should give it up, because it causes more serious consequences for innocent people who have nothing to do with the drugs than the harm done to the one person who uses them.

I dispute that claim. I'd say that legalized drugs (as evidenced by legalized alcohol) would cause more harm to innocent people.

It wasn't right thing to do, because most people use alcohol responsibly, and they shouldn't have to pay the higher costs associated with the bans to cover those who are irresponsible.

I'd also have to dispute that. Most people who use any alcohol do so irresponsibly. Drinking and driving is rampant in the USA at least. Why should those of us who don't drink have to subsidize enforcement measures, medical bills, etc caused by drunk driving accidents?

If there is a way to do this that doesn't interfere with my causual beer consumption (in higher costs or otherwise), I would be welcome to any suggestions. Or, are you trying to tell me that I should be forced to abstain from enjoying a couple of my favorite brews after a hard days work?

How about just restricting the sale of high alcohol content beverages, and holding alcohol servers liable if they are the last bar to serve alcohol to a patron who later commits a drunk driving accident (over the limit)? Bar owners would need to install breathalyzers, and make sure they aren't over-serving. Party holders would be motivated to make sure their party-goers aren't over consuming and driving themselves home. People drinking responsibly at home and not driving would be unaffected.

Why should anyone be allowed to dictate what people should be allowed to put into their own bodies? Do we not own our own body? If we do, don't we have a right to cause it harm if we so desire?

Nope ... suicide is illegal for a reason. Here's a business plan I have if your world comes to pass: Go to the kindergartens, and offer kids free (legal) samples of my custom drug. Once they're addicted, I'll offer to sell it to the parents. I'll even offer convenient climb-down dosages for parents who want to get their kids off the addiction. Woo hoo profit!

Re:Very sad

[bnenning]

I certainly believe alcohol should be banned to the same extent as other addictive, destructive drugs that render the user a danger to those around them. I certainly wouldn't mind accomplishing it in a more effective way than immediate prohibition.

While I will fight your totalitarian views at every opportunity, I have to at least give you points for consistency. There is no rational reason for alcohol to be legal and pot illegal.

Re:Very sad

[darjen]

I dispute that claim. I'd say that legalized drugs (as evidenced by legalized alcohol) would cause more harm to innocent people.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

I'd also have to dispute that. Most people who use any alcohol do so irresponsibly. Drinking and driving is rampant in the USA at least. Why should those of us who don't drink have to subsidize enforcement measures, medical bills, etc caused by drunk driving accidents?

Those of you who don't drink shouldn't have to subsidize enforcement. That is exactly my point. But it is opposite of what you are proposing. The regulations you promote would only come at a great cost to non consumers such as yourself. Your argument seems contradictory. The drunk drivers themselves are the ones who should pay the medical bills.

How about just restricting the sale of high alcohol content beverages, and holding alcohol servers liable ... People drinking responsibly at home and not driving would be unaffected.

This is not true, we would be affected. How would these enforcement measures be paid for? Somehow, somewhere, taxes will have to be raised, therefore shoving responsibility onto all of the non drinkers. People drinking responsibly at home would not be unaffected by your plan because they would be paying for others consumption.

Nope ... suicide is illegal for a reason.

So we don't own our bodies? The implaction of this is that the government, who makes suicide illegal, is actually the owner of our bodies. Therefore, we must all be slaves to the government. Are you prepared to admit this?

Re:Very sad

[kchrist]

Most people who use any alcohol do so irresponsibly.

Numbers and sources? Oh, you don't have them?

I'm a casual/social drinker. I don't drink and drive. I hardly think I'm in the minority. You seem to think that the fact that irresponsible drinkers, with the associated problems (drunk driving, bar brawls, etc) are more visible also means they are more common, even to the point where they outnumber people like me.

How about just restricting the sale of high alcohol content beverages, and holding alcohol servers liable if they are the last bar to serve alcohol to a patron who later commits a drunk driving accident (over the limit)? Bar owners would need to install breathalyzers, and make sure they aren't over-serving. Party holders would be motivated to make sure their party-goers aren't over consuming and driving themselves home.

How do you suggest people enforce this? Physical force? Hire police officers to guard the door?

Let's play a game and pretend I'm a bar owner. How would I determine whether a customer in my bar is driving, on foot, taking a cab, or taking public transit (which is plentiful in my city)? Suppose he lies? Once a bar patron is ready to leave, how do I force him to take the breathalizer? Do I physically restrain him if he's over the legal limit? Again, what if he's over but says he isn't driving (keeping in mind that most urban bars don't have a parking lot just outside where I could see how he got here)?

I could go on all day. Do you really have no idea how ludicrous your proposal is?

People drinking responsibly at home and not driving would be unaffected.

I would only be unaffected if I wanted to drink at home alone. As soon as I invite a friend over, I'm faced with the all the above nonsense.

suicide is illegal for a reason.

And that reason is?

I hear people talk about the nanny state all the time but it rare that I actually encounter someone who endorses it like this. And on Slashdot no less!

Re:Very sad

[Surt]

I'm not really totalitarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

I might be considered a statist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Re:Very sad

[Surt]

How do you suggest people enforce this?

Take pre-action not post-action.

Don't serve anyone alcohol that will put them over the legal limit to drive unless you're sure they're not going to drive.

Take responsibility for when your actions put others in danger. The drunk is responsible also, but if you carelessly feed his addiction part of the blame belongs with you.

Re:Very sad

[Surt]

Your argument seems contradictory. The drunk drivers themselves are the ones who should pay the medical bills.

That would be great, if it were possible. But in most cases the medical bills exceed the ability of the drunk to pay, and then society ends up subsidizing. So I believe my proposal would result in a lower net cost to the rest of us.

I would also be perfectly happy with a system that required drinkers to purchase drunk accident insurance, in advance of their being sold alcohol. Perhaps that would be the best system, you must show your proof of drunk accident insurance before you buy.

Therefore, we must all be slaves to the government. Are you prepared to admit this?

I believe that is factually correct. The government can execute us if it wants to, and we cannot commit suicide legally. I would much prefer to live in a world where people were responsible, but I don't.

Re:how will this affect the "legal" online gamblin

[jbossvi]

If it was so legal then why did connecticut AG shut it down... but really I dont see how the other ones in nevada can be legal and accessed across states line.

missing the point?

[dm0527]

A lot of the comments revolve around the obligatory "here goes the government again" comments.

Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but it seems obvious to me that jumping on some website hosted in some third-world country and giving them my credit card so I can play poker through some system controlled by the website against God-knows-who just seems like an invitation to get ripped off.

I'm just not surprised in the least bit to hear some online gambling site shut down or involved parties being arrested for fraud or whatever. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for some government somewhere to actually look at these sites and realize that there is no way at all to stop the owners thereof from ripping off customers coming and going (aside from the massive amounts of money they make simply from the actual gambling itself).

I've got one of the smallest lists of "things I love that our government has its fingers in", but you should also realize that along with the money the government collects around legalized gambling in the US, they also regulate it massivly and crack down fast and hard on places that are ripping people off (above the fact that gambling itself is a ripoff).

- dm

Re:missing the point?

[Brickwall]

Why do you assume these people are guilty of credit card or other fraud? They have been in operation for a number of years; if there were significant complaints about them, the credit card companies would stop honouring their charges. And the gamblers, who are not as significantly stupid as you assume, would avoid the site in droves. The New Yorker had an article some time ago about on-line poker sites. They put a lot of software effort into tracking betting patterns, to ensure that two or three players at one table are not colluding to rip off the other players. Why do they do this? Because they're aware that if their customers perceived the games as rigged, they wouldn't come back. Their own self-interest keeps them honest.

Re:missing the point?

[cdrguru]

Poker legit? Maybe. We haven't passed the point yet where you can easily fake a human player with a machine that cheats.

How about blackjack? How about video poker? Slots? The machines in the US are heavily regulated and while they are "settable" for payout there is considerable oversight as to how they are set. Why would you assume you are getting a fair shake on games like that?

I have not seen anything that says this applies to poker betting only. Online casino gaming, yes. Which applies to a lot more than poker and games that are far easier to rig for the house. And much, much less easy for players to determine if they are being cheated.

I would assume any semi-anonymous entity operating "offshore" is going to stretch the limits as much as they think they can.

Re:missing the point?

[sahala]

The machines in the US are heavily regulated and while they are "settable" for payout there is considerable oversight as to how they are set. Why would you assume you are getting a fair shake on games like that?

I'm a little confused. Those games ARE already rigged. Casino players playing player-vs-house table games and slot machines are always getting the worse odds. Those games are clearly and openly in favor of the house, whether it's a 1% edge or 48% (and there are games with that high of a house edge). Why would you assume that players are getting a fair shake in these games anywhere, whether in brick-and-mortar or online? People clearly play these games for the thrill and entertainment value, not for purposes of making money, so they should be allowed to dispense of their income in any way that they choose.

Poker is a little different -- although from observation it appears that most people would stand a better chance playing slots than to sit down at table full of skilled players.

Re:missing the point?

[mianne]

And that is precisely how the title of this thread applies. These casinos are offshore for one reason only: The US Govt. has made it absolutely clear that they will in no way sanction onine casinos operating within the US. In other words, there is no possible legal alternative right now.

If instead, the US (or better yet states such as Nevada and New Jersey) permitted online casinos to operate within their jurisdictions, had a gambling commission officer on duty at all times auditing the code and the play to make sure the games worked as advertised, insured that customer complaints were dealt with timely and fairly, and most of all taxed the casinos' profits then their would be no problem.

Half the online gambling market is within the US. These users would probably prefer to gamble in (even virtually) a domestic casino with oversight they could trust to be fully impartial. This increased traffic would probably more than offset the loss in revenue due to taxation a US-based casino would experience.

And talking about rigging the odds, state lotteries with 50% payouts are among the very worst bets out there. Yet these are legally sanctioned and heavily promoted by the government. Is that enough hypocrisy for you?

Making laws to enforce morality

[dragonsomnolent]

is a complete and total farce. It never really works and just makes criminals out of otherwise honest people. If I want to smoke a doobie in my bedroom, whose business is it? The only reason that someone gambling illegally (or smoking pot) needs to contact a criminal environment is because you need to contact a criminal environment to do something illegal. It is a huge waste of time, money and resources to keep these laws up, and the only reason anyone does is because they want to look "tough on crime". I wonder how many unsolved murders/other serious crime could be solved if the government would stop trying to be our mom.

So, no, criminalizing (insert favorite vice) does not help society more than it hurts.

Re:Making laws to enforce morality

[Doc Ruby]

AG ("Grand Inquisitor") Gonzales admitted that Bush ordered his Justice Department lawyers not to perform their required investigations of Bush's illegal domestic spying operations. So DoJ has lots of time to prosecute popular gambling websites.

I wonder how many gambling sites that do have other actually criminal activities will be prosecuted to make this project look good. Crimes that were discovered by Bush's unconstitutional NSA dragnet, rather than the due process America used to have when its government wasn't a criminal gang.

Re:Yeah. right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing that your post got modded up. Your innuendo refutes nothing. Those are legitimate businesses, it is legal to donate to political parties (and many businesses hedge their bets - pardon the pun - by supporting more than one party), and it is valid to complain about competitors operating illegally. I'm looking at you.

I worked there !!

[malraid]

Damn, I used to work in booking a while ago at that place, it was a huge operation. Maybe 200-300 people only taking bets over the phone.

the poor seem to gamble differently

[MrFebtober]

Surly someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it has been my general observation from the few times I've been in a casino that the rich tend to gamble differently from the poor. As it's been told to me (I'm not a gambler), the rule of thumb in casinos is that the more complicated and difficult the game is, the better the odds of winning are. Additionally, the harder, more complicated games usually seem to require more upfront investment and more money at stake. There's nothing easier or cheaper to play than slot machines, but you have the worst odds of ending up in the black at the end of the night. The advantage is you can start playing for as little as a nickel. On the other hand, something like baccarat might require $25 to enter the game, and if you don't know what the hell you're doing the $25 might last just a couple of minutes.

My point is, those who can afford it (and who might be more likely to learn to play the challenging games) get to play the games with better odds of winning. The poor and the stupid usually head for the slots, at least that's the way it usually seems on gambling boats on the Ohio River.*

NOTE: I'm not intentionally grouping the stupid with the poor, I know way to many exceptions to think that, such as college students and politicians.)

Re:the poor seem to gamble differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Games like 21 and Texas Hold'em are both way more simple and more popular than games like Baccarat and offer decent odds. I don't spend a lot of times in casinos but I have never seen anyone play Baccarat except in movies. I'm not sure if maybe Baccarat and other "complex" games offer better odds, I always thought 21 offered the best odds - I've certainly seen a few people who could utterly pwn at it. One of the best players I ever saw was this black gangsta guy who could barely speak proper english, I think he was a savant of some kind. I read that John Carmack from Id Software is really good at 21 also, he got kicked out of vegas for counting cards or something.

Re:the poor seem to gamble differently

[mOdQuArK!]

Rich or poor, no matter what game you're playing, it doesn't really matter - in the long run, the casino will always end up with more of your money than you got from them. Any casino that doesn't do this will almost inevitably go bankrupt. That's why the casinos bill themselves as "entertainment", rather than an investment opportunity.

The only difference is that rich people will still have money left when they leave the casino.

Re:the poor seem to gamble differently

[nelsonal]

Baccarat is exceedingly simple to understand for the gambler, because you only make one decision. Bank or player (if you are the player you don't even have to make that decision). The rules while complex don't allow for additional input from either side. Both hands are played in the same manner as the dealer's in blackjack. The bank has a very slight edge which is offset by the vig the house takes on bank bets (4-5% in most casinos).

Re:the poor seem to gamble differently

[CodeArtisan]

The casino won't necessarily win more money from you if you play poker. Of course, they take their rake, but if you are a semi-comptetent player, you can be a reasonably consistent winner from the other players at the table. The whole 'poker is a game of skill' perspective is one of the arguments being used to try and prevent internet poker being made illegal in the US.

Re:the poor seem to gamble differently

[mOdQuArK!]

Yeah, poker's a bit different, but I don't think most casinos count on poker to make most of their "guaranteed" money. I also suspect that a "typical" poker player (myself included) would have better luck at the slot machines than at the poker table :P

Party Poker

[smackt4rd]

I think they should arrest everyone responsible for those freaking party poker TV commercials, especially whoever came up with that goddamn song.

This worries me

[wirah]

Working for a UK online gambling company who are just re-launching in the US... Our finance directory was questioned at the airport last time he visited the US, for two hours.

The question is, how at risk am I of being arrested if I were to visit?

Re:This worries me

[Godwin O'Hitler]

How much at risk are you of losing something important in your life if you don't visit?

More importantly -

[Rod the Critic]

More importantly, the NYtimes reports that the court granted a temporary restraining order that prevents BetOnSports from accepting wagers from customers in the United States, and made the company return money held in the accounts of Americans. Are any of you out there users of the site - and can you confirm this? It makes me worried that the sites I use are going to be frozen out.

I don't know...

[skids]

But it's even money that *somehow* it's connected to Jack Abramoff. :-)

This is all idictic.

[Typingsux]

I'm gambling with money I've earned and already paid taxes on. If I should be lucky and win I should be expected to claim the winnings as income just as I would at a B&M casino. If I do not, it's tax evasion. What's the problem here? State lotteries are on a 50% vig or worse that's the problem.

Re:This is all idictic.

[tehcyder]

If I should be lucky and win I should be expected to claim the winnings as income

Yes, but if you were, say, a UK citizen your lottery winnings would be outside the scope of tax.

You can't just take US law and apply it to people who are citizens of other countries - or rather, you shouldn't be able to.

Don't lump all gambling under one umbrella

[tgd]

Lotteries are idiot taxes. The odds are so far against you, relative to potential payout, that its just throwing away your money.

However, lots of forms of gambling are not an individual being bad at math against the house which is better at math, its an individual against another individual, with the house just facilitating. They're chess, not the roll of the dice.

There are also a number of "person vs house" table games where the odds are so narrowly in the houses favor that one can pretty easily win in the very short term, if you follow very strict rules when to stop, or in the long term. Those games work for the casino because 99% of the people who play them don't play them well.

Re:Don't lump all gambling under one umbrella

[Anonymous Coward]

They're chess, not the roll of the dice.

Except it is the roll of the dice. It is true that some people are better at convincing other people that they have a better hand, but the end of every poker tournament is who gets the better cards. Every time. Never has anyone ever folded the last of their money because the other guy has presented the idea that he has a better hand.

Re:Don't lump all gambling under one umbrella

[sahala]

There are also a number of "person vs house" table games where the odds are so narrowly in the houses favor that one can pretty easily win in the very short term, if you follow very strict rules when to stop, or in the long term. Those games work for the casino because 99% of the people who play them don't play them well.

This statement makes no sense. How is it easy to win in the short term? How do you define short term, and what are the rules to stop? Stopping a session when you're ahead, and repeating this process doesn't make it a winning game in the long run. This reminds me of being in a cardroom, watching a hot-shot sit down, win a few pots, and then leave because he figures his luck has run out and he's bound to lose the next few hands.

Re:Don't lump all gambling under one umbrella

[MonsoonDawn]

I think the parent doesn't quite understand how compounded probablity.

Re:Don't lump all gambling under one umbrella

[sahala]

Except it is the roll of the dice. It is true that some people are better at convincing other people that they have a better hand, but the end of every poker tournament is who gets the better cards. Every time. Never has anyone ever folded the last of their money because the other guy has presented the idea that he has a better hand.

Bluffing isn't the only other part of poker strategy. Making good value bets, hand-reading (ie. observing betting patterns to deduce opponent strength), manipulating the dynamics of multiple players involved in a pot, knowing when to get involved and uninvolved...I mean the list goes on. In tournament play things things like game theory come even more into play. In your particular example, yes, the winner is determined by a single final best hand, but consider all the events that lead up to that point. One player may have in particular outplayed the other, or induced the opponent to play sub-optimally, or commanded such a huge chip lead that the cards don't even matter (ie the range of strategy for the smaller stack narrower than the bigger stack). And yes, there's luck, which to some people is what makes the game so interesting.

This is NOT a gambling case

[ChrisA90278]

Everyone seems to be complainning the the FBI is cracking down on GAMBLING. No, it is fraud and non-payment of taxes. The actuall gambling is being done overseas where it is legal but they are ripping off customers here in the US. Come on now, how many of you really believe those on-line gamming site really pay out all the winning and don't seriously cheat their customers. That is fraud. Even if they don't cheat they still own taxes on their US operations. Yes even Honda, a japanees car company has to pay US taxs on the money they make in the US and likewise do on-line gabling companies. The IRS sais that even drug dealers are required to pay taxes on their dealling (of couse they'd be stupid to claim such income on a signed government form) but still if they don't pay that is one more charge added when they are caught.

Apearently there IS NO LAW against on-line gambling possably there are some state laws but the FBI does not enforce state laws. These guys could have been sell shoes buti f they cheated customers and didn't pay taxes they be shut down just the same --- well likey not the FBI does not waste time with small scale crimes and I doubt they'd be selling $3 billion in shoes

Even the Porn industry is mostly above board and gets the required permits, pays resonable wadges, takes out payroll and income tax withholdings and keeps books and pays taxes. on-line gambling could do the same but apearently these guys didn't. This is NOT a big deal.

Re:This is NOT a gambling case

[robertjw]

even drug dealers are required to pay taxes on their dealling (of couse they'd be stupid to claim such income on a signed government form) but still if they don't pay that is one more charge added when they are caught.

Actually, IIRC, information submitted to the IRS cannot be used as evidence for criminal prosecution. The US Government want's the drug dealer's money much more than they want to prosecute said dealer for any criminal activity.

Re:This is NOT a gambling case

[jtownatpunk.net]

I can't believe this post has an "informative" rating. Of course the places pay out. If they didn't, it would be all over the entarwebs. There's no way an online gaming site could weather the storm of negative publicity that would arise from failure to pay out. Just ask Dutch Boyd http://www.pokertips.org/history/online-poker.php/ .

As for taxes on US operations...um...What US operations? Costa Rica is not in the US. Gibralter is not in the US. Antigua is not in the US.

The porn industry can get required permits because the required permits exist. Online gaming companies can't request a permit that doesn't exist. What kind of nonsense is that?

The fact is the US government wants to get a cut of any transaction of any kind that takes place anywhere in the world. There's no way that can happen with transactions that take place across international boundaries. So they'll just grab the people in charge under whatever pretext they can, hold them by the ankles, and shake them until the money stops falling out.

Re:This is NOT a gambling case

[malf-uk]

I seriously doubt that the majority of US-based online services I've used have paid taxes to the HM Revenue & Customs in the UK.

Re:This is NOT a gambling case

[Anonymous Coward]

right, but they can always pass the form onto law enforcement who now have a tip-off on the drug dealer to go and collect evidence that IS admissible in court

Finally

[Joebert]

About time FBI guys, I've got this bench soo warm, it could spontaneously combust at any moment !

The US is different, it requires immigration...

[blorg]

...for all connecting passengers. Many (most?) countries, such as France, don't require immigration if you are just connecting. Makes sense, you would think, as for countries that don't require immigation it helps promote their airports as hubs with all the attendant economic benefits. Much faster transfers, no visa hassles, etc. I guess the US is a big enough landmass with few alternative hubs nearby.

This fact is how Canadian Mahar Arar was extraordinarily renditioned by the US to Syria coming home to Canada from holiday in Tunisia - he had the misfortune to connect in New York.

This applies to sports betting, not casino games

[RxScram]

Most of the posts I have read seem to imply that this applies to all casino games, including poker, blackjack, etc. From the research I have done, current federal law only prohibits betting on sporting events. This is part of the Wire act, of which the applicable portion is: "Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

In February 2001, Judge Stanwood Duval of the US District Court in New Orleans ruled "'in plain language' [the Wire Act] does not prohibit Internet gambling 'on a game of chance.'"

On November 21, 2002, the US Fifth Circuit Federal Appeals Court upheld Duval's ruling, stating: "The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests... We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion."

The Appeals Court further states: "Because we find neither the Wire Act nor the mail and wire fraud statutes may serve as predicates here, we need not consider the other federal statutes identified by the Plaintiffs... As the district court correctly explained, these sections may not serve as predicates here because the Defendants did not violate any applicable federal or state law."

The Appeals Court specifically cites Duval's statement: "[A] plain reading of the statutory language [of the Wire Act] clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest." This is very explicit language. You would have to jump through a lot of mental hoops to consider the playing of online poker to be "a sporting event".

Finally, in November 2004, the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda won a World Trade Organization ruling that United States legislation criminalizing online betting violates global laws. In April 2005, the WTO Appellate Body affirmed the principal conclusions involved. What effect this will have on the U.S. morality police has yet to be seen, probably none, but at least it gives the online poker players and gamblers some glimpse of hope.

Personally, I don't really care about sports betting and related things being illegal, as that isn't my area of interest. But I do see a long slippery slope ahead if things like this continue.

Source: http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal /

News to me

[Aqua_boy17]

And all this time, I thought 'on-line gambling' was downloading and installing the latest Windows patches.

Can the US tax a foreign corporation?

[Tired and Emotional]

Can someone knowledgable tell us about the legal ramifications of this cas?. Seems like there are all sorts of interesting questions in International Law to be answered. Not least whether the US can impose taxes on a foreign corporation not operating in the US. (and even what constitutes "operating in the US" is presumably at question - are there any precedents on that from mail order?). Also whether a US citizen who is CEO of a foreign entity is guilty of an offense under US law as a result of the activities of that entity, over which the US lacks jurisdiction. Is there a specific clause in US gambling law to cover that, or is there an established legal theory?

Re:Can the US tax a foreign corporation?

[tehcyder]

Can someone knowledgable tell us about the legal ramifications of this cas?.

Wow, you must be new here.

"Leisure analyst"?

[Doctor Memory]

WTF, sign me up for a round of that:

• Do wine tasting parties at the Hamptons differ from those in the Bay area?
• Sexual preferences: Tempurpedic, or coil-spring?
• Hammock sales down in Tuscany, sample wares & question regional merchants
• Do these sunglasses make me look cool?

Re:"Leisure analyst"?

[Churla]

A) Yes, funnier accents in the Hamptons
B) You forgot the "kitchen countertop" contingency
C) Already checked - comfy picnic blanket sales are up to counterbalance. Something about tree problems.
D) No. You look like a bug monster from a bad anime.

In that case.....

[blang]

The bible is an open endorsement for gambling.

If getting rich quick and love of money are sins, then certainly gambling,
which in the long run makes you poorer, is a Good Thing.

In fact the state lotteries, indian Casonos, and the online gambling sites, perform the valuable public service of sinning on our behalf, so that we all can become poorer and go to heaven.

Re: Who's defining addictive behavior

[hex0016]

Any behavior can become psychologically addicting (we'll ignore physically addicting activities like substance abuse for the moment). People argue that gambling should be banned or at least tightly controlled because it can become a harmful addiction. Using that logic, video games, skydiving, sex, shopping and even food and drink (non-alcoholic) would have to be banned. There are known instances where people have wrecked their lives, because these addictions have led to money problems, lost jobs, disease, physical injury, and even death. Of course, there are people who already have proposed the banning of any combination of these activities. The Temperance Movement wasn't about temperance (i.e. moderation). It was about an ideology of social engineering, attempting to remove from society those activities one found objectionable merely because a minority of the people partaking abused the activity. Let's not go back down that road.

Wow...

[Greyfox]

I bet he didn't see that coming.

It's not the first time something like this has happened though. I seem to recall the FBI arresting a bunch of USAians who'd set up offshore gambling sites a while back. And if you ever had anything to do with helping to break copyright protection encryption you'd best steer clear of this country. If you've ever worked on an OSS encryption product you might want to avoid the USA, too. Never know when our guys might get a bug up their ass and arrest you as an international arms distributor or something like that.

As for the US Citizens, you ARE registering to vote and voting against the incumbent, right? Chances are the guy you're voting against is retarded. Chances are the guy you're voting for is too, but it'll be a few years before he establishes the ties to do much damage and by then you can help vote him out again.

Re:Wow...

[njen]

The guy who was arrested is not a US citizen. He is a Scot living in Costa Rica. He was just passing through. I wonder what his home country is going to do...

Re:Wow...

[Greyfox]

Well it's not the first time a foreign national's been arrested for doing something that wasn't illegal in his own country that was against the law here. Look what happened to Dmitri. I suspect it's pretty likely that he'll eventually be released with no charges filed, but I can't imagine the time he'll spend in jail until then will be particularly comfortable. And you know what they say... it only takes one night to get anally raped.

Here's The Truth

[Chagatai]

The real reason they were arrested was because Uncle Sam was unable to tax them. Think about it. Americans are spending $4.5 billion per year towards online gambling sites like these that are located overseas. The government would like a slice of that pie, but they are unable to tax that revenue because the foreign companies don't fall under the jurisdiction of the IRS. Consequently, Congress brings up a whole bunch of warnings and laws about being unable to gamble online. And what better way to cut it off than to arrest CEOs who step foot on American soil?

Control. That's what it's all about.

Re:Here's The Truth

[Fish-In-a-Barrel]

Although in part you may be right in your assumption pertaining to Uncle Sam getting a fist full of tax dollar$, I think there is more to this than that. Being a webmaster who operates a number of online gambling portals I've been in this industry for many, many years, I've also been a player too. As the internet has grown, so too has the ability of information (good & bad) been able to be resourced by many. Speaking in regards to online casinos, the majority of these are respectable, trustworthy and above all pay their winning players. However, like most industries, there are those who are considered to be rogues, dishonest and will do anything to strip players of their bankrolls but will not pay out winners. It's not unlike the old saying "a small group can screw it up for everyone". Granted there are portal out there (mine included) who try to steer players towards honest casino venues. However, there are just as many webmaster who would sell their grand mother for a buck too. Personal I think too many people have been making formal complaints about these rogue online casinos stealing USA citizens money and the Uncle Sam is now taking steps to curb the rising problem. The industry has tried self governing and it just does not work, imo. Maybe an dependant body could deal with this issue. However, what would make the dollar issue believable would be if the H.R.4777 is passed and 12 months later Vegas is allowed to operate online casinos. Now that would make this a real hidden agenda. Again on a personal view, I think something has to be done about these rogue online casinos. Frankly though it's going to be hard to stop USA citizens from gambling online. Casino's quickly get around funding issues; they are experts at this. I'm sure if the USA place a ban on ISP's allow their USA customers to access gambling sites, casino's and such will install free dial ISP accounts off shore to toll free numbers to override this issue. They provide toll free phone numbers already, so this would be of little hassle to them or expense.

Who said anything about fraud?

[vinn01]

The goverment is not cracking down on Internet gambling because of fraud. Where did you make that up? It's not stated in any government document.

There are not a lot of angry US consumers who have demanded that the government attack fraudulant on-line gambiling sites.

The government is not cracking down because US consumers hate on-line gambiling sites, but rather US consumers love on-line gambling sites.

naw

[BitterAndDrunk]

People will pay for the convenience of purchasing mj cigs. You can grow your own tobacco currently, but who does?

Additionally, even if you do grow your own, we're talking about a significant investment (approx $1k for a decent system to grow a set of clones, plus the space to do so; cheaper than now since you wouldn't need to conceal it) and your quality will still vary wildly initially as a "hobbyist".

Or, you spend $10 and get a quarter of prerolled mj cigs.

I'd wager that some die hards will roll their own, so to speak, but a significant amount of the populace will pay taxes on a product of consistent quality.

Plus, let's not forget that pot is extremely inflated price-wise due to the War on Some Drugs, with the high price ($40-$60 for 3g of quality herb) partially offsetting seized shipments and the like.

Prior to the escalation of Green Merchant and Reagan's initiatives, an oz cost approximately $30. (which still offered a significant profit for the at-home cultivator)

Re:naw

[Some_Llama]

"You can grow your own tobacco currently, but who does?"

While i do agree that pre-rolled MJ might be appealing to some, Tobacco is MUCH harder to cultivate and grow than marijuana.

Also since marijuana is a better high and negligible side effects when eaten, smoking would not be the preferred method of ingestion.

I believe even the Queen of England used to eat hashish candies back in the days when it was legal...

"Additionally, even if you do grow your own, we're talking about a significant investment (approx $1k for a decent system to grow a set of clones, plus the space to do so; cheaper than now since you wouldn't need to conceal it) and your quality will still vary wildly initially as a "hobbyist"."

Um, no, I used to, um, know "someone" who grew plants in his closet when he was younger, the entire setup from lights to growing equipment (buckets, soil, fertilizer, etc) cost a total of about 100 bucks (if that). He was able to produce 5-6 full plants which yielded about half a pound or more. This was actually less than some of his friends who had better success (since they had done it a few times and knew how to fully exploit the growth cycle).

Re:This applies to sports betting, not casino game

[botzi]

>>Personally, I don't really care about sports betting and related things being illegal, as that isn't my area of interest. That has to be the most ignorant statement I've seen and attitude like that is what lets politicans push BS laws. You don't care about something BEING ILLEGAL simply because you're not interested? You don't care if it's right & just to criminalize certain activity? How about you wake up and start thinking? How would you feel if drinking milk was made illegal tomorrow, and 90% of the population said "We don't care, we don't drink milk.".

Hmmm

[Sv-Manowar]

Interesting details on his arrest:
* NO bail
* feds are seeking over $4 billion in unpaid taxes
* Carruthers was targeted as part of a larger investigation
* Carruthers was held incommunicado until appearing at trial
* FULL TEXT of the fed press release announcing the indictment details

The news from the past few days made it seem like they were just leaning on Carruthers to help with the Kaplan investigation. But some of this stuff is very broad... "equipment used to place bets" is probably just a server. Sounds like he will be away for quite a while.

Mockery

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Sure. The US Justice System is quick to move against little people, but won't touch Cheney and Lay. Freedom for the Rich. Justice for the Poor.

Not the whole picture

[robogun]

In no brick and mortar casino can you gamble with a credit card.

Most credit card companies also have an aversion to the practice of you gambling with THEIR money.

It might be just me, but I think that gambling with borrowed money (e.g. markers) is about the dumbest financial move a human being can make.

Not to mention...

[Moofdot]

Illegal commercial gambling across state and international borders is a crime," said U.S Attorney Catherine Hanaway of the Eastern District of Missouri in a press release. "Misuse of the Internet to violate the law can ultimately only serve to harm legitimate businesses. This indictment is but one step in a series of actions designed to punish and seize the profits of individuals who disregard federal and state laws.

There are SO many reasons to love this horse shit:
1. It's so arbitrarily illegal by his definition.
2. It's a little redundantly redundant. ILLEGAL STUFF IS A CRIME!!!
3. According to what he says, these illegal internet gambling operations harm all the legal internet gambling operations (of which there apparently are none because the federal government just arbitrarily decided to outlaw it) OR the "legal" casinos who contribute to campaigns.
They're talking about these guys like they committed a huge crime, when from the looks of it at least one of the laws they snagged them on was only passed last week. Good golly get those dog-killing baby-eaters off the street before they make Charles Barkley spend another 20 million on accident!
It's pure, almost laughable vendetta.

Internet gambling does not allow the government to take their cut and is therefore in direct competition with them.

I'd like to know if this is definitely true or not. It'd be hilarious if they just hated them because there is no way to make them pay taxes under current federal law, so instead they just make it illegal.
...a little scary too, but what is there that the federal government does these days that isn't?

On the other hand, the online gambling industry is one that is notoriously rife with fraud, and it's entirely possible that these guys are scum that have been doing what they're accused of or worse. For the sake of their industry, I hope that they have realized the scrutiny that they've been under and have made very diligent efforts to stay clean and legitimate and can prove so in court. Otherwise, these two may very well have doomed their entire industry, even the players that are 100% honest and that just want to provide an entertainment service.

In fairness, that's also quite possible. So hard to tell with the media being a giant festering wound of inaccurate and misleading reporting these days. As such, my judgement is suspended until later on this, not that it'll change anything that happens in the least. Oh wait, my vote matters. Sorry, forgot.

Real reason:

[SonicSpike]

I would venture to say that the brick-and-mortar casinos are heavily funding the coffers of those politicians that are pushing this through. It's another classic example of big business using government as a tool to regulate in their favor against small business and their competition.

The best way to avoid this is to make the government limited so that it only carries out its most basic functions. That's why I'm a (L)ibertarian.

You can read more here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191483&cid =15736452
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191483&cid =15736383

Re:Real reason:

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to avoid this is to make the government limited so that it only carries out its most basic functions. That's why I'm a (L)ibertarian.

The problem is defining what is "basic functions." Too hands off and you end up with the failure of the Articles of Confederation

Re:Real reason:

[SonicSpike]

That's true. But the basic functions are set forth in the Constitution already.

In fact, it is estimated that 80-95% of every federal law passed is NOT congruent to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.articlei.html#section8

Re:Real reason:

[lysergic.acid]

That's a very shotsighted solution. Local governments have been known to be just as corrupt as federal government; devolution is definitely not the answer. Without government regulations, we'd have the same situation as in Nicaragua and other developing nations where IMF and World Bank imposed economic policies have opened up vulnerable (suicidal) "free markets" which create corporate plutocracies where you have international conglomerates coming in to privatize social infrastructures such as water, electricity, farming, etc. and hiking up the prices because there's an inelastic demand for these monopolized inelastic necessities absent of any sort of formidable opposition from domestic businesses.* Why do you think we impose strong tariffs and heavily regulate imported products ourselves (a bit hypocritical, no?). A strongly united people-based democratic government is the only thing that can stand up against these powerful multinational conglomerates.

Imagine a U.S. where all roadways are toll roads, all schools are charter schools run on corporate sponsorship (with curricula dictated by said financial interests), entirely privatized healthcare (no more state-funded healthcare for the poor), where monopolized industries can freely practice price gouging (as california electric companies are have already been convicted of doing), and there's no FDA regulation of foods and drugs, no federal agencies to investigate corporate corruption, no form of corporate responsibility being enforced other than half-hearted PR campaigns, which are are just charades for the public. We need a government that represents its true constituents, not its political campaign patrons, otherwise all these regulations will simply be ineffective slaps on the hand. A libertarian government would allow corporate scandals to continue with complete impunity.

The problem should be solved by giving the power of government back to the people. Right now we have an ersatzs democracy run by corporate America and the media conglomerates which they also happen to own--sound like a conspiracy? Google "NBC and General Electric." Government offices are sold to the highest bidder through PAC funds, and our legislation reflects that; the strangle hold on American media outlets just closes the loop. A simple look at the contrast between media coverage in any European nation and major U.S. publications will illustrate this--why do U.S. press picture Hugo Chavez as a ruthless dictatorship when he is one of the most beloved (and first democratically elected) presidents of Venezuela; why was the CIA engineered military coup in Venezuela a massive failure.** What we need to do is follow the lead of true democracies like Venezuela, where the people vote on constitutional amendments and new legislation through broadbased referendums. We need to get rid of the bipartisan system/mascarade--(which faction of the American Business Party would you like to vote for), and create a truely democratic electoral system where independent 3rd parties aren't just nominal choices.

But looking at the past 2 presidential elections, we are a long ways from reaching this ideal democracy. Just take a look at the corruption uncovered by Black Box Voting that the unmarginalized constituency is still too indifferent/oblivious to do anything about. No reform can happen when the only ones willing to revolt are marginalized and the empowered are too complacent to take action. He who controls the media truly controls the government. We live in a kleptocracy of the rich and powerful. None bothered to heed Eisenhower's warnings in his farewell address:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex[***]. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address January 17, 1961[8]

The political power and economi

I had a job interview with their Canadian outfit

[Anonymous Coward]

Betonsports owners have created a Canadian "tech support" site in Ottawa, called Tamarindo Systems. The goal is for Tamarindo Systems to do all of the technical back-end support and management (no hosting). I had a job interview with them a few months ago, and I was initially offered a job... until I started asking some pertinent questions, like "Why do I have to travel to indonesia and the cayman islands to do some of the technical work?", and "Why does your letter of offer state that you're responsible for SENDING me to these places around the world, but you specifically state that you can LEAVE ME THERE INDEFINATELY?"

They rescinded my offer of employment. I figure I dodged a bullet there. The funny thing, is that they wanted a police check done on ME!

contradiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...And the gamblers, who are not as significantly stupid as you assume..."

Well, they ARE gambling, aren't they?