Slashdot Mirror
FBI Arrests Neteller Execs
Alcibaides writes "In a follow-up to the 2006 law attacking Internet gambling, the FBI arrested two former Neteller executives in 'connection with the creation and operation of an Internet payment services company that facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds.' Apparently, the execs were 'ambushed' as they passed through the U.S. on connecting flights. Consequently, Neteller has dropped all gambling-related activity to U.S. customers, a move not expected for several months."
This should be interesting, to see how foreign countries react to the detention of their citizens for something so paltry...
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Note to self....
Don't ever take a flight that stops over in the US if I've done something that the US might not like, even if it's perfectly legal in my country.
Emerald Astrology
Well, I played too much online poker anyways.
I don't see why the federal government is making such a huge deal out of online gambling, aside from the fact that it is currently not taxed. I don't really think the government deserves any more money, but I'd rather pay a small tax on my gaming than have it outlawed as some mysteriously corrupt moral issue. Other than taxation, how is this any different from the government endorsed lottery or allowed casinos in Atlantic City and Vegas?
The warmaking industry is apparently a far safer place for an executive to be. After all, their products are only being used to kill people. It's not like they're offering a completely voluntary service like gambling, which of course is among the most terrible things that can be done. I mean, how dare somebody be given the ability to spend their money as they choose!
It is worrisome how the US is trying to enforce its law on the whole world.
Many companies/people operate fully within the law of the land they live in. If this is breaking a US law, then the US should work with that government to harmonize the laws.
This is similar to how Muslim courts found danish cartoonist guilty of depicting mohammed, and condemned them to death.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
...are they being charged with violating this new law, or with other laws that are already on the books? Since they haven't done anything but own stock in the company since 2005, one would think that they couldn't be accused of crimes they committed before they were classed as illegal...
Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculous two faced nature of American anti-gambling laws, this is just beyond a joke. As I understand it, the two former execs in question had left the company before the SAFE Port Act was passed. So they've been arrested for setting up a company that is 100% legal in their country of origin, and was legal at the time in the USA as well (in fact, it's still legal for non-gambling related payments), and they no longer have anything to do with the company in question, aside from still holding shares.
"Land of the free", huh? I'm lost for words. The American legal system is just a joke.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
The U.S. Internet Gambling laws were only passed because British companies were dominating the market. If it the law was passed for moral reasons as its proponents (and much of the press) reported, then why not shut down Las Vegas too?
It shows how one sided the U.S. is when it comes to trade. Britain is a loyal (sickeningly loyal) friend of the U.S., and look how they get treated. With friends and enemies alike, the U.S. like thugs and wonders why it's become so unpopular.
BTW U.S. = government and big business. Not talking about your average Joe, who is as much a victim as everyone else.
As a former employee of Neteller, I've got to say that this is a pretty scary situation.
Neteller wasn't a sketchy operation being run in some warehouse. It employed over 500 people in Canada and paid taxes to the government here.
The company had a lot of dealings with various state governments in the US and had agreed to several restrictions long before the recent bill passed that made online gambling in the US completely illegal.
The firm employed nearly 100 software developers, many were consultants and contractors that were flown in from california. I'm sure that I'm not the only ex-employee now concerned about having to deal with the US government in the future.
What you are suggesting is very dangerous. If I put up a web page, it should sufficethat I comply with all local laws.
If I have to consider the laws of all nations in the world, I pretty much have to hire attorneys from each of the contries to review my website.
And I can not:
1. Enjoy fredom of expression (Illegal all over, including china)
2. Critizise leaders (putin, il-jung-sum, most communists and others)
3. Advertize alcoholic beverages (Illegal in many arab countires)
4. Have any sexual material (again illegal in many countires)
5. Have any religious material worshipping any other gods than allah
6. Have any religious material worshipping any other gods than jhave
7. Have any religious material worshipping any other gods than
8. Download music(illegal in USA)
An in many cases illegal means "To be stoned to death"
Is this what you advocate?
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
The offline casinos, not just in the US, must love this action. I wonder how much they paid for it?
--
make install -not war
For those of you screaming that the US is engaged in trade protection because they don't outlaw gambling completely I would like to point out a few things. The US is a republic composed of individual states which have more power and authority than our federal government. As a result of this 99% of all the vices (gambling, alcohol, etc..) are controlled at the state level. What this means is that in the US there are certain localities that have approved gambling, but many others (in fact the majority of the country) that doesn't allow it (much like alcohol, yes there are dry counties in the US).
As a result of trying to maintain state harmony, US federal laws have long held the position that gambling by wire is Illegal. This current law is just an extension of that long historic policy (existing since the days of the telegraph). Not only is this to appease the states and localities that don't allow gambling but it's also because gambling draws organized crime, and without heavy regulation (and even with it in some cases) cheating by the casinos becomes the norm.
So contrary to what you may think, if online gambling were legal in the US it would be absolutely dominated by the large corporations that run the casinos in Vegas. These casinos would JUMP at the chance to be involved in online gambling if they could (as 10 years ago they tried quite extensively to lobby congress to allow it), so any lobbying by the industry now is simply to allow a fair playground of enforcement of the US gambling by wire laws that already exist. Regulation of an enterprise historically and currently used as the single largest source of illegal money laundering isn't a bad thing, and you will have trouble getting sympathy from any significant percentage of US citizens who are bombarded by stories of lives destroyed by gambling addictions. And really, much like any crime, if you market your crime to citizens of another country and knowingly break that countries laws you need to be careful where you travel. For example, if I was going to go to China I wouldn't want to have ever been tied to anti-china activity as it would likely get me arrested. As another example, lets consider the south American drug lords, they don't bring drugs into the US personally nor do they in some cases do anything illegal in their own countries (at least that they are willing to prosecute them for), but many are sought for extradition to the US because they engage in an activity that creates crime in the US. In reality this is no different, as gambling online is unequivocally illegal in the US, but there are corporations and casinos engaged in actively breaking US law. Much like the drug lords they will pursue them for creating the market to violate US law although I doubt they will seek extradition of anyone.
Lets just be clear, it had nothing to do with Britain dominating the industry, it had everything to do with preserving the current laws by adapting them to the internet. The industry is a victim of it's own success, had it remained small there might have never been action by the US congress, and the FBI wouldn't be trying to make an example of someone to try to scare the rest of the industry into not being active participants in the breaking of US law.
Finally, it's apparent whoever arrested them didn't really know what was going on. They couldn't bring a case against the men simply for the fact that it would violate habeas corpus. With no current active role in the company (if true) their case won't go past the preliminary hearing.
When U.S. forces are stationed in foreign countries, they are usually subject to a Status Of Forces Agreement, which states which country has jurisdiction for which crimes. I don't know if we have a SOFA with the new Iraqi government, but if I had to guess, I would guess that we do, and any military member raping an Iraqi woman would be subject to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
You are missing an important point about how the law relates to national souvereignity:
Murder is unlawful in most contries/states, but the juristicion to prosecute and punish rests solely with the county/state.
If you commit murder in Idaho, a California court can not convict you of that crime.
If you commit murder in Denmark, the US can not convict you of that crime.
This is part of international treaties that all memebers of the UN are signatories to.
however, over the last years, the US are in many areas violating this, and treat the entire world as US juristicion.
This includes areas like
1. Actions aganinst people/companies living/based in tax havens
2. Underage sex tourism
3. Online gambling
and other
(1) is mostly to get more tax revenue, (2) is beacause local juristicions is lax, and (3) is to protect national casinos that donate a lot of money to candidates.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Of course many countries have long-arm statutes - however your examples are plain wrong.
Pinochet was charged by Spain for crimes against Spanish citizens living in Chile. Spain tried to have him extradited from the UK but failed. He returned to Chile where he died.
Milosevic was indicted by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity and charges of violating the laws or customs of war and grave breaches of the Geneva Convention. The trial might have been in the Hague however the Netherlands was not the country prosecuting him.
So both these cases had very little to do with long-arm statutes.