Slashdot Mirror


BetOnSports Founder Pleads Guilty To Racketeering

Hugh Pickens writes "The founder of Internet- and telephone-based gambling operation BetOnSports has entered guilty pleas to three US charges, including a racketeering charge, and will forfeit $43.7 million to the US government as part of a plea agreement. Beginning in the mid- to late-1990s, Gary Kaplan set up businesses in Antigua and later Costa Rica to provide sports betting services to US residents through web sites and toll-free telephone numbers. Those numbers terminated in Houston or Miami, and were then forwarded to Costa Rica by satellite transmitter or fiber-optic cable. Some of Kaplan's web servers were located in Miami and were remotely controlled from Costa Rica. People became customers by depositing money in a BetOnSports account. By 2004, the BetOnSports organization's principal base of operations in Costa Rica employed about 1,700 people, had nearly one million registered customers and accepted more than 10 million sports bets. Now bankrupt, BetOnSports took in $1.25 billion in 2004, with 98 percent of that revenue coming from bets made through its web site by clients in the United States. 'Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes,' said FBI agent John Gillies. 'Today's guilty plea should have a lasting effect because Kaplan was not only the founder of BetOnSports, he was also one of the pioneers of illegal online gambling.'"

44 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Who was he hurting? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only one hurt in this operation was the American government who didn't get their cut.

    The internet exposes many holes in the law, the most obvious one being locality in this case. What's the difference between driving to the nearby rez for some Pai Gow and going online to bet on the ponies?

    1. Re:Who was he hurting? by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another classic example why victimless crimes should be abolished. We're told that people over 18 are mature enough to make their own decisions in life.

      BTW, do the same agencies raid Las Vegas too, or is only internet gambling the work of the devil?

    2. Re:Who was he hurting? by Miros · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, and it also takes money away from the Casinos, which the government protects through grants of monopoly franchises. Obv the government's recourse to tax revenue on the gambling winnings is via the casinos, and while it would be good for one state to setup internet gambling, the other states would object as they would not see any of the money made from the operation. (otherwise the major casino operators would have already implemented something like this)

    3. Re:Who was he hurting? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only one hurt in this operation was the American government who didn't get their cut.

      You know, in theory at least, money that the government collects is meant to be spent on public works and infrastructure that benefit all of the citizens. This has, in the past, included large grants for developing the network infrastructure needed for people to connect to this service. If you don't like the way your government is spending its money then maybe you should organise a new government.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Who was he hurting? by Miros · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, in some sense internet gambling still is not really illegal, as in some respects the federal government would have some difficulty in passing a law like that without the cooperation of each individual state. Instead, the act, written by Kyl of Arizona, makes it illegal to transfer money to or receive money for the purposes of games of chance electronically over the internet, or some such mechanism like that. The actual function is to make the money transfers illegal, making it the banks problem rather than the problem of the firms that are typically located overseas anyway.

      But yeah, that's what's interesting about it. The states that stand to lose the most are the minority (NJ, NV, CT, PA, couple of others that have legalized certain types of gaming). It seems likely that other states will continue to challenge this paradigm for the possibility of grabbing a bunch of tax cash very quickly until the law is repealed.

    5. Re:Who was he hurting? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you don't like the way your government is spending its money then maybe you should organise a new government.

      Can't. My current government took all my money. I don't have enough left to start another one.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Who was he hurting? by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Funny how everyone picks on the IRS. I suppose you want soldiers to not have weopons, or to come home to nonexistent medical care. Or for children to vandalize houses rather than being safely locked up in school.

      In any case, the IRS is not the primary motivation for these suits. In most cases, it appears the existing gambling interests that are fighting to keep their monopolies alive and safe from free market competition. They want to control the online gambling as they do the offline. Competition that might increase the payouts to consumers and cut profits are just not in the cards, so to speak.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:Who was he hurting? by extremescholar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So isn't the government then guilty of racketeering?

      --
      Using the Freedom of Speech while I still have it.
    8. Re:Who was he hurting? by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, stupid people gamble. Smart people invest.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. Oh noes! by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes"

    I can't be trusted! Protect me, nanny state!

  3. The real reason by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes,' said FBI agent John Gillies.

    The IRS was pissed it wasn't getting a cut of the action.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:The real reason by torkus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, barter is subject to taxation legally.

      Generally no one pays the taxes and it's not easy to track so the IRS ignores it (for now).

      Trying to replace money with bartering? Welcome to...yep...tax evasion!

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  4. Realtors and bankers next? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Surely this decision to plead guilty has opened the floodgates. If taking money off the gullible and statistically challenged is racketeering, now is the time to invest in companies that build prisons in the US.

    After all, Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme. This guy told the gamblers the truth about what he was doing, and they gave him money voluntarily.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Realtors and bankers next? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The stock market *is* gambling. All the "technical analysis", etc., is just bullshit. It's a con game, as in "confidence game" - and when gamblers^Winvestors lose confidence, the system collapses, as we've seen. Ban shorts and derivatives, require that all investments be held for a minimum period of 3 months, and I'll start to believe that *maybe* there's some real investing going on.

    2. Re:Realtors and bankers next? by vbraga · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Graham and Dodd investing, like Buffet does, is very, very different than "technical analysis". It's really investing. TA and the likes are more like a casino.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    3. Re:Realtors and bankers next? by shentino · · Score: 2, Funny

      The stock market is not gambling.

      Most of the folks who make the big bucks either ride it out for the long haul or are insiders.

  5. What did he do wrong? by harmonise · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'Gary Kaplan made millions of dollars by making it too easy for people to gamble away their hard-earned money without having to leave their homes,'

    I'm still not sure what this guy did wrong other than offer a convenient service to gamblers.

    --
    Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
  6. His mistake by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    His mistake was not leaving the US when he had enough money to live independently. That or he was too cheap and didn't "donate" to the right legislators.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:His mistake by whoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hillary (She IS the Secretary of State!) has said this week we are just as corrupt as Nigeria. Therefore, your politicians are fair game to take money.

    2. Re:His mistake by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He did leave the US shortly after the law was passed changing the legal status of his business. He's one of the guys where his flight between non-US destinations had an "emergency" and the DOJ "arrested" him at an "international" location outside the gates of US Customs.

      I always find it funny that it's OK for US corporations to leave when they don't like Taxes, Environmental laws, Labor laws, Executive responsibility laws, to places like Bermuda, China, Taiwan, Honduras, running their US business into the ground and wrecking jobs for tens of thousands, but his little "gambling" site involved the need to conduct international sting operations and illegally divert aircraft.

    3. Re:His mistake by otter42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm calling B.S. According to The Register article from the time, he was arrested at a hotel in Santo Domingo.

      You're getting this somewhat mixed up with David Carruthers, who *was* arrested at Dallas Airport, but while changing planes. Moreover, wikipedia reports that it happened while he was flying from the UK to Costa Rica. If this had been a CIA/FBI plot, like you insinuate, they would have picked a better spot than Houston, and there wouldn't have been a lay-over.

      I'll agree that the US is overstretching it's bounds here, but injecting misinformation and hyperbole into the conversation doesn't help anyone.

      --
      www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
  7. Victimless crimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not really a victimless crime if someone has a gambling addiction. And online gambling doesn't help prevent that lifestyle. But, if it's legalized and regulated, maybe there is hope, but setting limits on how much someone can gamble within a time period. Because, when that person becomes dirt broke, isn't it going to be a burden on our welfare system?

    1. Re:Victimless crimes? by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, not buying it.

      Show me the PHYSICAL need to gamble. Show me the Gambling DTs. It's not a disease, its a lack of an ability to control yourself.

      I'm sick and tired of having options for my behavior limited because some fool can't control themselves. Why should I have a limit put on me on how much I choose to wager because someone else might "have a problem"?

    2. Re:Victimless crimes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Show me the PHYSICAL need to gamble.

      The physical need are the endorphins and adrenalin that are produced by the body in reaction to the gambling activity. Whether the chemical reaction in your body that you feel you "need" is triggered by ingesting or inhaling substances or by mental stimulation is irrelevant to whether or not something qualifies as an addiction.

    3. Re:Victimless crimes? by Carrot007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wheather a need is physical or psychological really does not matter and it is quite offensive that you would treat them differently.

      However as usual the solution is not to ban everybody from doing something because a few cannot control themselves. (which as far as I am concered applies to phsical addiction as much as psychological )

      The solution is to support these people and provide help.

      Your bias towards only caring about physical addiction and not about psychological shows the problems such people face and shows that until things change there is a need to ban everybody.

      Simply put you are your own worst enemy.

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
    4. Re:Victimless crimes? by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please explain to me how this is applied to Las Vegas, Atlantic City and all of those other "legal" gambling institutions throughout America?

      Last I remember you show up with money in a gambling locale and they will let you loose it quite quickly...

      This is about the fact that the American government does not control the monies... Nothing more nothing less... I wish everybody could be honest about that!

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    5. Re:Victimless crimes? by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Humans are volitional beings. Our very definition is "rational animal". We have free will and choose every one of our actions. We own our own bodies and our minds and thus we are "free" by nature.

      Therefore, if we develop an addiction to a substance or to a behaviour we have only ourselves to blame. The notion that fully grown adult human beings need a babysitter to make sure they don't hurt themselves is the most offensive concept ever known to man. And the most dangerous threat to freedom and liberty, which means the most dangerous threat to life itself. Freedom is a requirement of life. We are given our lives as a "gift of nature" but we are not given the means to sustain it. In order to sustain our lives we need to engage in certain actions. This is the concept of freedom and "rights". Rights are any behaviour that one might engage in to promote his survival and happiness. That means that no one has the ability to interfere with any action that I may choose to engage in, so long as I'm not interfering with another's ability to do the same. If that means doing something silly like excessive gambling then that's my own business.

      Psychological addiction to any behaviour or chemical is an evasion of personal responsibility, and ultimately a choice. Furthermore, it is not the "responsibility" or "duty" of anyone else to support, babysit or treat the person. All attempts to do so are ultimately doomed to fail anyway. Being a result of personal choices to begin with, the only successful "treatment" for addiction is the individual making a personal choice to make alternative choices. This is why a person who is addicted is not a "victim", and why treating him/her as such is a gross breach of the concept of self-ownership, and thus freedom.

    6. Re:Victimless crimes? by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We also only allow people to buy a six-pack of beer a week, right?

      And only jog 30 minutes a day?

      And only eat 1 chocolate bar every 2 days?

      And only watch TV for 2 hours a day?

    7. Re:Victimless crimes? by torkus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait, how can a firm based in costa-rica rig bets on boxing or horse racing? They can't any more than the "legal" betting venues such as OTB, vegas casinos, etc.

      I mean, even if you didn't RTA, the site itself is "betonsports".

      Tax evasion...yeah. Gotta love that one. It's nothing like extortion. (sarcasm) Pay us this % of your income or we arrest you.

      As for other online gambling - cards and the like, it's not exceptionally difficult to write a monitoring program to count cards and make sure things fall within proper probability parameters. I mean, you actually CAN'T do that in vegas. If you walked in with anything to count cards, measure odds, or even track ... anything on a casino floor you'd be ejected in minutes if not arrested. You have to trust the casino and government monitors. Does a dealer show you each individual card in each deck before they deal blackjack? Are you sure there's 20 aces in 5-deck blackjack? NO. In the end it's all...just a gamble.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    8. Re:Victimless crimes? by El+Torico · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You want to know what addiction is about? Try turning off your TV or Computer for a week. Just a week. Come back here and let us know how that goes. Thats what addiction is about.

      About 20 years ago my house mates and I all forgot to bring a TV set when we started a semester in college. For the first week, we were bitching about "what to do", by the third week, I had taken up racquetball and spent more time studying. By the end of the semester, I had lost weight, was in better shape, and my GPA went up. Each one of my house mates made similar improvements.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    9. Re:Victimless crimes? by garett_spencley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Society" simply refers to all of the actions and choices of individuals. There can be no "we" without the "I". Just because the benefits of social participation are obvious to anyone does not mean that the needs of "society" (which is an abstract concept) trump the needs of the individual (which is a concrete).

      Society does not threaten the freedoms of the individual. Other individuals who violate the non-aggression-principle do.

      Furthermore, I never claimed, or even implied that addicts were happy. I specifically claimed that psychological addictions are an evasion of personal responsibility. A choice to engage in harmful activity. And that freedom means the ability to make choices concerning your own person. Every single addict knows that he is harming himself. Yet he values his destructive behaviour over the alternatives. There are many possible reasons that he may do so, but none of them impose any sort of duty on other individuals to offer help. I also specifically pointed out that any attempts to offer help are doomed to fail unless requested, because the "addictive" behaviour is a choice. The addict claiming that it isn't (a choice) is a further evasion; a way to escape his personal responsibility.

      No one can have a "right" to the productive efforts of others. That is slavery. If you feel that anyone "owes" society anything then you are admitting that every person is a slave to everyone else. I see no evidence of that, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The body is only one part of the human. No one can read or control another's thoughts. No one can make decisions for the individual. You even chose the word "influence" in the context of decision making, acknowledging this fact. Coercion may influence my decisions, but ultimately only I can make those decisions. I can choose death over submission to any oppression and for that reason it is a law of nature that I cannot be owned by another individual, let alone "society".

    10. Re:Victimless crimes? by garett_spencley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're confusing desires with action.

      Free will is almost synonymous with "resisting temptation". Which is why addiction advocates tend to argue so much in favour of the "disease" concept, and why their arguments tend to reduce to the notion that free will is an illusion.

      I actually have a mild form of OCD. I'll check to make sure that I have my driver's license before getting in my car and then 10 seconds after leaving the driveway I feel the need to double-check and then triple-check etc. I even do the cliche checking that my front door is locked 20 times every night. But those are desires and whims. I can (and often do) choose to think back on when I first checked to make sure that I had my license and then reassure myself "Garett man, you're being paranoid. You already made sure you had your license. Chill out." Yes, it's all choices. I have the desire to eat a whole cheesecake to myself right now, but I choose not to because I recognize the negative consequences of doing so. Desire vs. action.

    11. Re:Victimless crimes? by megrims · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Solved any other eternal questions with your sample-set of one?

    12. Re:Victimless crimes? by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The physical need are the endorphins and adrenalin that are produced by the body in reaction to the gambling activity. Whether the chemical reaction in your body that you feel you "need" is triggered by ingesting or inhaling substances or by mental stimulation is irrelevant to whether or not something qualifies as an addiction.

      Would you ban chocolate because some people are fat?

  8. Re:Lottery, Stock Market, Gambling--All Sucker Gam by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am a statistician (says my degree at least). Yet, on occation, I buy a lottery ticket and visit a casino. Fully aware that my chance to win is minimal compared to the chance that I lose. It's a game. It's fun. It's a cheap little thrill. It's nothing I'd put my last 5 bucks on.

    The problem isn't so much that people engage in gambling. It's not really a problem unless you plan to make money that way. As long as you see it as a pastime and realize that it's basically a pastime like so many others where you pay to do it, from playing paintball to collecting stamps, there's no problem.

    It becomes a problem when people live in the delusion of having a "system" to beat the house and make money that way. It does not work. It simply cannot. If there was such a thing as a "system", casinos and lottery company would have folded a long time ago.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Lasting effect. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, they do. As idiotic as it may seem to someone who knows the internet and how it works, they are actually in the delusion that they can stop this. Their idea is that if it's illegal it is not done.

    What will happen? Of course, non-US residents will create offshore casinos. People will gamble there. So we'll get laws that make it illegal to gamble in other countries online (IIRC something like that already exists). People will ignore that law, knowing that the chance to be caught is minimal. Government will realize that people gamble abroad and will try to gain access to accounts to see if they get (or send) large amounts of money offshore. To do this, we'll need some sort of excuse. Something will be worked out that makes it necessary to gain access to the accounts of US people. In turn, those offshore companies will offer bank accounts offshore as well and people will put their money there. It's tricky to make it illegal to put money into foreign accounts, but I'm sure we'll see some legislation that makes it illegal to put money into certain countries. Companies will move their banking to other countries.

    So what we'll see is the race between companies offering a service and government trying to come up with creative laws that make it illegal to use those services without actually slaughtering the sacred cow of international trade and free commerce. Personally, I'd recommend getting some popcorn and enjoying the show.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:Lottery, Stock Market, Gambling--All Sucker Gam by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What kind of foolish idiot walks into a casino in Las Vegas expecting to make money?

    The owners, the loan sharks, the payday lenders, the cops, the employees, the hookers, the blackmailers ...

    As for the stock market, it's legalized gambling only if you're too small to control the market. That's why the small fish get eaten alive every pull-back.

  11. Re:Lottery, Stock Market, Gambling--All Sucker Gam by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you can count 6+ decks, you can make more money with "honest" work...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Despite the fact that by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The World Trade Organization has found in favor of Antigua, and states that the US is in violation of the law by making online gambling illegal just because it wants to protect its brick and mortar casinos...

    However the US threatens others with the UN, WTO, sanctions, military force when it wants to, and ignores those organizations when they become "inconvenient". And then Americans wonder why they are hated everywhere. That's ok, keep printing those dollars (the Federal Reserve is now the biggest purchaser of US treasuries - imagine that), propping up that bubble and lying to the public with imaginary "inflation" and "employment" figures, America. The whole house of cards will come down soon enough.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Despite the fact that by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Informative

      it wants to protect its brick and mortar casinos...

      And the state lotteries. They are up to their eyeballs in the online crackdown.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
  13. Re:Lottery, Stock Market, Gambling--All Sucker Gam by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Plenty of people enjoy the gambling to the extent that it is worth the losses to them (Personally, my actual gambling is limited to the occasional Mega Millions ticket, but only when the expected value of the ticket goes above the cost, it is fun to fantasize about absurd wealth once in a while).

    As far as the stock market, you can actually bet with the house (buy an index fund). The last 10 or 15 years certainly have been miserable, but good investment advice pretty much starts with "don't invest money that you might need short term access to in stocks"; that advice gets roundly ignored (people in their 50's and 60's frequently have huge exposure to equities, when they shouldn't), but that doesn't change the value of the advice for people that follow it, so 10 years of poor market performance is easy to view as an opportunity to buy...

    Even Jim Cramer, a guy a lot of people view as a loudmouth tool of the bad guys, starts with advising people to take out insurance against catastrophes (good medical insurance and disability insurance, to protect against illness and loss of income, which are much bigger considerations for retirement than good investment performance) and to conservatively invest their retirement assets (the title of his show "Mad Money" is a reference to money that the particular investor can afford to lose, and thus can take larger risks with).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  14. Pioneers? by YourExperiment · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kaplan was not only the founder of BetOnSports, he was also one of the pioneers of illegal online gambling.

    Gary Kaplan may have been a pioneer of online gambling, but it took the U.S. government to pioneer the wonderful concept of illegal online gambling.

  15. Re:Lottery, Stock Market, Gambling--All Sucker Gam by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real scam is the poker tables. The casino risks none of its own money on the poker tables, yet feels entitled to a percentage of every pot? WTF?

    The provide a nice playing table and chairs. They provide nice cards and chips. They provide a dealer who vaguely knows the rules. They provide a public location with security to find people to play with without having to sit in a private location with strangers and large sums of money. They provide an unbiased party for dispute resolution.

    And they don't always feel entitled to a percentage of every pot, pay by the hour isn't that uncommon.

  16. Re:Lasting effect. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lemme put it that way, there's a reason why Switzerland and Liechtenstein managed to stay out of WW2, and it was not that they're so terribly full of hard to conquer mountains...

    Hey, you gotta leave a place alone to pump your money to, you never know whether you win or lose.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.