DOJ Seizes Online Poker Site Domains

An anonymous reader writes "Federal authorities have seized Internet domain names used by three major poker companies. The indictment charges eleven defendants (PDF), including the founders of PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker, with bank fraud, money laundering and illegal gambling offenses, according to Federal authorities in New York. The United States also filed a civil money laundering and in rem forfeiture complaint against the poker companies, their assets, and the assets of several payment processors for the poker companies."

Comments

Victimless "crime"

[jrj102]

I'm just glad to hear that all of the crimes against victims have been solved and the perpetrators brought to justice, giving the DOJ time to focus on victimless "crimes" like online poker.

At least I assume that's what happened.

Re:Victimless "crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just glad to hear that all of the crimes against victims have been solved and the perpetrators brought to justice, giving the DOJ time to focus on victimless "crimes" like online poker.

At least I assume that's what happened.

I was under the same impression when they started cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries and performing legwork for the RIAA and MPAA...

Re:Victimless "crime"

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'm just glad to hear that all of the crimes against victims have been solved and the perpetrators brought to justice, giving the DOJ time to focus on victimless "crimes" like online poker.

At least I assume that's what happened.

I could also be about the $3 Billion in civil penalties they are going after. From the link:

Prosecutors also filed civil charges against the poker companies and several individual "payment processors," seeking at least $3 billion in penalties.

Re:Victimless "crime"

[RicktheBrick]

There is a new site called Quibids.com that disguises itself as a bidding site but is actually a gambling site. The site charges 60 cents a bid. It is so deceptive because if one goes to the site one sees things being bid for at less than 10 per cent of their retail value. One thinks at such a low price maybe I should bid on the product. Now suppose they have a $1,000 product and start the bidding at $1.00. Now most people bid only a penny more each bid therefore after the bidding for the product reaches $17.67 one can calculate that 1,667 people have bid on that product. Multiplying that by 60 cents a bid one can see that the site has received the $1,000 for the product so the product should be given to the lucky last bidder. It is all a sham since the honest thing to do would be to sell raffle tickets for the product and after the required amount of ticket were sold than have a computer choose which one of those people is lucky enough to get the product for free. I have gone to the site and I just feel the greedy part of me trying to get me to bid but the intelligent part tells me to stay completely off the site. I can see where others will get hooked on it and lose a lot of money.

Re:Victimless "crime"

[luis_a_espinal]

I disagree.

I would rather have the freedom to choose whether or not I would risk my money in an unregulated gambling house than to be forced by the government to not gamble.

In either case, the result is the same...I wouldn't gamble. But I sill believe in the right to choose.

Bro, read. Bank fraud and money laundering are among the charges. Not every act of prosecution is about is about attacking your right to choose. I know this is slashdot and people don't RTFA, but c'mon.

This Is Not About Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck is this story listed under "Censorship"?? The internet domain seizure is but a small piece of a huge case the Feds are bringing, and it has nothing do with censorship at all.

Its all a part of charging these sites with bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling offenses.

As usual Slashdot gets the story completely wrong.

Re:This Is Not About Censorship

[Charliemopps]

Amendment V to the United States Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

Explain to me how a Government body can seize your private property when you have not even been charged with a crime yet, much less convicted. In the case of these businesses, the seizure is likely costing them millions of dollars in revenue. Their guilt is obvious but if the government can shut down your entire business by simply filing an indictment, which is not even an accusation until a grand jury reviews it, that is without a doubt censorship.

What if the the justice department files an indictment against a major candidate for president for election fraud and shuts down his website in the middle of an election? What they can do to the unsavory, they can do to us all.

Re:This Is Not About Censorship

[ZombieBraintrust]

You don't actually own domain names. You don't buy a domain names. You register them. The US government controls the registration or .com names. They can kick you off of a domain name the same way Slashdot can ban your account. Your rites are based of the contract you signed when you registered the domain.

Re:Hmm

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

As far as I can tell from TFA the "other things they were pulling" were workarounds to the fact that online gambling is illegal. ie, they lied to banks about the nature of their business, thus the charge of "fraud".

Saving The World

[cosm]

Yes! Go Department of Justice! The world is now safe! Keep nannying us please! I can't control my gambling habit, so you doing it for me solves the problem! Oh, things like state-run-lotteries, white-collar gambling on stock market derivatives and other ill-formulated market bundles, that is all well and good. But those evil-online-poker sites, they are causing the downfall of the US! Just like the millions spent on the Barry Bonds trial! All the victims of gambling and steroid use in baseball now can see that justice be served! The file-shares, go get them too! Litigate Litigate Litigate! You are the bastion of liberty in the free-world, 'O DoJ, I salute your valiant efforts at keeping us all safe.

Fucking Assholes.

Re:Fed up

[Antisyzygy]

These online sites had no regulation. They could have just stacked the deck with a computer algorithm every time, or had house players cooperating with eachother at the table. My brother use to play these sites and he said many times there would be teams of players that all knew eachothers cards. It makes it a lot easier to find out what the other opponents have and bet accordingly with unfair advantage. They presumably split the winnings.

Re:Fed up

[geek]

So don't play? It's not rocket science.

lobbying and online poker

[BigHungryJoe]

The online poker industry is young yet and has not had time to establish a strong lobby in Washington, DC. Once they do, it will become a respectable, job-creating industry run by innovators that make this economy strong... and these sorts of stories will disappear.

Re:Fed up

[Antisyzygy]

Its still fraud. Whether or not online gambling should be legal, they still lied to banks, and created shell companies to launder illegally obtained money. No doubt they knew this day would come someday and have secret accounts overseas. I don't feel sorry for them.

Re:Hmm

[MLease]

Well, that's why online gambling is illegal. The guys behind those casinos don't want the competition, and have paid their lackeys in Congress to keep them off the playing field.

-Mike

Re:Fed up

[gknoy]

It's entirely possible to imagine a fair gambling establishment, or of playing with a group of players where no one was cheating. The fact that many WOULD cheat doesn't mean that it's impossible not to.

Many gambling games (slots, etc) are stacked in the house's favor, yes. Poker, though, is a game of skill (with some random factors) between players, where the house takes a cut of the pot. A fair gambling establishment would ensure that no player was cheating the other players, and that the dealer was not favoring anyone. It would be like having professional Magic the Gathering leagues that play for big money: fairness is both possible and desired, but some people will always want to try to cheat. Good establishments will try to minimize that.

Online poker may not be illegal, sending money is

[NetShadow]

Online poker where the server is run outside the United States, may not be illegal in the US. At least the wire act used to prosecute people sending money to sports books and the like does not appear to apply to poker specifically, nor has anyone in the US been successfully prosecuted for online poker.

What *is* illegal as of the recent UIGEA act is for banks to provide you the ability to send your money to / receive money from these online gaming sites. Regardless of the facts, many state and federal officials persist in calling online poker illegal, despite it not apparently breaking any laws.

See this quote:

The indictment sets up a complicated global legal battle between the Department of Justice and the online poker entrepreneurs who have long argued that their operations in the U.S. do not violate U.S. law. Indeed, in recent days, one of the nation’s most prominent casino billionaires, Steve Wynn, announced a strategic relationship with PokerStars and said “in the United States of America the Justice Department has an opinion but several states have ruled and courts have agreed that poker is a game of skill, it’s not gambling. PokerStars rests their argument on that.”

Re:Does anyone have a link to the indictment itsel

[AEton]

OK, I did some digging in PACER, where it looks like the documents have probably been filed but are probably still sealed.

The relevant case is in the Southern District of New York (https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl - anyone can sign up for a PACER account, they're free but you pay 8 cents per page, and if you charge less than $10 in a quarter it's free).

They're using an existing case, 1:10-cr-00336-LAK, which is all about the arrest and indictment of a gambling payment processor dude a year ago in April 2010.

See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/arrests-follow-internet-high-flyers-release/story-e6frg6nf-1226039942478 for more on the dude.

So the timeline is:
1) Gambling dude is arrested in 2010 and charged with some gambling-related crimes. See his indictment at http://tech.mit.edu/~mherdeg/10-cr-00336-lak-1.pdf
2) Some time recently, he is (according to an Australian newspaper) secretly released from prison and prosecutors have not said whether he's still being charged
3) These 11 people are all being charged with 9 new crimes (documents not yet available, but apparently they'll be stored in this place / as part of this case number)

There have been a bunch of sealed documents added to the case recently; maybe they include the complaint and indictment that the press release talks about. You can see the history I got from PACER at http://tech.mit.edu/~mherdeg/10-cr-00336-entries.txt.

Jon Kyl of Arizona was a big gambling-law pusher

[billstewart]

Senator Kyl, a right-winger from Arizona, was one of the big pushers of Federal laws against online gambling. He didn't want it left to the states, and didn't want Americans to be able to gamble at non-US gambling houses. It's always nice to know how strongly Republicans believe in small government that stays out of people's personal lives and leaves decisions to the states when they don't need to be Federal.