U.S. Arrests Online Gambling Company Chairman 634
imaginaryelf writes "Reuters reports that U.S. authorities have arrested Peter Dicks, the chairman of U.K. based online sports betting company Sportingbet Plc, while he was passing through Dallas. Just two months ago, the CEO of another U.K. based online sports betting company, BetOnSports, was arrested on U.S. soil as well. They are both charged with violating the 1961 Federal Wire Act, which can be broadly interpreted as declaring all forms of online gambling illegal in the U.S. Is online gambling the Alcohol Prohibition of the 21st century?"
So the second guy is a moron... (Score:3, Interesting)
Second one gets arrested - man, how dumb to you have to be to fly through the US when you know you're likely to get arrested? It's not like international flight lists are ignored these days. Passengers that may pass on domestic flights aren't going to escape scrutiny on international (especially incoming) flights.
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:5, Interesting)
If the US government did that, then you'd be complaining about censorship.
The problem is that this guy and his company accepted money from US citizens who were on US soil in exchange for providing a service that is illegal in the US. It would be trivial for him to refuse credit card transactions for cards where the address on record is in the US, and at least then he'd have plausible deniability. Of course, doing so destroys most of his market, so it's easy to see why he wouldn't do that.
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:3, Interesting)
If the US government did that, then you'd be complaining about censorship.
Furthermore, the US government can't do that. It's not technically feasable. We don't have a single, nationwide firewall like some countries do that can be configured to block out arbitrary foreign sites.
I suppose it's far easier to arrest a single foreign national -- even though what he's doing is perfectly legal in his own country -- than it is to arrest his American customers, who really are committing crimes on US soil. Less unpopular in an election year, too, off-year or not.
Like driving on the left hand side of the road? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is either harrassment or just the US thinking it has rights to push the rest of the world around.
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:1, Interesting)
I think the responsibility should fall on the U.S. Government's shoulders if they want to stop their citizens from using a site. (Not that that's any more feasible, but that's their responsibility.)
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:5, Interesting)
In the last three cases we expect the citizen to follow the law, because to restrict or monitor access would be UnAmerican. Gambling is a "vice" crime so to the law enforcement "religion" it's different. The fundamental problem is that it's easier for the govt to collar these guys illegally than it is to fix the real problem going on in the country. Also, "rightist" state legislatures and law enforcement work very hard to delay, subjorn, etc. the Will of the people to change these backwards laws. For them "Law" is the "religion" and so they should not "compromise" even if the people vote for it.
Re:So the second guy is a moron... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So the second guy is a moron... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:3, Interesting)
You see, the difference is that the service the company is offering from the UK would be illegal if they were based in the USA. One analogy to understand the situation is that this is the same case as if the citizens of the USA using this service were magically teleported to the UK, conducted their business and then went back to the USA. If that is illegal in the USA, then punish the citizens of the USA, but there is absolutely no basis for the USA to punish a legally operating legitimate UK business.
Alcohol prohibition of the modern age (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:U.S. a no go zone (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, that should solve the immigration problem then. C'mon don't you think that you're letting your hyperbole get a little out of hand?
I'm really not blaming you--apparently the thing to do on
Re:Common sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Well here's a question for you. I happen to work for an online casino as a basic helpdesk grunt (obviously I'm not a US citizen)
Whilst I know it's unlikely that they are going to target me just for that, is it technically possible that they could do so?
Re:U.S. a no go zone (Score:1, Interesting)
> Gambling is bad.
To whom?
> Gambling leads to crime.
Eh?
> Gambling plays on human obscessions, exploit human weaknesses,
So does religion. If you can get that banned, I think that would have much better net effect on humanity. You should devote your energy in that direction (IMHO).
> gamlbing is usury.
You should re-check that definition. Here's a helpful link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=usury [reference.com].
(And watch those typos.)
Gambling Hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
Racketeering? (Score:3, Interesting)
As to the Wire Act, and the enforceability of such: This is really no different than betting over the phone or by mail. This is just a newer version of an old debate - when an activity takes place over a distance, and it is illegal in one location and not the other, can it be enforced on the person in the latter? Obviously, the government of Louisiana feels it can, provided that person comes within their territory, or can be extradited. Other governments have behaved similarly, for other laws, although most just prefer censorship.
The issue is not whether gambling should be illegal. Sure, it's a stupid law, and it would be a simple answer for this one situation if gambling was legal, but it wouldn't answer the larger question. On the one hand, no government at any level wants its laws to be so easily avoided, and it's ineffective to go after the individuals who use the service rather than the providers (just ask the RIAA - well, in a few years anyway). On the other hand, there is certainly a case to be made that those who offer services should not expect to be held in violation of a law that didn't exist in the locality from which they offered said services.
So I guess what I'm saying is, "I dunno." Is it fair to say, "If you do something that breaks the law here, and that has an effect here, you can never come here"? Or is it fair to say, "You can't touch us, you can only block access to our site from everyone in your country"? (This has in fact been suggested by other posts here! Is this something you want to encourage?) I for one am going to consider it some more rather than locking myself into some knee-jerk reaction.
P.S. One last thought - it's possible the warrant was issued due to activities during a previous trip to the US. That would change the whole situation.
Re:I dont see the logic in this (Score:4, Interesting)
I now hereby dub YOU "Bad Analogy Guy, Jr." (in reference to your previous post, of course).
Last time I checked, using and selling drugs are BOTH illegal in the U.S. Therefore, both users and dealers should be arrested.
Whether the law makes sense or not makes little difference to the law enforcement community. This guy broke a U.S. law, and he was arrested for it.
The REAL question here is whether he broke the law on U.S. soil, which really boils down further to the question: where exactly is a website located? Is it located where the server is located? Or is it located where the person using the website is located? If it's the former, then the U.S. people who used the website could be considered to be gambling in a foreign country, and not on U.S. soil, because the website is technically located in the U.K. (and thus they were not breaking U.S. law). But if the latter question is true, then the administrator of any website can be held accountable by the laws of any country any user connects from, even those laws that contradict each other.
Either way, the U.S. government is going to do the same thing with online gambling that they did with alcohol: ignore it, then ban it, realize that ban creates crime, unban it, tax the ever living hell out of it, and finally protect the industry forevermore as a revenue stream.
Wait, it'll happen.
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I lived in Toronto for 13 years, and I decided to go to New Zealand to visit some friends and see how the place is like for a longer term basis. Quickest way to get from Toronto, Canada to Auckland, New Zealand is probably take a flight from Toronto to LA, then from LA to Auckland. Seeing how soem of my muslim friends got treated in the US (more like his parents, who are elderly), me being "non-white", more tech savvy (I brought my computer along, I love my Shuttle box), I don't want to take the chance of having dealing with American customs and risk having my data inspected, so I took the long way, went to Hong Kong (I was born there), which was nice because I got to see my relatives and do some shopping, before leaving for Auckland a week later. My return journey will be the same, and I will never step foot in America again, even as a stop over (aside from the Anchorage technical stopover, but we never were allowed to get off the plane, which is fine with me).
Even though the whole journey is about 8 hours longer in total flight time, it's worth it for me. Cathay Pacific gets my business also because they are one of the best airlines in the world. The price was right too, my mom's travel agent was able to secure the flight I took (round trip) for only CND$2200, which is definitely unbeatable. My parents told me they recently took a flight with Air Canada from Toronto to Vancover, they said the service was appalling and the staff did not know what to do, and the food and flight was expensive (CND$800 per person). It's absolutely disgraceful that North American airlines are completely backwards and behind in terms of service (given the cost) compared to their Asian counterparts.
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you figure that?
The servers were in the U.K.
The dice rolled (or rather, the RNG was called) in the U.K.
Why do you place the gambling in the U.S.?
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:3, Interesting)
And now I'd also have to agree that sounds to me like what would actually push it into breaking US laws, since those US numbers indicate an actual presence in (and specific to) the US itself, and not just on the internet (which is quasi-international).
Nice to see somebody who actually has a well-reasoned opinion and lets the facts speak (and even change one's mind when they're strong enough).
Archaic laws used to punish people for crimes that (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are we arresting these men under a Wire act that was written in 1961. The simple answer? We can't prosecute them under any other law. Gambling is illegal but because they arn't in america they arn't liable.
The sad thing is that Americans want gambling, obviously. But they are accusing a EUROPEAN company, of breaking an American statute dealing with american "wires".
Btw check the wikipedia article closely. "The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and not other types of online gambling. The Supreme Court has not officially ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to online gambling." The real question is was the betting on american sports?
The sad fact is as an American I feel bad in this case. Every time we take an obscure law and hold someone under it, something that someone goes "oh we can nail them for that" and others go "that's clever", I die a little inside. The founding fathers didn't say "let's be clever" They said "let's make a country and laws". They didn't look for some loophole with the british, they busted some barrels of tea, got liquored up and won a war (not all in that order or the same night... I hope).
If America really believes something like this is wrong make a law. If America really believes something like this is acceptable revoke the law. America is a very easy place but we make everything complex like this shit.
Re:Our laws, your country... (Score:2, Interesting)
I know this is really late, but I had to chime in here. To take your analogy a little further, let's say that your trebuchet was registered internationally, and everyone knew that it was your trebuchet, and you decided to walk over and talk to the catapult dudes, while your trebuchet was still flingin' dope over the border, and your guys were still receiving the bails of cash. I would think that you had a pretty good chance of getting arrested.
Basically, this guy was standing on U.S. soil, while his servers were still accepting bets from the poor and huddled masses. Of course he got popped!! What was he thinking?!? He had to know that he was a hated man in the U.S., and by being here while he was still perpetrating, is like a F-you to the folks that make it their job to care.
I guess it takes a true gambler to have cajones that big.
This may go to the WTO -- and H/wood may lose out (Score:2, Interesting)
A case like this is currently before the WTO and if the US loses it will either have to ban all inter-state betting in the US (which would effectively kill the horse-racing industry) or countries like Antigua will be able to put tarriffs on US imports. The issue is that from a WTO perspective you can ban anything you want for import provided that domestic production is also banned. As the US allows betting (lotteries and even gambling websites such as YouBet.com [youbet.com] -- which proudly describes itself as "US-based and licensed, NASDAQ-listed"), the Antiguans are arguing that the US's position is untenable. So far, the WTO seems to agree with them.
But there's more! Since, the US is preventing more online gambling than Antigua can possibly raise in tarriffs, they are asking the WTO permission to be able to pirate Hollywood films and raise the money by selling them. Needless to say, everyone in Hollywood thinks this is a superb idea and welcomes it with open arms.
The remarkable thing is the amount of headway that Antigua has made so far against all odds (as this Washington Post article punningly puts it [washingtonpost.com])