U.S. may use U.K. tax law to extradite gaming execs

[Busted_Flat]

According to this article in the Times (UK) on-line the U.S. government could use a U.K. wagering excise tax law to extradite internet gaming company execs to the U.S. to stand trial. The U.S. could not extradite U.K. citizens on violations of U.S. law alone, but apparently if U.K. websites are not collecting excise tax from all bettors including Americans they are also violating U.K. law and this would allow the extraditions to take place under an anti-terror treaty between the two countries.

Also the article states that the U.S. may be using anti-terror agreements to track the movement of gaming execs so they can be easily nabbed when entering the country.

From the article:

"The threat to British online businesses was reinforced by Senator Bob Goodlatte, author of a tough new Bill that would further restrict internet gambling. He urged executives of overseas gambling companies to take note of the BetOnSports prosecution. “They should be wary of the United States exercising its treaty rights to seek extradition,” he said.

Britain will refuse to extradite suspects for breaking US laws against internet gambling. Extradition is available only if conduct is illegal in both the UK and America.

However, executives are worried because the indictment against BetOnSports includes allegations of tax evasion. The company is accused of failing to collect “wagering excise tax” on $3 billion (£1.6 billion) of bets placed by US punters."

web page (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-2277629,00.html)

I always had this sinking feeling that anti-terror laws and such would eventually be used for other things besides tracking down terrorists.

[Zele]

These people are terrorists. End of story.

EDIT: Does this mean they're going to stick them in Gitmo, or do they actualy get trials?

[Blowup Doll]

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8130/pokerterroristwl9.jpg

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
These people are terrorists. End of story.


[/ QUOTE ]

The feds are worse than the mafia.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. could not extradite U.K. citizens on violations of U.S. law alone,

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this statement is false. The NatWest three, as they are now known, were extradited on the mere accusation of a violation of U.S. law, at least as I understand things. This extradition was done under the terms of the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty, which I believe has been ratified and put into effect by the UK, but has not been ratified by the U.S. (though I heard from someone in the press that an initial vote on ratification may occur in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week).

[MrHenry]

The crime that the Nat West guys were accused of is an offence both in the US and the UK. The victims in the UK were the bank that they worked for which didn't want to press charges so there was in effect no crime in the UK. The US authorities saw it differently and wanted to make an issue of it.

That is why they were extridited under this treaty. Yes they will be charged under US law but what they are accused of is a crime here in the UK also.

[Mr.K]

Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying. I see what you are saying about NatWest... makes sense.

What, then, does that 2003 treaty change about the standard of proof needed prior to extraditing individuals from the UK to the US?

[MrHenry]

Before 2003 if the US wanted to extradite someone from the UK they had to demonstrate a prima facie case against that person, now the person being wanted in the US for something that is a crime in the UK is enough.

We already have similar agreements with our EU partners and with Austarlia and New Zealand. The controversy with US extradition treaty is that it isn't 2 way unlike all the others.

[ubercuber]

I went here (http://pm.gov.uk/output/Page821.asp) and sent this message:

[ QUOTE ]
As an American citizen I am deeply disturbed by the use of the fast track extradition aspect of the anti terror treaty to harass British business execs. Please inform my government that you will not tolerate this abuse. What a slap in the face this is considering the US has failed to comply with WTO rulings and, to date, the UK has not joined Antigua's claims for trade sanctions. I think it is time to let the US know that there is another treaty to be consider before anybody is extradited.

[/ QUOTE ]

This Goodlatte is unbelieveable. He is on tilt from the Jon Stewart bit.

[Wynton]

I am far from an expert in extradition. But I have a very hard time believing that extradition requires violations of the laws of both the country seeking the extradition and the country where the individual is residing.

[True North]

[ QUOTE ]
I am far from an expert in extradition. But I have a very hard time believing that extradition requires violations of the laws of both the country seeking the extradition and the country where the individual is residing.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's true. Look it up. Most extradition treaties include a dual criminality provision.

In the case of the US/UK treaty, it requires that the action be a crime that is punishable by a minimum of one year in prison in both countries.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am far from an expert in extradition. But I have a very hard time believing that extradition requires violations of the laws of both the country seeking the extradition and the country where the individual is residing.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's true. Look it up. Most extradition treaties include a dual criminality provision.

In the case of the US/UK treaty, it requires that the action be a crime that is punishable by a minimum of one year in prison in both countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still skeptical. Do you have a link to the relevant language?

[MrHenry]

They don't need to break the law in both countries but the offence has to be against the law in both countries. If the US were to try to extradite a British citizen for doing something that wasn't against the law in this country they wouldn't get very far.

The implications of this would be that British citizens had to obey US law in the UK if they were open extradition in such circumstances.

[mattnxtc]

good luck on it though...i doubt the UK is just going to sit idle while we extradite men that have legit businesses over there...IT really is about time another country stands up to the USA and they would be as good as any.

Heck if we wont listen to other organizations why should they listen to one of ours

[h11]

The Natwest 3 are charged with actions, such as fraud, which are illegal both in the UK and in the US. So I can see how they can be extradited. But simply taking gambling wagers is not illegal in the UK so that would not be extraditable. The problem is the US prosecutors might find creative charges of something illegal in both countries and use that as a basis for extradition. Some sort of minor ancillary infraction which would permit them to nab the evildoers. Were I a rich executive would I want to risk jail and ruinous US fines? nah. Eurobet is making a smart move - a four hundred foot long yacht probably doesn't produce much extra happiness compared to one only two hundred feet long. So the extra profits aren't worth even small risks of jail and ruin.
The US is making friends left and right these days.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
But simply taking gambling wagers is not illegal in the UK so that would not be extraditable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the entire article. The gambling execs are also charged with tax evasion, which is an extraditable offense under British law.

"Britain will refuse to extradite suspects for breaking US laws against internet gambling. Extradition is available only if conduct is illegal in both the UK and America.

However, executives are worried because the indictment against BetOnSports includes allegations of tax evasion. The company is accused of failing to collect “wagering excise tax” on $3 billion (£1.6 billion) of bets placed by US punters.

British internet gambling executives are vulnerable to fast-track extradition for that offence because they take bets from Americans without charging tax on them. They could argue against extradition because Britain has abolished its own taxes on punters making bets, but they would have little prospect of success.

Julian Knowles, of Matrix Chambers, told The Times: “Provided that there’s a general crime of tax fraud, that’s all that’s needed. There is a crime of cheating the public revenue.” "