The heart of the matter: extradition

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Cross-posted from the WSEX thread.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting that a site that generates no rake apparently wants to say on board and assume possible risk while "sources" predict Party, who makes an absurd amount, may boot the US.

I sound like a broken record, but as Ive said to a million of these posts, just because a CS rep on a site tells you their site isnt going anywhere and everything is A-OK does not mean its true, they dont want to create a scare.

Does anyone feel like explaining to me why publicly traded rooms are more likely to eject US players before non publicly traded ones? I dont get that.

Much obliged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it actually has to do with the country in which sites are located, and not the public/private status per se.

The part of the legislation that these rooms are responding to is not the credit cards/NETELLER business, which will sort itself out in due time -- there is NO reason to ban US customers until at least the 270 days that it takes to promulgate those regulations. Rather, they're responding to the portion of the bill that criminalizes the act of accepting bets from US customers (and which goes into effect immediately).

Does US law apply to foreign countries? Obviously in most cases no -- the US can't bust a Dutch person for smoking pot. However, this case is a lot more complicated, because while the sites themselves are located outside the US, their customers are not. It's really a very complicated question of international law.

The issue boils down to the practice of extradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition) ("the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal.") As a general principle of international law, no country is required to surrender one of its own nationals to a foreign government. However, the country may choose to do so as a result of extradition treaties, and/or possibly the threat of embargoes or trade sanctions against the foreign jurisdiction.

Thus, it's not simply a matter of gambling execs being careful not to book a flight includes has a US layover, because the US can try and extradite an indvidiual who presently occupies foreign soil. Rather, the $64,000 question is how likely foreign governments are to cooperate with US extradition requests.

The answer: it depends. On the one extreme, you have the UK, which has very good relations with the US and is likely enough to be cooperative with it on these matters that UK-based companies might have something to fear. On the other extreme, you have Antigua, whose only real trade with the US is in the internet gambling business and who recently asked the WTO to tell the US to f*ck itself.

Therefore, what I think you're going to see is most of the gaming sites based in small, island nations continuing to accept US business, while sites located in the UK or other major countries will tend not to do so. Although I'm not ready to make a prediction about PartyPoker just yet, note it is based in Gibraltar, which is not an independent country but a UK protectorate. (888.com is also located in Gibraltar).

BTW, I think the WTO could wind up being quite important in all of this, and there's even some chance that it winds up being a relatively substantial international trade dispute.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Bump. Know this post is a bore to read, but I think it's important.

[Anders]

Very good post Nate. Very informative, and right on the money, I think.

[ACPlayer]

Thanks.

[mpslg]

I agree with your analysis. I think it is going to be hard for the sites based in the U.K. to continue doing business with the U.S. It was a lot easier when the status of U.S. law was "unclear." Now that Frist has cleared that up for us, I think there are going to be a lot of sites shutting their doors to the U.S. in the coming weeks.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Rather, the $64,000 question is how likely foreign governments are to cooperate with US extradition requests.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is my understanding that most extradition treaties require that the crime in question be considered a crime in both countries, correct? Under this notion, the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA does not apply.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I think the WTO could wind up being quite important in all of this, and there's even some chance that it winds up being a relatively substantial international trade dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish that I could share your optimism. The WTO told the USA to get its IG laws in line with international standards, and the USA responded with an emphatic "[censored] You!" For years our country's government has all but ignored the WTO, so why would we start paying attention now?

I mean, really, does anyone expect the US Government to cave under threat of possible trade sanctions from Antigua?

[Kyle]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, I think the WTO could wind up being quite important in all of this, and there's even some chance that it winds up being a relatively substantial international trade dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is indeed the case and the US fails to abide by international law which we seem so fond of doing how will this effect this business?

Will we see most sites move to places like antigua? Will the US begin to prosecute actual players?

Also in your opinion what kind of time frame are we looking at for major shake ups in the industry to occur such as sites blocking us customres etc?

[gila]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump. Know this post is a bore to read, but I think it's important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Thanks for the post!

[malo]

Thanks for another good post Nate.

Found your last paragraph concerning the possiblity of WTO involvment and a substantial trade dispute interesting. This has the potential to turn into a big, contentious, sticky mess--one that will leave Congress and First with a lot of egg on their faces. (Now that's a visual I enjoy contemplating.)

[NLSoldier]

Very good post as usual nate

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather, the $64,000 question is how likely foreign governments are to cooperate with US extradition requests.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is my understanding that most extradition treaties require that the crime in question be considered a crime in both countries, correct? Under this notion, the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA does not apply.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I think the WTO could wind up being quite important in all of this, and there's even some chance that it winds up being a relatively substantial international trade dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish that I could share your optimism. The WTO told the USA to get its IG laws in line with international standards, and the USA responded with an emphatic "[censored] You!" For years our country's government has all but ignored the WTO, so why would we start paying attention now?

I mean, really, does anyone expect the US Government to cave under threat of possible trade sanctions from Antigua?

[/ QUOTE ]

Drew:

The heart of the question is this: how likely is a company based in country XX to care that it is violating US law? If XX is the United Kingdom, then the answer is "a great deal", while if XX is Antigua, the answer is "not very much at all".

The WTO itself is not that important in the immediate term, except to the extent that the US' refsual to adhere to Antigua's existing complaint in the WTO will embolden Antigua and other small nations to ignore the US law. However, the WTO could become more important if the Department of Justice does something crazy, the US attempts to impose sanctions on a country like Costa Rica, or one of the companies based in a large nation decides to fight this.

[Jack Bando]

Unless I'm mistaken, the WTO's rules state they can impose fees/tariffs on members to balance damage done to another member. If they feel something costs Country A $1 Bil due to Country B's actions, they fine them over time to reimburse country A. But how well that'd work agaisnt the US is anyone's guess.

[Poker_Hoar]

I wrote this as a response yesterday. Sorry guys, but you live in the USA and don't get the news like we do here in Europe.

The UK will extradite faster than you can type PWNED.

This was a very high profile case and I assure you that the people in Gibraltar are VERY familiar with this.

Sorry for the negative.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13072006/344/natwest-3-begin-extradition-journey.html

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
If this is indeed the case and the US fails to abide by international law which we seem so fond of doing how will this effect this business?

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a list of the major poker rooms and divide them into big countries and small countries. Imagine that my thesis is right and that the big country sites ban US players, and the small country sites allow them. What will happen to the games? You can speculate about that as well as I can, but the likely answer is chaos in the near term with things settling down a bit in the medium term.

[ QUOTE ]
Will we see most sites move to places like antigua?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I believe that some countries will become "save-havens" for internet gambling, even more so than is already the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Will the US begin to prosecute actual players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not under this current legislation, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Also in your opinion what kind of time frame are we looking at for major shake ups in the industry to occur such as sites blocking us customres etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

If PartyGaming follows 888's lead, then things will be very crazy very soon.

[ACPlayer]

Here is Wiki on extradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition)

Note the section:

[ QUOTE ]
Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:

* The relevant crime is sufficiently serious.
* There exists a prima facie case against the individual sought.
* The event in question qualifies as a crime in both countries.
* The extradited person can reasonably expect a fair trial in the recipient country.
* The likely penalty will be proportionate to the crime.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I was an officer of a potential target company I would be concerned about it, if I was a shareholder, I may say take the heat, that is why we are paying you.

Note that NY refused to extradite one of the recently arrested execs (bodog?) to LA. So tough to know if Britian will extradite to the US, I guess. Fair to say we know where Antigua stands.

[LearnedfromTV]

Does anyone have

- a breakdown of where sites are located?
- even better, informed opinions on how extradition-friendly those countries are?

[Kyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have

- a breakdown of where sites are located?
- even better, informed opinions on how extradition-friendly those countries are?

[/ QUOTE ]

this would be very helpful

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote this as a response yesterday. Sorry guys, but you live in the USA and don't get the news like we do here in Europe.

The UK will extradite faster than you can type PWNED.

This was a very high profile case and I assure you that the people in Gibraltar are VERY familiar with this.

Sorry for the negative.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13072006/344/natwest-3-begin-extradition-journey.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it will be as fast as I can type PWNED.

However, your link appears to be a case where the crime is recognized by both sides of the atlantic. I wonder how the UK courts would consider (and, this is a court that decides and not politicians) a request for extradition for IG -- which is completely legal in the UK).

[Wools]

I just want to take a minute to thank you for providing all of this information and your analyses Nate. You, Berge, and Mr. K have all been excellent posters the past x weeks/months leading up to this and all three of you deserve to be praised. All of the information you share is greatly appreciated.

[Uglyowl]

Less customers (U.S. customers gone) would mean alot less tax revenue and job creation.

If England starts getting in the business of extradiction, I would bet most new sites would choose other countries to reside in and possibly existing ones moving.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to take a minute to thank you for providing all of this information and your analyses Nate. You, Berge, and Mr. K have all been excellent posters the past x weeks/months leading up to this and all three of you deserve to be praised. All of the information you share is greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seconded. I might enjoy Baseball Prospectus more, but this is so much more helpful.

Would anybody like to speculate how much it would cost for a company like Party to relocate to one of these safer areas? I imagine that if they ban US players in the short-term and then move later on, they'll lose much of their American business permanently.

[breaktwister]

Great post Nate.

I am no expert on international law, but these poker companies are legal entities carrying out legal business in many countries around the world.

Just because the US takes a dislike to it does not mean that the US law applies to these companies in any way or form. It is totally irrelevant (imo) that these companies may or may not accept US customers. The US has no power over them and its as simple as that really.

The US can only bring charges/action against entities under its control (ie its own citizens or businesses with a physical US presence).

A UK Court would laugh at an extradition request for someone who has not committed a crime punishable in UK law AND without even leaving the UK to commit said "crime".

[Silent1]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post Nate.

I am no expert on international law, but these poker companies are legal entities carrying out legal business in many countries around the world.

Just because the US takes a dislike to it does not mean that the US law applies to these companies in any way or form. It is totally irrelevant (imo) that these companies may or may not accept US customers. The US has no power over them and its as simple as that really.

The US can only bring charges/action against entities under its control (ie its own citizens or businesses with a physical US presence).

A UK Court would laugh at an extradition request for someone who has not committed a crime punishable in UK law AND without even leaving the UK to commit said "crime".

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was what happened with the Natwest situation. Isn't it? I don't know the details.

[dibbs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just want to take a minute to thank you for providing all of this information and your analyses Nate. You, Berge, and Mr. K have all been excellent posters the past x weeks/months leading up to this and all three of you deserve to be praised. All of the information you share is greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seconded. I might enjoy Baseball Prospectus more, but this is so much more helpful.

Would anybody like to speculate how much it would cost for a company like Party to relocate to one of these safer areas? I imagine that if they ban US players in the short-term and then move later on, they'll lose much of their American business permanently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this is pure speculation, I cant imagine it would be too hard to relocate what needed to be relocated before the bills teeth take hold, making a seemless transition as obviously banning US players once will create a stigma that will definitely hurt them in the long run.

What exactly would they need to move anyways, just some offices? Servers? Will they need to set up different banks (as I think Stars and a few others use some Scottish bank which I imagine falls within extraditable territory).

Sorry if this is just rambling and incoherent, Ive been trying to absorb this stuff all day and the wine is kicking in.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great post Nate.

I am no expert on international law, but these poker companies are legal entities carrying out legal business in many countries around the world.

Just because the US takes a dislike to it does not mean that the US law applies to these companies in any way or form. It is totally irrelevant (imo) that these companies may or may not accept US customers. The US has no power over them and its as simple as that really.

The US can only bring charges/action against entities under its control (ie its own citizens or businesses with a physical US presence).

A UK Court would laugh at an extradition request for someone who has not committed a crime punishable in UK law AND without even leaving the UK to commit said "crime".

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was what happened with the Natwest situation. Isn't it? I don't know the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'd imagine that the Natwest situation weighs large on the minds of UK-based gaming execs. Good background here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/06/ccnat06.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/07/06/ixcoms.html).

[MLSchaff]

Iran and North Korea become offshore gaming server havens. They certainly won't be extraditing anyone to the U.S. Of course then I suppose the whole "online gambling funds terrorists" thing might begin to have a shred of validity...

[KDawg]

France is one major country that I can think of that isn't a fan of extradicting to the US. i don't know what their take is on internet gambling though

[MannyIsGod]

[ QUOTE ]
France is one major country that I can think of that isn't a fan of extradicting to the US. i don't know what their take is on internet gambling though

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be wrong, but I believe the only way France will not extradite anyone is because they may face the death penalty. however, if that is not a danger I believe they extradite fairly easily with the US.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
France is one major country that I can think of that isn't a fan of extradicting to the US. i don't know what their take is on internet gambling though

[/ QUOTE ]
Online gaming would have to be illegal in France for them to be required to send anyone to the USA as part of an extradition. All the extradition treaties we sign include language that we will only extradite to other countries for offenses that are also offenses here. They put the same clause in their side. In addition, they are also able to no extradite on moral grounds if the death penalty is involved. But no country we have an extradition treaty with will send us someone in their jurisdiction for breaking a law in the US unless it would also be a violation of law there.

[breaktwister]

The fact is that the "crimes" committed by Party or whoever are not punishable in UK law. It is legal for their business to operate in the UK. Nothing the US can say or do will change this fact. This is not the same as the allegations of financial crime as per Natwest three etc.

Why do you think the US had to wait for BetonSports director and whoever else they try to nab to come on US soil? These directors operate legal businesses in their own jurisdictions and would not be given up by extradition.

If I am a PartyPoker shareholder will I get arrested next time Im in US?

[TheMetetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great post Nate.

I am no expert on international law, but these poker companies are legal entities carrying out legal business in many countries around the world.

Just because the US takes a dislike to it does not mean that the US law applies to these companies in any way or form. It is totally irrelevant (imo) that these companies may or may not accept US customers. The US has no power over them and its as simple as that really.

The US can only bring charges/action against entities under its control (ie its own citizens or businesses with a physical US presence).

A UK Court would laugh at an extradition request for someone who has not committed a crime punishable in UK law AND without even leaving the UK to commit said "crime".

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was what happened with the Natwest situation. Isn't it? I don't know the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'd imagine that the Natwest situation weighs large on the minds of UK-based gaming execs. Good background here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/06/ccnat06.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/07/06/ixcoms.html).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate,

NatWest is completely irrelevant. They were violating a UK law as well as an American one. Internet Gambling is 100% legal in the UK and extradition requires that the act is illegal in both countries.

That isn't the case here and I can't see in a million years a UK court allowing an extradition for something that isn't illegal in the UK.

[bruceypants]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran and North Korea become offshore gaming server havens. They certainly won't be extraditing anyone to the U.S. Of course then I suppose the whole "online gambling funds terrorists" thing might begin to have a shred of validity...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most likely outcome in my opinion. Online poker for U.S. players isn't going to go away. Instead, it will move from being provided by legitimate sites like PartyPoker to being provided by illegitimate sites of dubious origin. Our government is so [censored] stupid.

I hope all of you guys get out there and vote. The republicans have about 3x as much campaign money as the Dems and the only way the will be defeated is if grass-roots peoples like us get out there and vote.

[KDawg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
France is one major country that I can think of that isn't a fan of extradicting to the US. i don't know what their take is on internet gambling though

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be wrong, but I believe the only way France will not extradite anyone is because they may face the death penalty. however, if that is not a danger I believe they extradite fairly easily with the US.

[/ QUOTE ]


the US has repeatedly asked for Roman Polanski to be extradicted from his home in Paris and the french government has refused numerous times. I'm not sure if France does this on most things, but from what I have seen and read they rarely extradict to the US

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that the "crimes" committed by Party or whoever are not punishable in UK law. It is legal for their business to operate in the UK. Nothing the US can say or do will change this fact. This is not the same as the allegations of financial crime as per Natwest three etc.

Why do you think the US had to wait for BetonSports director and whoever else they try to nab to come on US soil? These directors operate legal businesses in their own jurisdictions and would not be given up by extradition.

If I am a PartyPoker shareholder will I get arrested next time Im in US?

[/ QUOTE ]

word.

As far as Natwest:

http://www.kino.de/pix/newspics/181944_7.jpg

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]

If I am a PartyPoker shareholder will I get arrested next time Im in US?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, one of the key benefits of a corporation is that it frees owners from legal liability under normal circumstances.

[adios]

Good post and thanks. I hadn't considered the extradition aspect. Now that you've brought it to our attention I think that other countries will not tolerate the pursuit of their business people as criminals when the activity is legal in the host country. For instance I don't think the Brits would tolerate the U.S. attempts to extradite an exec from Party for breaking U.S. laws. The Brits might discourage the exec privately but I don't see the Brits allowing a public pursut of this. IMO it's political suicide for Brit pols. If Great Britain is the most likely to extradite I think the execs have little to worry about. However, I can understand why they're concerned.

[RiverMustelid]

I have written to Peter Mandelson, the European Commissioner for External Trade, to ask for clarification on their position on this.

Given previous debates over bananas, scottish woollen textiles, I also think this has the potential to be a sizeable issue.

The angle I emphasised was the carve out of US based interests (in particular online horse betting) from the legislation, which reflects protectionism rather than a moral imperative (which sadly is your own business).

Not sure whether it is worth other Europeans doing this? I am angry about this legislation, so dread to think the impact on you guys. Condolences, I'm afraid the US has just lost one of its few European supporters. I just don't know what your country stands for anymore.

[breaktwister]

Nate - there have been a lot of news reports here in IK about this. You were correct in the directors simply fear ending up in American jails.

They have got some very poor legal advises that have potentially bust their company (certainly Party will no longer be the top dog - even if all this comes to nothing).

If I was their legal advisor I would tell them to issue a statment saying US financial laws do not apply to them and I would tell their directors not to visit US!

It is unreal that the directors would cripple their company voluntarily without a fight. It doesnt make sense for them to say "well we have a good presence in the rest of the world anyway" - 70% or more of their customers were from US and with the US casual player gone the customers from the rest of the world will be also.

[CaptainBusto]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have

- a breakdown of where sites are located?
- even better, informed opinions on how extradition-friendly those countries are?

[/ QUOTE ]

party, pacific (888) - gibraltar (UK)
stars - isle of man (UK)
ongame - sweden
full tilt - USA (guess they are the most screwed here?)
paradise - UK (how come they dont cave same as party/888 then?)
crypto - canada
bodog - costa rica
ultimate - canada
absolute - canada(?)
b2b - sweden
wpx - antigua

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate - there have been a lot of news reports here in IK about this. You were correct in the directors simply fear ending up in American jails.

They have got some very poor legal advises that have potentially bust their company (certainly Party will no longer be the top dog - even if all this comes to nothing).

If I was their legal advisor I would tell them to issue a statment saying US financial laws do not apply to them and I would tell their directors not to visit US!

It is unreal that the directors would cripple their company voluntarily without a fight. It doesnt make sense for them to say "well we have a good presence in the rest of the world anyway" - 70% or more of their customers were from US and with the US casual player gone the customers from the rest of the world will be also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe Party rolled over so easily either. I don't play at Party very much nor do I own any stock of the parent company. With that said it seems like an incredibly dumb move from a business standpoint. If I was a shareholder I'd be outraged.

Edit: I also think that the execs at Party are relatively inexprerienced with running a high growth, high revenue business. Not sure about that as I don't know anything about previous management experience.

[Suigin406]

thx for the nice post nate...

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I have written to Peter Mandelson, the European Commissioner for External Trade, to ask for clarification on their position on this.

Given previous debates over bananas, scottish woollen textiles, I also think this has the potential to be a sizeable issue.

The angle I emphasised was the carve out of US based interests (in particular online horse betting) from the legislation, which reflects protectionism rather than a moral imperative (which sadly is your own business).

Not sure whether it is worth other Europeans doing this? I am angry about this legislation, so dread to think the impact on you guys. Condolences, I'm afraid the US has just lost one of its few European supporters. I just don't know what your country stands for anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clearly protectionism for reasons you cite.

[XxPenguinxX]

As a boring point - can companies (as opposed to natural persons) be extradited?

[[censored]]

Nate,

ya it looks like you nailed it. Im really not that worried honestly. People came to Party, stars etc not because they created anything new but because people had a desire to play poker and they were positioned best. People are still going to want to play poker on the internet, including winning and losing players.

other sites will fill the void and outside of the short term I expect things to continue as is. this could actually be a positive thing mid/long term from the competition created from the party/stars void.

the bigger concern is not being able to play on a specific site is the funding accounts issue which is still up in the air

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
party, pacific (888) - gibraltar (UK)
stars - isle of man (UK)
ongame - sweden
full tilt - USA (guess they are the most screwed here?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, Full Tilt is another one of the Kahnawake Gaming Commission sites (Canada).

[ QUOTE ]
paradise - UK (how come they dont cave same as party/888 then?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the "read" made by others that these companies with US-facing sportsbooks have already digested the legality issues and are less likely to pull out immediately.

[ QUOTE ]
crypto - canada

[/ QUOTE ]

Moving to Ireland.

[ QUOTE ]
bodog - costa rica
ultimate - canada
absolute - canada(?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ultimate and Absolute are also Kahnawake sites.
[ QUOTE ]
b2b - sweden
wpx - antigua

[/ QUOTE ]

Summary: it looks like the four Kahnawake sites (Full Tilt, UB, Absolute, Pokerroom) will likely stay in business (to US customers), as will Bodog (Costa Rica) and WPX (Antigua). The publicly traded sites based in UK/Irleand have all pulled out.

[geormiet]

absolute is based in costa rica, but I think they have some offices in canada.

[jmillerdls]

"Summary: it looks like the four Kahnawake sites (Full Tilt, UB, Absolute, Pokerroom) will likely stay in business (to US customers), as will Bodog (Costa Rica) and WPX (Antigua). The publicly traded sites based in UK/Irleand have all pulled out."

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]

The UK will extradite faster than you can type PWNED.

This was a very high profile case and I assure you that the people in Gibraltar are VERY familiar with this.

Sorry for the negative.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13072006/344/natwest-3-begin-extradition-journey.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for this we won't. The Natwest Three (I prefer Enron Three) case did cause a row but what they are alleged to have done would also be a crime in the UK. The UK extradition treaty does fast track extradition whilst the US Senate could not be arsed to ratify your end of the treaty, not enough time in the past 4 years apparently, but no UK judge will extradite someone for something that is not a crime in the UK.

[PokerBob]

nate,

you are not dumb.

that said, i still blame you.

bob

[KDawg]

[ QUOTE ]

Summary: it looks like the four Kahnawake sites (Full Tilt, UB, Absolute, Pokerroom) will likely stay in business (to US customers), as will Bodog (Costa Rica) and WPX (Antigua). The publicly traded sites based in UK/Irleand have all pulled out.

[/ QUOTE ]


nate, wouldn't FT have to do a trade off of ownership if they want to stay in buisness, as those who mainly run the company are all americans(Lederer, Gordon, etc)

[fish2plus2]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote this as a response yesterday. Sorry guys, but you live in the USA and don't get the news like we do here in Europe.

The UK will extradite faster than you can type PWNED.

This was a very high profile case and I assure you that the people in Gibraltar are VERY familiar with this.

Sorry for the negative.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13072006/344/natwest-3-begin-extradition-journey.html

[/ QUOTE ]

are you really going to compare those who commit fraud to pp owners who are running a legal business in the UK?

[fish2plus2]

DID YOU GUYS NOTE READ THIS POST?????????

"Internet Gambling is 100% legal in the UK and extradition requires that the act is illegal in both countries.

That isn't the case here and I can't see in a million years a UK court allowing an extradition for something that isn't illegal in the UK. "

[ACW]

I think the problem is that Party's European business is dependent on Europeans seeing it as completely clean and legal. They don't want to risk alienating their European business with bad publicity.

[CORed]

I think it's pretty unlikely that the UK will extradite online poker execs. However, let's put this in poker terms. The online gambling execs are in the big blind of a no-limit game. Their stack is 500 big blinds and the maniac at the table (US govt.) has them covered. The maniac goes all-in and the BB holds K6 offsuit. Does the BB call?

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
party, pacific (888) - gibraltar (UK)
stars - isle of man (UK)
ongame - sweden
full tilt - USA (guess they are the most screwed here?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, Full Tilt is another one of the Kahnawake Gaming Commission sites (Canada).


[/ QUOTE ]


i read on here that stars is located in costa rica. is that not right?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, I think the WTO could wind up being quite important in all of this, and there's even some chance that it winds up being a relatively substantial international trade dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes it seems like you post these things to get the wisdom of the crowd. If so, this is one vote agreement with your prediction. I thought that the U.S. would laugh off the previous WTO complaints, which pretty much happened, but I think that there's a good chance that this could be different, and that some compromise could be reached.

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]
DID YOU GUYS NOTE READ THIS POST?????????

"Internet Gambling is 100% legal in the UK and extradition requires that the act is illegal in both countries.

That isn't the case here and I can't see in a million years a UK court allowing an extradition for something that isn't illegal in the UK. "

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah I dont get it. Extradition from the UK isnt even a concern.

[maurile]

Good post, Nate. And good supplemental comments by people pointing out that extradition generally requires a showing that the activity be illegal in both countries.

[csi]

The WTO is a big joke because their rulings are non-binding
and the US usually ignores any WTO ruling. For example, in Canada there has been a long battle with the US over Softwood lumber agreements and The WTO ruled numerous times in favor of Canada, but the US just ingnored the rulings anyway. So WTO is not likely to make any difference here.

Secondly, countries are not likely to extradite their citizens for gambling(extradition treaties are more for serious crimes such as murder, child pornography, etc.)
Especially when gambling such as online gambling is legal in most countries.

[Will.]

[ QUOTE ]
The part of the legislation that these rooms are responding to is not the credit cards/NETELLER business, which will sort itself out in due time -- there is NO reason to ban US customers until at least the 270 days that it takes to promulgate those regulations. Rather, they're responding to the portion of the bill that criminalizes the act of accepting bets from US customers (and which goes into effect immediately).

[/ QUOTE ] I could have sworn Mr. K. posted that the part of the bill that will go into effect immediately is that which states banks cannot do business with online gambling companies. Can someone shed light on this for me?

[Self Made]

Full Tilt and Crypto both recently announced moves to Ireland (though the software company TiltWare will continue to be in California).

No site operates from Kahnawake. The tribe just licenses them and hosts their servers. Their operations, and executives, are elsewhere.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The part of the legislation that these rooms are responding to is not the credit cards/NETELLER business, which will sort itself out in due time -- there is NO reason to ban US customers until at least the 270 days that it takes to promulgate those regulations. Rather, they're responding to the portion of the bill that criminalizes the act of accepting bets from US customers (and which goes into effect immediately).

[/ QUOTE ] I could have sworn Mr. K. posted that the part of the bill that will go into effect immediately is that which states banks cannot do business with online gambling companies. Can someone shed light on this for me?

[/ QUOTE ]
What goes into effect immediately is that transactions made for the purpose of placing bets are prohibited.

Within 270 days, regulations will be in place to help prevent the occurance of such prohibited transactions.

Unlawful gaming sites are liable for participating in such prohibited transactions.

Financial institutions are liable only for running afoul of the forthcoming regulations.

So as of tomorrow (or whenever the bill is signed into law), when Bank of America makes a deposit into Bodog on behalf of one of its customers, Bodog is liable and Bank of America is not. As of 270 days from tomorrow (or whenever the regulations are promulgated), when Bank of America makes a deposit into Bodog on behalf of one of its customers, Bodog is liable and Bank of America may also be liable if it does not adhere to the regulations. (If it makes the deposit despite adhering to the regulations, it would not be liable.)

That's my understanding based on a fairly quick reading of the bill, so I may not have it exactly right.

[HoldingFolding]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe Party rolled over so easily either.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to remember that the founders & probably most of the senior executives have made their dosh. Parasol & Dikshit have already taken out over $1bn, why risk your liberty when you can spend the rest of you life in undreamed of luxury without the threat of extradition etc. This is especially true for Parasol since she's from California (though I'm not sure if she has any legal connection to the company still).

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe Party rolled over so easily either.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to remember that the founders & probably most of the senior executives have made their dosh. Parasol & Dikshit have already taken out over $1bn, why risk your liberty when you can spend the rest of you life in undreamed of luxury without the threat of extradition etc. This is especially true for Parasol since she's from California (though I'm not sure if she has any legal connection to the company still).

[/ QUOTE ]


i think you way underestimate greed. no matter what you got you always want more

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe Party rolled over so easily either.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to remember that the founders & probably most of the senior executives have made their dosh. Parasol & Dikshit have already taken out over $1bn, why risk your liberty when you can spend the rest of you life in undreamed of luxury without the threat of extradition etc. This is especially true for Parasol since she's from California (though I'm not sure if she has any legal connection to the company still).

[/ QUOTE ]


i think you way underestimate greed. no matter what you got you always want more

[/ QUOTE ]

if I had $350m in cash in the bank, and there was a 1% chance I could go to jail for 10 years and a 99% chance I could make another $500m...well I would take my $350m and have umbrella drinks and it wouldn't be close.

[P Chippa]

What if the site were to respond like this?:

"We are willing to conform to the US government's wishes on the issue of online gambling. The cost of software and filtering updates is approximately 15 million dollars. (made up number obv.) The ban of US players at our site will be effective immediately upon the US paying for the changes to our current product."

[Colombo]

[ QUOTE ]
DID YOU GUYS NOTE READ THIS POST?????????

"Internet Gambling is 100% legal in the UK and extradition requires that the act is illegal in both countries.

That isn't the case here and I can't see in a million years a UK court allowing an extradition for something that isn't illegal in the UK. "

[/ QUOTE ]

For arguements sake, lets say the UK finds a way to extradite the CEOs of stars and paradise.

How easy/hard would it be for stars to relocate to Antigua?

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
well I would take my $350m and have umbrella drinks and it wouldn't be close.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The part of the legislation that these rooms are responding to is not the credit cards/NETELLER business, which will sort itself out in due time -- there is NO reason to ban US customers until at least the 270 days that it takes to promulgate those regulations. Rather, they're responding to the portion of the bill that criminalizes the act of accepting bets from US customers (and which goes into effect immediately).

[/ QUOTE ] I could have sworn Mr. K. posted that the part of the bill that will go into effect immediately is that which states banks cannot do business with online gambling companies. Can someone shed light on this for me?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's wrong, and I doubt Mr. K. said as much.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
party, pacific (888) - gibraltar (UK)
stars - isle of man (UK)
ongame - sweden
full tilt - USA (guess they are the most screwed here?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, Full Tilt is another one of the Kahnawake Gaming Commission sites (Canada).


[/ QUOTE ]


i read on here that stars is located in costa rica. is that not right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars' corporate parent is based in Costa Rica, but its operations are presently based in Isle of Man (though they were once in Costa Rica). That's my understanding, at least.

FWIW, I suspect that one of the things that Stars is thinking about is whether being in a UK jurisdiction is desirable or not. It wouldn't surprise me if they kept games located to US players *but* moved HQ back to Costa Rica, and/or announced the resignations of a number of prominent executives.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

If they were so worried about breaking US law, I dont think they would have entered this business. The fact that some of you actually think a CEO thinks along the lines of "I would rather give up 650 million bucks to avoid being extradited, which would be impossible under the current UK laws"...is sort of laughable.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]

Stars' corporate parent is based in Costa Rica, but its operations are presently based in Isle of Man (though they were once in Costa Rica). That's my understanding, at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

they have operations in a variety of places, including London. until recently they had some management working out of the US. various CS people work in the US, as contractors.

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
If they were so worried about breaking US law, I dont think they would have entered this business. The fact that some of you actually think a CEO thinks along the lines of "I would rather give up 650 million bucks to avoid being extradited, which would be impossible under the current UK laws"...is sort of laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, it's perfectly reasonable. Having to point that out is laughable.

[hypopg]

I think Nate is half right. I think the execs of publicly traded companies have much higher profiles than those of private companies. For starters US authorities may not even know who the benficial owners of private companies are. No,
execs and directors of these companies are not afraid of extradition per se but rather of the inability of travelling or returning to the US. This is a tremendous handicap if you are a high powered exec. Fear of prosecution, sealed indictments in Louisiana for example are causing great anxiety for these guys. Besides the world is a big place and downstream they can make up much of the US hit. I think alot of US players will find ways around this law and plenty of operators, some dubious, will be willing to take the risk.

The Republicans Party is looking for a few good boys.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

I think Reuters is stealing from 2+2!

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArt...;archived=False (http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-10-06T215040Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-271143-1.xml&archived=False)

LONDON (Reuters) - British Internet gambling companies are looking at possible loopholes in a new U.S. law designed to stop online gaming, but executives risk extradition if they try to exploit them.

Lawyers and analysts said on Friday that only criminal operators in offshore jurisdictions such as Costa Rica could afford to take the risk, while listed firms such as 888 and PartyGaming would do better to focus on Asia and Europe for growth."...