The war starts?

[JPFisher55]

If this article is true: http://www.gambling911.com/Banks-Online-Gambling-012007.html
Then the DOJ is about to start a litigation war with the entire online gaming industry, including poker. It could involve UK and other countries. This will force the industry to fight some sort of litigation battle in US courts, maybe international courts.
This despite the WTO ruling and the fact that the only federal case law has held that the Wire Act only covers sports betting.
INO the DOJ is out of control. How does the DOJ subpoena PartyPoker?
Good news is that this will likely force the entire industry to fight the DOJ rather than run. And it may force the hand of Congress. Certainly the WTO may be proded to take much more immediate action than in a normal WTO case.
Of course, the article may not be accurate or may overstate matters.

[Uglyowl]

I really found this article very interesting. I will be very curious what happens going forward. Probably not too much trouble messing with Antigua, but start bullying around large foreign banks, etc. hmmm



US Gaming probe rocks top banks

I wonder if the British government will say "enough is enough".

-"THE US Department of Justice has ordered the world’s biggest investment banks, accountants and law firms to hand over all e-mails, telephone records and papers connected with internet gaming firms as part of an investigation into illegal online gambling in America.

HSBC, Dresdner Kleinwort, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank are known to be among the banks that have been issued with subpoenas"

-"One source said: “To say the situation is sensitive is the understatement of the decade. The problem is, even if you know you have done nothing wrong, you have no powers of resistance.”"

-"The source went on: “The Department of Justice has taken a shotgun, not a rifle approach in relation to lots of gaming companies and has just asked everyone to hand over all the information they have.”

[JoseGonzlez]

No, i think you misread the article.
I got the impression the DOJ was going to investigate the investment banks that brought the gaming companies public.

Seems odd since all the listings were done in London.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
No, i think you misread the article.
I got the impression the DOJ was going to investigate the investment banks that brought the gaming companies public.

Seems odd since all the listings were done in London.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but what right does the US DOJ have to investigate the foreign investment banks that assisted these companies to go public on the LSE, a foreign stock exchange?

[Rigel]

The only good news in there is these subpoenas have been flying since October according to the article. So this isn't something that broke just now- the industry has known about it for a while.

[JPFisher55]

So is the DOJ going to indict anyone who assisted in these public offerings with money laundering under US law.
My apologizes to the UK and the rest of the world. I am sorry that I voted for Bush.

[Tuco]

This is really bad if true. The DOJ is waging an impressive "shock and awe" first strike. I guess it's one thing to subpoena records and completely another to build and try a case against a foe with lots of money and a strong case of defense. Looks like they are trying to scare the sh*t out of everyone that tries to do business with Americans. Working, too.

Oh, can everyone stop spreading false hope about the WTO riding to the rescue. The USA doesn't care about it's rulings.

Tuco.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, i think you misread the article.
I got the impression the DOJ was going to investigate the investment banks that brought the gaming companies public.

Seems odd since all the listings were done in London.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but what right does the US DOJ have to investigate the foreign investment banks that assisted these companies to go public on the LSE, a foreign stock exchange?

[/ QUOTE ]

all of these companies have significant US operations

[blutarski]

About four-five months ago, Statcounter told me my blog got a good long look from someone from the DOJ. I don't know if they were looking for affiliate ads or what ( don't have any) or if it was just a poker player surfing during work, but I thought it was odd.

I know that players can't be prosecuted and I would be the last person they'd go after ( I had about 100 bucks online at the time) but it's made me think that the DOJ's been researching and gearing up for things for awhile and that the fallout of the UIGEA would be more towards the pessimistic side of the spectrum.

[JPFisher55]

I do not equate DOJ action with US law. The US courts decide law; not the DOJ. IMO, and several gambling law experts like Mrs. Shulman and Prof, Rose, the UIGEA does not really change US law all that much.
Just because the DOJ appears to be starting a legal was over online gambling does not mean that it will win.
Considering the WTO case, the international view and other US case law, I think that the DOJ will eventually lose this war. But it will be a very rocky road.

[fish2plus2]

Americaaaa, Americaaaa, God shed his grace on theeeeeee

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
Americaaaa, Americaaaa, God shed his grace on theeeeeee

[/ QUOTE ]

This land is your land, this land is my land
From the Redwood Forest all the way around the world to the Redwood Forest
The Canadian mountains and all the Gulf Stream waters
This land is made for you and me.

As I went walking, I saw a sign there;
And on the sign there, It said, 'GREAT BRITAIN.'
But on the other side, It didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.

[ekdikeo]

W.T.F.

[Burnsabre]

Christ, I feel like an Iraqi...

[yad]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not equate DOJ action with US law. The US courts decide law; not the DOJ. IMO, and several gambling law experts like Mrs. Shulman and Prof, Rose, the UIGEA does not really change US law all that much.
Just because the DOJ appears to be starting a legal was over online gambling does not mean that it will win.
Considering the WTO case, the international view and other US case law, I think that the DOJ will eventually lose this war. But it will be a very rocky road.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the DOJ doesn't really have to win in court. They just have to show that they're really serious and make a huge amount of trouble for any corporations involved in internet gambling. Most of these guys won't really care if they could possibly win in court after a long drawn out legal battle (which contains the possibility of jail time for executives if they lose!). They'll just decide it's not worth the trouble, cut a deal, and get out of the business.

[ekdikeo]

At least there are people treating Iraq like a proper democracy.

[Botchman]

[ QUOTE ]


The problem is that the DOJ doesn't really have to win in court. They just have to show that they're really serious and make a huge amount of trouble for any corporations involved in internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you serious??? If the DOJ does'nt win in court what the hell will people be scared of?? Not a damn thing, if they lose first case or 2 more than likely a precedent will be set and poeople will be operating with no fear whatsoever.

[jluker7]

the problem is, it probably wont make it to court. look how many people already pulled out. every major corporation. UB has 3 ways to get money on their site. Mastercard, visa, and westernunion... I hope some one does make it to court and that the DOJ looses. cause i hate this law.

[tangled]

Let me see if I got this straight: Britian has been our best friend since 911, and they also have enthusiastically embraced internet gambling sites. We decide to go after their conpanies for possible criminal violations even though all their gambling companies pulled out of the US even before UIGEA was signed, and even though we are violating the WTO verdict and the still standing judgement of our courts that the wire act only applies to sports betting?

How isolated in the world do we want to be? Bush and his cronies have lost their minds. It seems the only way they think they have to get out from under the stupid decisions they have made is to make even more stupid decisions.

I have a question though. Don't subpeonas have to be signed off by a judge, and hasn't a court of competent jurisdiction already said the wire act doesn't apply to internet poker just sports betting? So, how did they find a judge to sign off?

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
No, i think you misread the article.
I got the impression the DOJ was going to investigate the investment banks that brought the gaming companies public.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. The investment bankers have committed no obvious crime. But they probably have lots of information which may be used against their gaming clients.

[malo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, i think you misread the article.
I got the impression the DOJ was going to investigate the investment banks that brought the gaming companies public.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. The investment bankers have committed no obvious crime. But they probably have lots of information which may be used against their gaming clients.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am ignorant about the nuances of international finance, so forgive my dumb questions.

My understanding has been the Swiss view the banker-client relationship as confidential, just as the US views the lawyer-client relationship.

They will, in certain circumstances, violate that relationship to cooperate with authorities with investigations. The activity being investigated has to be a crime under Swiss law.

Now money laundering and terrorism is a crime in Switzerland. But isn't their definition of money laundering narrower than DOJ's? Aren't they smart enough to figure out that all this money flying around is not financing terrorist activities? More likely to tell DOJ to stick their subpoenas where the sun don't shine---in a polite Swiss way, of course?

Also, something occurred to me last night: once again, the companies targeted are publicly traded, not privately owned. FWIW.

[Richas]

My impression is that this story is a reflection of the anger in the City of London about this rather than a big threat to UK justice.

The investment banks doing the listings have broken no laws here, the DOJ is leaning on them for info to go at the betting firms not going directly for the banks or their officers. It is another indication that the DOJ are serious but I think we knew that anyway.

As for the WTO and UK/EU - no it's not the seventh cavalry coming to the rescue any time soon but the EU will fight the US on this one especially if and when (Sept 2007) some of the main players come onshore to the UK. This may take years but it could be a significant factor in helping you out of this mess (eventually).

As an aside the UK gov is still getting grief over the 2005 Gambling Act not least the Observer and another documentary on Monday, the BMJ report on gambling addiction help in the health service but the experts in the field are still saying as part of these that the government is right to regulate to protect children and the vulnerable.

[sobefuddled]

This is not a new war. Google "Gold Chip Technologies." Granted those guys were stupid but....Follow the money. Who really stands to benefit. These things happen because someone somewhere will benefit big time. How do they benefit? Follow the money.

[Poker_Ace]

Much of this is old news. A friend of mine from the UK with ties to some of the publicly traded gaming companies told me that DOJ threatened the U.S. investment banks with prosecution if they participated in underwriting the IPOs; the U.S. investment banks withdrew in response. This looks like DOJ is following up on that threat.

[fasteddy1970]

Bachman: You're already seeing how afraid they all are without so much as a court case. There's no court case against partypoker and NT and yet they ran at the first sign of trouble. What makes you think any of the others will stand and fight when faced with the enormous costs and risks involved in a suit against any government much less ours?

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
Bachman: You're already seeing how afraid they all are without so much as a court case. There's no court case against partypoker and NT and yet they ran at the first sign of trouble. What makes you think any of the others will stand and fight when faced with the enormous costs and risks involved in a suit against any government much less ours?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone who "ran" had US liabilities.

You are talking about a multi billion dollar a year industry.

All someone needs to do is set up a system that is not vulnerable to the US.

Absolute said they wouldn't pull out regardless. I am not familiar with their setup, but they may have looked into the matter and see very little risk, explaining their strong stance.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Bachman: You're already seeing how afraid they all are without so much as a court case. There's no court case against partypoker and NT and yet they ran at the first sign of trouble. What makes you think any of the others will stand and fight when faced with the enormous costs and risks involved in a suit against any government much less ours?

[/ QUOTE ]

The common thread to date has been public companies and/or sports books, which Fulltilt and Pokerstars are not.

[fasteddy1970]

Greg: as we're seeing, it's not necessary to make the actual sites run away. It only takes strangling the funders one at a time. How long after they get a notice from the US govt. to cease and desist will ePassport be serving us?

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg: as we're seeing, it's not necessary to make the actual sites run away. It only takes strangling the funders one at a time. How long after they get a notice from the US govt. to cease and desist will ePassport be serving us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neteller is easily found and it took the founders being on U.S. soil to put a great giant scare into them.

What is epassport's setup? I still don't see them invading another country and raiding offices of an e-wallet (unless there are WMD's there).

There are millions to be made here. Funding sportsbook, DOJ says thats a no-no, pokersites haven't been tested yet.

[fasteddy1970]

That's just it, they don't have to invade. All it takes is a bit of saber rattling and these guys run away. I'm not saying I blame them but so far that's how it's been.

[fasteddy1970]

"How do they find a judge to sign off." You're joking right? With all of the outrageous sign offs these past years (denying habeas corpus for one thing)do you really think they'll have a problem finding a judge to sign off on this.

[JPFisher55]

Judges don't give requests for subpoenas much scrutiny. That comes when the subpoenad party moves to quash "overturn" the subpoena.

[gila]

[ QUOTE ]
(unless there are WMD's there).



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as we have seen, that is not really needed either. All that is really needed for the evasion is fear, and the ability to stretch the truth.

[Stealthy]

The UK is actively embracing the online poker firms at the same time the US is criminalising them. Also British politicians have spoken out against America's gambling stance. I cannot see how the DOJ can end up with anything but egg on their faces in pursuing online gambling beyond their own borders.

[Botchman]

[ QUOTE ]
Bachman: You're already seeing how afraid they all are without so much as a court case. There's no court case against partypoker and NT andch less o yet they ran at the first sign of trouble. What makes you think any of the others will stand and fight when faced with the enormous costs and risks involved in a suit against any government muurs?

[/ QUOTE ]
Partypoker had to pull out because they are a listed company, and the latest DOJ action is against NT, indirectly. A case will eventually go to trial and hopefully thats when online poker sites will previal

[tourney guy]

People make me laugh about this issue.

If a foreign company does business in America, they must abide by American rules of doing business.

Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

If you owned the company as opposed to simply using its site, you would think way, way differently.

Anyone want to bet that when a company tries to say a virtual poker room is different than a virtual sportsbook, a court is going to agree?????

Be serious for a moment here - the whole idea of this is to have non-licenced internet poker rooms be replaced by USA-owned, licenced poker rooms.

Isn't it obvious???

[Zobags]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the online poker rooms are licensed. And in some states, using your computer to play poker on the internet is perfectly legal.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet that when a company tries to say a virtual poker room is different than a virtual sportsbook, a court is going to agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they already did - see the 5th Cir. ruling in In re Mastercard.

[SlapPappy]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it obvious???


[/ QUOTE ]

Enlighten us? I thought it was a possibility but obvious?

[tourney guy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the online poker rooms are licensed. And in some states, using your computer to play poker on the internet is perfectly legal.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet that when a company tries to say a virtual poker room is different than a virtual sportsbook, a court is going to agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they already did - see the 5th Cir. ruling in In re Mastercard.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a chuckle.

1) The 5th Circuit case was to protect credit card companies from damages when players use them to buy online gambling chips. It is a RICO issue, not a UIGEA issue.

2) Stars, UB, etc, are not licenced in America, America doesn't issue gambling licences, states do. If a site is licenced in the UK, for example, it does not make it ok in America to use those sites, especially since UIGEA was passed.

3) PLaying poker online is totally legal, just gambling online is not!!!!!

By June 1, 2007, all sites will stop taking American deposits.

By June 1, 2010........USA LICENCED GAMING COMPANIES will be running online poker sites.......can you say taxes!

[chicagoY]

What cowards. How about terrorists for a start? Instead it's a bunch of set farmers.

[Zobags]

[ QUOTE ]
1) The 5th Circuit case was to protect credit card companies from damages when players use them to buy online gambling chips. It is a RICO issue, not a UIGEA issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the dispostive issue in the case, was that the Wire Act applied only to betting on sporting events. Therefore, it is binding precedent on that issue. Have you read the UIGEA? It did not expand the scope of what types of gambling are illegal in the US one scintilla.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Stars, UB, etc, are not licenced in America, America doesn't issue gambling licences, states do. If a site is licenced in the UK, for example, it does not make it ok in America to use those sites, especially since UIGEA was passed.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no federal law that makes unlicensed gambling illegal. Therefore, that issue is dependent on the statutory language in each specific state. Also, the strict construction prinicple will be applied to any interpreation of a criminal statute.

[ QUOTE ]
What a chuckle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you a lawyer? Just because the DOJ says something to be the law, does not make it so. That is beyond the Constitutional powers of the executive branch.

[JPFisher55]

Expensive law firm represents Neteller founder.
http://www.gambling911.com/internet-gambling-012207.html

[JPFisher55]

See this article for explanation of case law interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act.
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/13599

[Rigel]

You are correct- I was unaware of that 5th Circuit decision. Here's the key part of the holding:

The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests and that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege that they had engaged in internet sports gambling.FN20 We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion. The Plaintiffs may not rely on the Wire Act as a predicate offense here.

In re MasterCard Intern. Inc.
313 F.3d 257
C.A.5 (La.),2002.

And here's the district court discussion which the Fifth Circuit affirmed:

The defendants argue that plaintiffs' failure to allege sports gambling is a fatal defect with respect to their Wire Act claims, while plaintiffs strenuously argue that the Wire Act does not require sporting events or contests to be the object of gambling. However, a plain reading of the statutory language clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest. Both the rule and the exception to the rule expressly qualify the nature of the gambling activity as that related to a “sporting event or contest.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1084(a) & (b). A reading of the caselaw leads to the same conclusion. See United States v. Kaczowski, 114 F.Supp.2d 143, 153 (W.D.N.Y.2000) (Wire Act “prohibits use of a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest”); United States v. Sellers, 483 F.2d 37, 45 (5th Cir.1973)(overruled on other grounds in United States v. McKeever, 905 F.2d 829 (5th Cir.1990))(“the statute deals with bookmakers)”; U.S. v. Marder, 474 F.2d 1192, 1194 (5th Cir.1973) (first element of statute satisfied when government proves wagering information “relative to sporting events”).

In re MasterCard Intern. Inc., Internet Gambling Litigation
132 F.Supp.2d 468
E.D.La.,2001.

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
War on Internet Gambling to be Fought by Powerful Law Firm (http://www.gambling911.com/internet-gambling-012207.html)

Following charges brought up against payment solution company, NETeller, one of the two co-founders arrested last Monday retained an attorney from the powerful Washington D.C. law firm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr (http://www.wilmerhale.com/).

Stephen Lawrence has hired the services of Peter Neiman (http://www.wilmerhale.com/peter_neiman/) who joined the firm in 2006 after more than nine years as an Assistant United States Attorney with the Criminal Division of the Southern District of New York. The irony here of course is that the charges against Lawrence have been brought by the Southern District of New York.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tourney guy]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct- I was unaware of that 5th Circuit decision. Here's the key part of the holding:

The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests and that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege that they had engaged in internet sports gambling.FN20 We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion. The Plaintiffs may not rely on the Wire Act as a predicate offense here.

In re MasterCard Intern. Inc.
313 F.3d 257
C.A.5 (La.),2002.

And here's the district court discussion which the Fifth Circuit affirmed:

The defendants argue that plaintiffs' failure to allege sports gambling is a fatal defect with respect to their Wire Act claims, while plaintiffs strenuously argue that the Wire Act does not require sporting events or contests to be the object of gambling. However, a plain reading of the statutory language clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest. Both the rule and the exception to the rule expressly qualify the nature of the gambling activity as that related to a “sporting event or contest.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1084(a) & (b). A reading of the caselaw leads to the same conclusion. See United States v. Kaczowski, 114 F.Supp.2d 143, 153 (W.D.N.Y.2000) (Wire Act “prohibits use of a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest”); United States v. Sellers, 483 F.2d 37, 45 (5th Cir.1973)(overruled on other grounds in United States v. McKeever, 905 F.2d 829 (5th Cir.1990))(“the statute deals with bookmakers)”; U.S. v. Marder, 474 F.2d 1192, 1194 (5th Cir.1973) (first element of statute satisfied when government proves wagering information “relative to sporting events”).

In re MasterCard Intern. Inc., Internet Gambling Litigation
132 F.Supp.2d 468
E.D.La.,2001.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems to me that the UIGEA has cleared this all up.

That case has little bearing on the UIGEA......you guys can think one thing, the virtual card rooms that are bailing on the US are thinking about things the right way.

It sucks, but until the G finds out how to properly tax poker winnings, we are $hit out of luck.

[Sniper]

[b]Related discussion & other articles:[b]

Reuters (http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/21012007/325/u-s-seeks-online-gaming-details-banks-sources.html)

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/22gaming.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1169442000&en=6a7177385bf 27904&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin)

Discussion Thread w/ link to London Times article (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8853069)

Related thread in the Zoo (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8844498)

[Botchman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the online poker rooms are licensed. And in some states, using your computer to play poker on the internet is perfectly legal.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet that when a company tries to say a virtual poker room is different than a virtual sportsbook, a court is going to agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they already did - see the 5th Cir. ruling in In re Mastercard.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a chuckle.

1) The 5th Circuit case was to protect credit card companies from damages when players use them to buy online gambling chips. It is a RICO issue, not a UIGEA issue.

2) Stars, UB, etc, are not licenced in America, America doesn't issue gambling licences, states do. If a site is licenced in the UK, for example, it does not make it ok in America to use those sites, especially since UIGEA was passed.

3) PLaying poker online is totally legal, just gambling online is not!!!!!

By June 1, 2007, all sites will stop taking American deposits.

By June 1, 2010........USA LICENCED GAMING COMPANIES will be running online poker sites.......can you say taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]
The chuckle is you don't know wtf you're talking about.

[context]

[ QUOTE ]
People make me laugh about this issue.

If a foreign company does business in America, they must abide by American rules of doing business.

Unlicenced gambling is a crime in America. Using a computer to gamble violates a plethora of laws.

Isn't it obvious???

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just dumb.


There are massive companies in the UK that make alcholic drinks (and other stuff). They own pubs and clubs and sell that alchohol to 18 year olds (and younger of course) in the UK.

These self-same companies operate in the US. It is illegal to sell alchohol to 18 y/o's in the US. When did the US DOJ attempt to prosecute these companies for operating under UK law in the UK, and US law in the US?


It's pretty obvious you're making a dumb argument.

[context]

Just to throw a curveball.

I'm pretty sure that there are still outstanding cases to be heard in the Enron saga. Does anyone know if any of the outstanding cases apply to any of these banks/financial institutions?

Some of the banks mentioned in this fishing expedition were under investigation for their part in what happened. They were(/are) charged with a bunch of financial irregularites.

Could the DOJ use this as leverage against them?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Judges don't give requests for subpoenas much scrutiny. That comes when the subpoenad party moves to quash "overturn" the subpoena.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, there are judges with political agendas, and there are judges who owe favors. There also judges who, even if they disagree with the law, will sigh the subpoenas because it is the law and they are judges, not legislators.

[keebler61]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to throw a curveball.

I'm pretty sure that there are still outstanding cases to be heard in the Enron saga. Does anyone know if any of the outstanding cases apply to any of these banks/financial institutions?

Some of the banks mentioned in this fishing expedition were under investigation for their part in what happened. They were(/are) charged with a bunch of financial irregularites.

Could the DOJ use this as leverage against them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Unlikely. Enron was a large fiasco and the DOJ will want all envolved to pay. Gambling is small potatos compared with Enron.

Also, these two cases are being conducted by two different prosecutors. It's unlikely that one of them would want to weaken thier case to help the other one.

[Sniper]

Shares in British online gaming firms tumbled by as much as 9 percent on Monday following news of a new probe into online gambling in the United States.

Analysts said prosecutors were now probably trying to target founders and senior executives of Internet gambling companies.

"They're trying to make the founders sweat, as well as current management," said analyst Tejinder Randhawa at Evolution Securities.

"Extradition requests are unlikely, but they're not impossible, given what happened to the NatWest Three," he added, referring to three UK bankers extradited to the U.S. on charges linked to collapsed energy giant Enron.

Lawyer Clive Gringras, head of Olswang's e-commerce unit, said the move would probably have a "chilling effect" on the industry amid fears other countries would follow the U.S. lead. "The only way an Internet company could really avoid risk and uncertainty would be to stop doing international business," he said.

Source: Reuters

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
Shares in British online gaming firms tumbled by as much as 9 percent on Monday following news of a new probe into online gambling in the United States.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that Party stock is down 10% today, and another ~5% since Wednesday.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shares in British online gaming firms tumbled by as much as 9 percent on Monday following news of a new probe into online gambling in the United States.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that Party stock is down 10% today, and another ~5% since Wednesday.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Uncertainty" is bad for the market... it is not well understood where the DOJ actions could lead... that some of these companies pulled out in Oct, may have absolutely no impact on whether the DOJ goes after them, ultimately.

Remember, the Oct bill did not change the "legality" of anything...

[xxbleedgreenxx]

I have to agree with Tourney Man on one point. It is about the taxes. If you agree on that, then you must consider who is behind such motives. It is not the DOJ, they are pawns. It is not the Bush admin or Frist, they have been played (that shouldn't be too hard to believe as most of you think Bush is an idiot anyway). It is the left side of the aisle that is always looking for ways to suck money away from business. How consistent a target...tobacco, oil, now gambling. Under the guise of "protecting the innocent", the left elitest establishment (that especially includes the judicial branch with judges who legislate from the bench) can continue to wield their influence over free markets. Remember, this is the same DOJ who put a special prosecutor to go after Libby for obstructing an investigation that was a complete lie in the first place. DOJ is not exactly a friend to the conservative movement. I know I will be in the minority with this view, but there is always more to a story than meets the eye. Just a few thoughts to expand your paradigm.

Regards,

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with Tourney Man on one point. It is about the taxes. If you agree on that, then you must consider who is behind such motives. It is not the DOJ, they are pawns. It is not the Bush admin or Frist, they have been played (that shouldn't be too hard to believe as most of you think Bush is an idiot anyway). It is the left side of the aisle that is always looking for ways to suck money away from business. How consistent a target...tobacco, oil, now gambling. Under the guise of "protecting the innocent", the left elitest establishment (that especially includes the judicial branch with judges who legislate from the bench) can continue to wield their influence over free markets. Remember, this is the same DOJ who put a special prosecutor to go after Libby for obstructing an investigation that was a complete lie in the first place. DOJ is not exactly a friend to the conservative movement. I know I will be in the minority with this view, but there is always more to a story than meets the eye. Just a few thoughts to expand your paradigm.

Regards,

[/ QUOTE ]

The sites were pretty clear in their statements that they would gladly take taxation and regulation over prohibition... this is more than a tax issue...

Maybe we need to stage a takeover of the Libertarian party.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with Tourney Man on one point. It is about the taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If, say, by 2008, the DOJ does not make any attempt to regulate or tax poker, and year after year just tries to prohibit it, will you admit that yours is just a weird weird conspiracy theory?

[tourney guy]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with Tourney Man on one point. It is about the taxes. If you agree on that, then you must consider who is behind such motives. It is not the DOJ, they are pawns. It is not the Bush admin or Frist, they have been played (that shouldn't be too hard to believe as most of you think Bush is an idiot anyway). It is the left side of the aisle that is always looking for ways to suck money away from business. How consistent a target...tobacco, oil, now gambling. Under the guise of "protecting the innocent", the left elitest establishment (that especially includes the judicial branch with judges who legislate from the bench) can continue to wield their influence over free markets. Remember, this is the same DOJ who put a special prosecutor to go after Libby for obstructing an investigation that was a complete lie in the first place. DOJ is not exactly a friend to the conservative movement. I know I will be in the minority with this view, but there is always more to a story than meets the eye. Just a few thoughts to expand your paradigm.

Regards,

[/ QUOTE ]

bleedgreen understands things - most on this thread do not.
All you have to know is that all major third-party money transferers (Netteller, for example) are ceasing transactions to us poker players, because they understand the impact UIGEA and what the intent of it is.

It is political and economic and not moral mor ethical.

Once the G found out that online poker is a multi-billion dollar indusrty - BINGO. Stop all the foreign companies from getting into business in America and begin allowing American companies to get into the business. Then the corporate tax juices start flowing.

That's the play here, simple as that.

People trying to cito old RICO cases to bolster a cause that is fruitless.

Soon enough, the players who are shut out of foreign sites will be able to play with out problems on sites like www.bellagiopoker room.com or www.harrahspoker room.com.

They will be licenced and paying 15% corporate tax.

Then......everything will be beautiful again!!!!