What would ensue if gov't seized nt funds w/o plans of returning them?

[crashjr]

Does anyone actively dispute what I have posted so far? Yes, it is a contrarian view, but I can support it with fact and I am not to be summarily dismissed.

So. . . .

Anyone?

[TheOpus]

So, does this sounds familiar to anyone?

From April, 2002
Sportsbook owners were shocked at a decision in the New Jersey courts this week which empowered the US government to seize funds from Intercash Financial Services, a New Jersey company acting as a middleman for sports bets placed by Americans on Internet gambling sites operated from offshore locations in Britain. These foreign betting companies enticed US players to their online sites by ensuring them that they could safely place their wagers, outside of the confines of US legislation.
The New Jersey ruling by 3rd Circuit Judge Theodore A. McKee affects British companies and citizens but the law will not apply to them directly. He found that the government had only to prove that the intermediary company in New Jersey was violating State law by promoting gambling.
Intercash Ltd. based on the Isle of Man and American Sports Ltd. located in England had argued that since all wagering transactions took place in England, there was no violation of US law. -Casinomeister

And, in the end, the DOJ got the forfeiture of the funds, the decision was appealed and the DOJ won. Yes, there are slight differences between this case and the Neteller fiasco, but generally speaking, they are extremely similar scenarios.

[iceman5]

Slight differences? Online sports betting is illegal. Online poker isnt.

Thats a BIG difference.

[TheOpus]

Online poker is not illegal, correct. In the case that I cited, the argument against the USDOJ being able to seize funds was that the business was based in England, therefore all of the wagering went on in England and it wasn't breaking US law. Apparently that didn't matter because all the gov't had to do was prove that the company promoted gambling by acting as the middleman (ie, payment processor). And that was enough for the funds that were seized to be forfeited.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the USDOJ and their actions against the Neteller guys. But their situation is similar enough to the one of Intercash that, unfortunately, I'd be prepared for a similar outcome.

[JPFisher55]

The funds seized in the Intercash case belonged to the company not to its customers. Also, Intercash had a subsidiary based in US with offices in NJ. The statute that it was convicted under was not the Wire Act but a related law that bans aiding unlawful gaming while in the US. Ms. Shullman has an article about this law at Cardplayer and how it might relate to the Neteller case.

[mikeroddick]

This is definetly the beginning of da end