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 ("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