The heart of the matter: extradition - Page 6

fish2plus2 · #51 10-03-2006, 05:34 PM

[ 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/13072006/34...n-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 · #52 10-03-2006, 05:36 PM

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 · #53 10-03-2006, 05:59 PM

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 · #54 10-03-2006, 06:04 PM

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. · #55 10-03-2006, 06:17 PM

[ 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 · #56 10-03-2006, 06:24 PM

[ 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 · #57 10-03-2006, 06:26 PM

[ 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 · #58 10-03-2006, 06:33 PM

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 · #59 10-03-2006, 06:33 PM

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. · #60 10-03-2006, 07:25 PM

[ 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?