Why Partygaming, Sportingbet & 888 left?

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand how party and the other listed companies can be criminal enterprises since they have no presence in the US and presumably have not broken any laws in Gibraltar where they are based or anywhere else whose laws they have been subject to.

Just because the US decides something is illegal doesnt make it illegal everywhere else surely. They can legislate and prevent US banks etc from handling gambling transactions but surely they have no power whatsoever to legislate against companies not based on US territory.

Sorry if i seem retarded here but i just dont get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I'll have another go. You are right that they are not committing a criminal offence in the UK by taking money from a US customer but they are breaking the law in the US. As it is not an offence in the UK they cannot be extradited for this nor can they be prosecuted in the UK - they could only be prosecuted if they went to the US and were arrested.

The rules for the stock exchange listings apply though and they include not allowing companies to behave illegally wherever they operate. If you buy a London Stock Exchange share they have to be audited they have to report and they have to obey the law wherever they operate. This is important to the stock exchange as their regulations act as a protection for investors which in turn helps the company by giving them greater respectability. The stock exchange has these rules and if you want to list on the LSE you have to meet them. Crucially the owners need the listing to be able to buy or sell their shares. If they did not comply their shares could be suspended and the company delisted, this would be even worse for the shareholders than the large falls as a result of this legislation. The LSE just like New York or Tokyo will not let companies be listed if their business is illegal where they operate.

[adios]

You're asking for a rational explanation for a seemingly irrational action. I have no idea as to the viability of shareholder lawsuits in Great Britain. It's definitely a possibility that Party Gaming's actions precluded share holder lawsuits. I can guarantee that share holder lawsuits would result in the U.S. from a meltdown in price like the one Party Gaming had recently for U.S. companies. That's standard. Here's a link to a thread that discusses the rationale for Party's actions.

Reason for Pullout Thread

[MiltonFriedman]

You might also look for an article titled, "The Period". It describes this rhetorical device for structuring your writing so as to more effectively communicate.

Or, you could just stop doing speed.

[DespotInExile]

Public companies cannot take the risk of breaking the law. No Director would authorize management to do this, especially outside Directors. In theory, if Party were to knowingly break US law, members of the Board of Directors might find themselves under arrest if they travelled to the US. So Directors instruct management to take the conservative course and not run afoul of US law. Corporate Governance 101.

[aces_full]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand how party and the other listed companies can be criminal enterprises since they have no presence in the US and presumably have not broken any laws in Gibraltar where they are based or anywhere else whose laws they have been subject to.

Just because the US decides something is illegal doesnt make it illegal everywhere else surely. They can legislate and prevent US banks etc from handling gambling transactions but surely they have no power whatsoever to legislate against companies not based on US territory.

Sorry if i seem retarded here but i just dont get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I'll have another go. You are right that they are not committing a criminal offence in the UK by taking money from a US customer but they are breaking the law in the US. As it is not an offence in the UK they cannot be extradited for this nor can they be prosecuted in the UK - they could only be prosecuted if they went to the US and were arrested.

The rules for the stock exchange listings apply though and they include not allowing companies to behave illegally wherever they operate. If you buy a London Stock Exchange share they have to be audited they have to report and they have to obey the law wherever they operate. This is important to the stock exchange as their regulations act as a protection for investors which in turn helps the company by giving them greater respectability. The stock exchange has these rules and if you want to list on the LSE you have to meet them. Crucially the owners need the listing to be able to buy or sell their shares. If they did not comply their shares could be suspended and the company delisted, this would be even worse for the shareholders than the large falls as a result of this legislation. The LSE just like New York or Tokyo will not let companies be listed if their business is illegal where they operate.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here are a few more thoughts:

Prior to this bill, the only federal statue that might apply is the Wire Act, and that was ambiguous at best. Second, state laws are 100% ineffective when dealing with activites taking place across national borders. We already saw what a joke they are with the arrest of the online gaming exec who flew into New York. He was picked up on a Louisiana warrant, and New York refused to extradite him and sent him on his way back to London. This sent a clear message that the threat to offshore gaming execs was a joke-they were confident that they were safe in a legal grey area.

You are correct that these individuals are still 100% beyond the reach of US law. However, the new laws make it clear-accept a wager from a US citizen and you are breaking US law. The law also allows the US government to try these people in absentia-they can be convicted without ever being arrested. This means that from this day forth, there is no question. These people can never step foot in the United States again. They WILL be arrested, and the most likely WILL end up going to jail. There is no more grey area. Most of the sites that closed there doors are also gambling sites, not just poker sites, so it is very clear they are breaking the new law.

Flagrantly breaking laws is not good for any "legitimate business" (Thats why US companies move to third world shitholes where there are no laws lol). Look at it this way, if you had $10,000 to invest, would you want to invest in a company that is openly violating US laws? The stock would be very volatile. Every time an arrest was made, the gaming sector would drop just like it did when congress passed the bill. Lawsuits aside, I think Party and others would have a hard time finding investors if they openly defied this law.

I also think these sites have the delusional idea that if they publicly "play nice" that they will be welcomed with open arms on the day that the US decides to legalize online gambling. I don't see it happening, but if it does, you can bet that any site that openly defies this new law will never be allowed to operate a legally licensed gaming operation in the US.

As far as Stars,FT and others, I feel that they are deluding themselves that they are somehow exempt because poker is a game of skill. I think its only a matter of time before they change thier tune as well. Playing poker is gambling. The outcome of every poker hand is subject to chance. Yes, in the long run a skilled player will win money, but it is the element of chance that makes poker gambling, as opposed to other contests of skill. I also think these sites are kidding themselves because the federal government can not make online poker legal. This is because gaming is regulated at the state level.

Although I stated earlier that in reality these people were not subject to US law, now that these offences are federal, if our governemnt has a big enough hard on to stop online gambling, they could try to lean on the countries where these sites are run in order to force them to comply with US laws-good old America, world police.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that these individuals are still 100% beyond the reach of US law. However, the new laws make it clear-accept a wager from a US citizen and you are breaking US law. The law also allows the US government to try these people in absentia-they can be convicted without ever being arrested. This means that from this day forth, there is no question. These people can never step foot in the United States again. They WILL be arrested, and the most likely WILL end up going to jail. There is no more grey area. Most of the sites that closed there doors are also gambling sites, not just poker sites, so it is very clear they are breaking the new law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in the statute do you read this? From Nelson Rose's analysis:

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 Analyzed

“Unlawful Internet gambling” is defined as betting, receiving or transmitting a bet that is illegal under federal, state or tribal law. The Act says to ignore the intermediary computers and look to the place where the bet is made or received.

This does not completely solve the problem of Internet poker, or even Internet casinos. The Act does not expand the reach of the Wire Act, the main federal statute the DOJ uses against Internet gambling. Although the DOJ has taken the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling, courts have ruled that it is limited to bets on sports events and races. State anti-gambling statutes have similar weaknesses, including the presumption that they do not apply if part of the activity takes place overseas. This new statute requires that the Internet gambling be “unlawful.” But it would often be difficult to find a federal, state or tribal law that clearly made a specific Internet bet illegal.

Seems like there's still a grey area to me.