Neteller Arrests

[MiltonFriedman]

Why would the charges be dropped if they are based upon the Wire Act ?

Keep in mind that sports bookies in the US have routinely steered business offshore, BetOnSports accepted Neteller and took phone bets .... What "immunity" would you ascribe to Neteller for facilitating the transfer of funds to place illegal phone betting accounts ?

I think the Wire Act, if that is the charge, could stick.

[MiltonFriedman]

Amen

[MiltonFriedman]

Thanks Nate ..... that statement is a bit lacking on what Federal Statutes were involved though.

[JPFisher55]

Milton that is a good point. If Neteller assists in funding a sports betting site and then the gambler uses a telephone line to place the bet, then the Wire Act would apply regardless of the WTO case. Why do the sports betting websites accept bets by telephone line? This is an obvious violation of the Wire Act.
However, the facts in the complaint only involved bets taken over the Internet. So I did not think that the case involved sports bets by telephone line. Maybe the indictment will include both methods. The way that bets are placed will make a difference. Neteller may have to stop servicing internet sport sites that accept bets by telephone.
Still any ruling that the WTO case restricts enforceability of the Wire Act against internet betting helps us internet poker players.

[MiltonFriedman]

From gambling911link:

a. On or about August 12, 2006, a cooperating
witness (the “CW”), who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to open an account on Neteller.com (the “Neteller Account”), and the CW electronically transferred $400 from a bank account in Miami, Florida, into the Neteller Account. On or about August 22, 2006, the CW, who at the time was located in Miami,Florida, used a computer to open a wagering account with an online
gambling business based in Antigua (“Online Gambling Business #1), by electronically transferring $400 from the Neteller Account to Online Gambling Business #1. On or about August 24, 2006, the CW,who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to access Online Gambling Business #1's website, and the CW then
wagered $250 on a National Football League (“NFL”) football game and won approximately $200. On or about September 7, 2006, the CW, who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to access Online Gambling Business #1's website, and the CW then wagered $250 on an NFL football game and lost $250."

This is pre-UIGEA, which kind of raises the issue of why that statute was ever "needed" ?

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate, I do not agree with you. IMO, federal law, regulations or procedures cannot be enforced to the extent that they violate an international treaty like GATT or the Geneva Convention. See the recent Gitmo case ruling that President Bush's procedure to try Gitmo detainees and enabling legislation must conform to the Geneva Convention.
David Carruthers attorneys have already filed a motion to dismiss the case against him based on the WTO case. However, that case mostly involves bets taken by telephone line.
This new "Neteller" case only involves sports bets taken by Internet, which the WTO has ruled cannot be made unlawful by US law. How is the US going to claim compliance with the WTO decision? I think that the WTO case ruling that the Wire Act cannot be applied to Internet gambling will be the major issue in this new Neteller case. What other defense is available? The facts are true as stated. So the issue must be the criminality of the conduct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not an expert on this stuff. I don't know if the WTO ruling actually means that the US violated one of the treaties that underly the WTO (such as GATT or GATS), or if the WTO process is more akin to something like arbitration.

I do think, though, that what happens to the actual proceeding is not terribly material. The intimidation effect this will have on the remaining US-facing companies in the sector (including, ultimately, US banks themselves) is enormous.

[JPFisher55]

The WTO ruling did hold that the US violated GATT by making some forms of internet gambling unlawful, but not all forms of internet gambling. I am pretty sure that the decision does not affect taking sports bets by telephone lines which violates the Wire Act.
I agree about the intimidation factor. Which is why I want to see a test case involving WTO ruling versus the Wire Act. This may be the case if it only involves bets taken by computer and not by telephone. But I wish that the DOJ would go after the owners, pro endorsers and directors of a poker internet site so that a real test case would be litigated. However, I think that the DOJ is too frightened of losing such a test case and their intimidation factor.
So they pick on sports betting sites and their affiliates etc. because they accept bets over the telephone as well as the internet. Maybe Neteller will just stop servicing sports betting sites that accept bets by telephone lines.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
So they pick on sports betting sites and their affiliates etc. because they accept bets over the telephone as well as the internet. Maybe Neteller will just stop servicing sports betting sites that accept bets by telephone lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you really imagine Neteller *not* leaving? They already had one foot and four toes out the door before.

[JPFisher55]

You are probably right based on past events. You would think that one of these so-called public companies will defend their business. If Neteller leaves the entire US market, then they can close their doors. Another private e-wallet will take their place soon.
Why not just leave the market segment that is violating the Wire Act by accepting bets over the telephone? But maybe these companies are not that smart. They have not been very smart so far; at least according to Ms. Shulman and Professor Rose.

[JPFisher55]

This article is interesting. http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/8117
Ms. Shulman seems to suggest that the WTO case included bets taken over the telephone. I didn't know that was the case. She does not comment on the new Neteller case. If she is correct, as she usually is, then this new case may be a test case on the WTO v. Wire Act and UIGEA.