Bet on Sports Pleads Guilty to Racketeering

[Russ Fox]

"By pleading guilty to the racketeering conspiracy charge, the British-based company admitted that it operated an illegal gambling business, laundered money and committed mail and wire fraud, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway said in a statement."

More here

-- Russ Fox

[JPFisher55]

So the govt. put a legitimate business (in its jurisdiction) out of business and cost US citizens a lot of money. Great accomplishment.

[TheEngineer]

This should be required reading for anyone who thinks the status quo will be good for online poker.

[PBJaxx]

wow

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
This should be required reading for anyone who thinks the status quo will be good for online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sports betting and poker are two different animals at the moment. As far as poker goes, I don't think anything changes.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
This should be required reading for anyone who thinks the status quo will be good for online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


1) sports betting not poker
+
2) investigations like this and neteller started way before IUGEA
+
3) public company

= different than privately held online poker companies


I am not meaning to say there is zero transference and risk to the "status quo", but just that the focus has always primarily been on sports betting wrt The Wire Act. And to note as well, that since those sports betting companies were so clearly doing something illegal pre-IUGEA, they didn't take steps that many of the sites and funding vehicles for same have to avoid money laundering charges by getting enough information on players to meet "know your customer" regulations.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This should be required reading for anyone who thinks the status quo will be good for online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sports betting and poker are two different animals at the moment. As far as poker goes, I don't think anything changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, for the moment. However, besides the Wire Act, BETonSPORTS admitted to a "pattern of racketeering acts, including mail and wire fraud, operating an illegal gambling business and money-laundering," U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway said in a statement.

Online poker is legal. My point is that the DOJ consists of a bunch of out of control zealots who could probably dream up plenty of financial crimes, especially given the many laws they've passed with regards to drugs and terrorism.

My point is that we shouldn't be complacent, IMO.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This should be required reading for anyone who thinks the status quo will be good for online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


1) sports betting not poker
+
2) investigations like this and neteller started way before IUGEA
+
3) public company

= different than privately held online poker companies


I am not meaning to say there is zero transference and risk to the "status quo", but just that the focus has always primarily been on sports betting wrt The Wire Act. And to note as well, that since those sports betting companies were so clearly doing something illegal pre-IUGEA, they didn't take steps that many of the sites and funding vehicles for same have to avoid money laundering charges by getting enough information on players to meet "know your customer" regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DOJ is starting with sports betting. It's clearly illegal under the Wire Act, and they can get easy convictions and pleas as a result. Unfortunately, they've not accepted the fact that poker is legal. I've read pretty much everything on the DOJ website and it's pretty clear that they feel all online gambling is a major crime.

I'm not trying to be alarmist. Rather, I simply encourage everyone to read about the resolve of the DOJ to see the disconnect between these guys and the rest of America. After all, many of their attorneys graduated from Pat Robertson's law school, and they're treating the DOJ like an extension of the Christian Coalition.

[Skallagrim]

This is not an alarm, but it is a warning. The DOJ does have its fair share of incompetent politcal appointees (a hallmark of the Bush administration, something you have to admit whether right, left or in between). But most of the DOJ is made up of career attorneys who are generally far better than competent.

The political guys set the agenda and the career guys build the cases.

The career guys knew that going after the biggest form of online "gambling," namely poker, could be a tough legal battle. So when told to make onliine gambling cases by the Bush appointees, they built pretty much open and shut ones on sportsbetting.

What happens when they run out of sportsbetting cases?

If this same crowd of political appointees remain to give the orders, it is only a matter of time before the DOJ takes on poker.

We have to be prepared to defend online poker in Court, and, as even Sen. Kyl (the [censored]) said, a large part of that is the skill vs. chance argument.

If we are lucky, and augment our luck by our own political action (like writing your reps and joining the PPA - or some other group if you insist) we may be able to ride out the next 18 months before a new administration with a new agenda. The current lot still have a lot of voter fraud and porn cases, and the seemingly endless congressional investigations, to keep them busy.

Hopefully we get a new sensible administration that undestands the WTO implications and the praticality of a regulated approach (dream on fellow libertarians for a hands off approach).

Or we get another anti-gambling crusader, then only the courts can protect us and then, at best, in only most states. And thats far from a sure thing.

So dont stop writing those letters, please.

Skallagrim

PS - remember that famous quote from a german minister of the 1930s: "First they came for the Jews, but I wasnt a Jew...."

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not an alarm, but it is a warning. The DOJ does have its fair share of incompetent politcal appointees (a hallmark of the Bush administration, something you have to admit whether right, left or in between). But most of the DOJ is made up of career attorneys who are generally far better than competent.

The political guys set the agenda and the career guys build the cases.

The career guys knew that going after the biggest form of online "gambling," namely poker, could be a tough legal battle. So when told to make onliine gambling cases by the Bush appointees, they built pretty much open and shut ones on sportsbetting.

What happens when they run out of sportsbetting cases?

If this same crowd of political appointees remain to give the orders, it is only a matter of time before the DOJ takes on poker.

We have to be prepared to defend online poker in Court, and, as even Sen. Kyl (the [censored]) said, a large part of that is the skill vs. chance argument.

If we are lucky, and augment our luck by our own political action (like writing your reps and joining the PPA - or some other group if you insist) we may be able to ride out the next 18 months before a new administration with a new agenda. The current lot still have a lot of voter fraud and porn cases, and the seemingly endless congressional investigations, to keep them busy.

Hopefully we get a new sensible administration that undestands the WTO implications and the praticality of a regulated approach (dream on fellow libertarians for a hands off approach).

Or we get another anti-gambling crusader, then only the courts can protect us and then, at best, in only most states. And thats far from a sure thing.

So dont stop writing those letters, please.

Skallagrim

PS - remember that famous quote from a german minister of the 1930s: "First they came for the Jews, but I wasnt a Jew...."

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Sometimes I'm amazed how this site can take something in our favor, like IGREA, determine its most pessimistic outcome, then treat that as likely. Likewise, we can take clearer-than-clear negatives, determine the most optimistic outcome, then treat that as likely. While we should understand all possible outcomes, the discouraging thing is that this approach means many end up not fighting back. After all, why fight for poker regulation that will "tax it out of existence" when "poker is legal already"? Hopefully today's action will help to clear up any remaining anbiguity over the intentions of the DOJ.

I was starting to get discouraged, and Mason's post to me (combined with the one poster's "QFT...self-righteous posts...blah blah" reply) had me ready to do something else. However, I'm far too passionate about our freedoms to let our enemies take our rights from us. Also, I heard back from Mike Bolcerek today (yes, he's been reading our posts...no, he didn't think I work here [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] ). I'll let you all know more as we talk further. For now, I'll keep trying to cajole everyone into working to be heard by Washington.