Brits won't fight US over extradition

[Wynton]

An article in today's NY Times (link is http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/bu...?ref=business) discussing the turmoil caused by the new law - states at one point:

"The British government has been sharply critical of the United States law. United States lawmakers said they passed the ban out of concern that the sites would increase gambling addiction and social problems.

“The industry has been very hard hit by the U.S. ban,” said Tessa Jowell, Britain’s culture minister, during a news conference on Tuesday at the Ascot Racecourse, where she met with delegates from 30 other countries to discuss the subject. The United States was invited but did not send a representative."

But later the article adds:

"While lobbying for regulation rather than prohibition of the industry, British officials said on Tuesday that they would not stand in the way of United States calls to extradite British citizens or residents. A draft communiqué from the conference said online gambling should not be allowed to become a source of crime or be used to finance criminality, that it should be fair to consumers and that children and problem gamblers should be protected."

I don't understand this posture. C'mon, Brits: fight us, please!

[Pog0]

Does this mean that Britain will arrest their citizens and send them to the US if the US requests it?

[Phil123]

It would still have to go to court and unless the offence is a crime in both countries which it isn't then the judge would simply throw it out.

[JOHNY CA$H]

I don't think this really changes anything.

[demon102]

Man y do our lawmakers gotta be such donks?

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that Britain will arrest their citizens and send them to the US if the US requests it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No - it means that journos just took the Reuters feed instead of looking at what the minister said. He was asked about extradition at the international conference on online gambling regulation and what he said was "People have to abide by the laws of particular countries," he said. "We will not acknowledge people who operate illegally."

He did not answer the question asked. What he said was that those registered in the UK would not be able to accept bets/deposits where those bets/deposits are illegal - ie the US. He did not say anything about extradition possibly as he is unlikely to know much about it being the Sports minister not the Attorney General.

To be extradited it has to be a crime in both jurisdictions. Nobody is going to be extradited from the UK for taking a bet from the US - and I'm prepared to put money on that with any US citizen who cares to test how sure I am.

[Wynton]

I don't expect to see the UK extradite anyone, really. But I have been somewhat dismayed that the UK does not seem to be objecting to the law more vigorously.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that Britain will arrest their citizens and send them to the US if the US requests it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No - it means that journos just took the Reuters feed instead of looking at what the minister said. He was asked about extradition at the international conference on online gambling regulation and what he said was "People have to abide by the laws of particular countries," he said. "We will not acknowledge people who operate illegally."

He did not answer the question asked. What he said was that those registered in the UK would not be able to accept bets/deposits where those bets/deposits are illegal - ie the US. He did not say anything about extradition possibly as he is unlikely to know much about it being the Sports minister not the Attorney General.

To be extradited it has to be a crime in both jurisdictions. Nobody is going to be extradited from the UK for taking a bet from the US - and I'm prepared to put money on that with any US citizen who cares to test how sure I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it depends, I think, on how narrowly you are wording your bet. Will somebody be extradited from the UK solelyfor taking a bet from a US bettor? probably not, but the DOJ simply has to throw in a tax evasion charge, along with all the betting charges in order to be able to get extradition.

And here's the fun kicker, essentially, the US doesn't have to provide any evidence of the tax evasion to get the extradition.

Once on US soil, of course, the US can proceed with the taking illegal bets charges under the new federal gambling act (I forget the damn acronym)


Edit: Before the nits jump on me, technically, the US is not supposed to prosecute on any charges except the ones on which a suspect is extradited. It is not clear to me that the US abides by this rule, however.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It would still have to go to court and unless the offence is a crime in both countries which it isn't then the judge would simply throw it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardly accurate, take for instance an age of consent issue. Very few laws in GB are identical to the US versions, according to you no one would ever be extradited.

[gonebroke]

The United Kingdom wants to become the online gambling capital of the world. They want the major players like PartyGaming, 888 Holdings PLC, Sportingbet PLC, etc. to physically move their servers and headquarters from their current location to the UK. To entice these companies to move to the UK, they are saying they will not stop extradition of any operator in the UK operating illegally by servicing Americans. This will make it impossible for PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker and all the other sites that service Americans to move to the UK.

The bottomline is, the public companies are losing their poker players because the pool of players is higher at the privately owned sites because they service Americans. If the privately owned sites are labelled as rogue or black market operators by the UK and the rest of Europe, that helps the publicly traded companies because Europeans will be encouraged to play at those public companies and not the privately owned ones.