Online gambling "could" be used to launder money, Let's review this...

[MiltonFriedman]

One of the arguments cropping up in the legislative discussions and Congressional replies posted in this forum is the proposition that "Online gambling could be used to launder money". The issue will NOT go away, and needs to be reviewed and discussed with lawmakers.

1. Online gambling has not BEEN used to launder money, at least the FBI has never claimed to have evidence of use.

2.Yes, the BetUS and BetOnSports criminal cases talk about "laundering money" in the sense that the money bet is bet surreptiously by the players. That is the players' own money and the parties to the betting transaction know what is going on. There is no "terrorist or drug money laundering" going on in such cases.

3. Money laundering, in the sense that poker players disguise transactions by exchanging funds on one US friendly-site for funds elsewhere, is a fact, the volume of which is unknown.

4. Basically, online gambling offers only a "potential" for laundering money, just like the restaurant industry, ebay auctions, paypal, and other entities. None of these other entities or businesses are outlawed because of a "potential" for criminal abuse.

4. For example, Rudy Guliani made his early mark in New York as a prosecutor of drug dealers using the widespread NY pizza industry to facilitate sales and distribution. Did anyone suggest that pizza restaurants be outlawed as a result ? (Would Rudi be a candidate for elected office today if he had done so after becoming Mayor ?)

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]

4. Basically, online gambling offers only a "potential" for laundering money, just like the restaurant industry, ebay auctions, paypal, and other entities. None of these other entities or businesses are outlawed because of a "potential" for criminal abuse.

4. For example, Rudy Guliani made his early mark in New York as a prosecutor of drug dealers using the widespread NY pizza industry to facilitate sales and distribution. Did anyone suggest that pizza restaurants be outlawed as a result ? (Would Rudi be a candidate for elected office today if he had done so after becoming Mayor ?)

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be easy for Terrorists to transfer money using fake (or even real) Ebay transactions as a means to legetimize money transfers. Since it "could" happen Ebay should be shut down.

I think we should take it one step further just to be safe and eliminate all Italian restaurants not just pizza parlors.

Also, males are responsible for over 90% of violent crimes, therefore eliminated men would reduce violent crime by over 90%.

[Grasshopp3r]

Are there any common elements that have been identified with terrorists? It surprises me, but most terrorists are highly educated, therefore, we should outlaw universities.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any common elements that have been identified with terrorists? It surprises me, but most terrorists are highly educated, therefore, we should outlaw universities.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Basically, online gambling offers only a "potential" for laundering money, just like the restaurant industry, ebay auctions, paypal, and other entities. None of these other entities or businesses are outlawed because of a "potential" for criminal abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

The money laundering argument they use is so weak. I guess we should just shut down every business, pack up and go home since almost every business could be used for money laundering...

[CPOSteve]

Milton,

If I had to guess, I would say that the argument would go something like this. E-Bay, PayPal and the local pizza joint are all American businesses. This makes their finances more transparent than those of an off-shore gambling business. Ergo, it would be easier to launder money through the latter than the former.

That being said, I don't buy it. I also don't think we're going to be able to prove the negative. Lastly, and most importantly, it appears to be political sleight of hand. The argument that "gambling is a sin" only appeals to a small slice of the population. Same for the "we have to keep people from harming themselves." But if you float terrorism out there, well everybody's against that.

The reason why it works is simple, the issue of on-line gambling isn't important enough for most people to worry about. The vast majority of the population (and Congressmen I would wager) really don't know the issues because they can't be bothered enough to learn. When the audience is disinterested then you can get away with a red herring argument like this one, and "convince" the people who aren't paying attention.

[Uglyowl]

Our opponents began with the terrorist theme so here goes. After 09/11 everyone in the country knew that planes could be used to kill people and attack America. Millions of people though used planes to get from point A to point B and nothing else. Because this potential existed they didn't shut down the airline industry, but made it safer and harder to use it for harmful purposes.

With that being said, if Congress is concerned about that, then online gambling should be monitored by them and made safer and harder for it to be used for harmful purposes, it is that simple.

Further, if it is illegal/legal in the U.S., it effects the potential for online gambling to be used for these purposes zero! Online gambling companies will still exist outside the U.S. regardless.

[Unabridged]

gambling sites could do a large amount of money laundering. some people on the inside of the site could easily run a large operation, all they would have to do is approve a few player-to-player transactions, not investigate some chip dumping, and/or approve a few cashouts.

businesses with lots of volume of money going in and out are perfect for this. add to the fact they are already considered gray area by a lot of countries, that they operate transnationally with little oversite, and that laundering money wouldn't hurt affect their business at all(in fact it would generate rake and it would increase volume & number of players i.e. things that look good to shareholders).

id be surprised if money laundering involving employees hasnt occured at every site. even if employees were caught and fired, nothing would every be said about it and no one prosecuted because the site would never want that to get out. i wouldnt even be surprised if a few sites had money laundering being facilitated by high up executives/owners.

[MiltonFriedman]

"gambling sites could do a large amount of money laundering..."

"id be surprised if money laundering involving employees hasnt occured at every site..."

"i wouldnt even be surprised if a few sites had money laundering being facilitated by high up executives/owners."

Maybe, but there is zero evidence that this has happened.

Keep in mind that the gaming company funds need to move through the same banking system, especially in the US, which has in place "Know-your-customer" rules.

I would be surprised if it HAS, because there are many easier ways to DIRECTLY dump money, through places like ebay for example, which "legitimize" transactions. A gambling site takes in deposits and has to act as a financial intermediary. By contrast, ebay would provide a "legitimate" cover for a direct transfer of funds.

That you would be "surprised" if something collateral hadn't happened is no basis for prohibiting an underlying activity, rather than regulating it or bringing it onshore.

Not only is there no fire, there is no smoke.

[Unabridged]

i dont want to prohibit anything. i dont think the governments should be tracking our money.

how much does someone on a pokersite fraud team make a year? <50k? i have no idea, but im sure its <$100k even at a large site. when you have someone making so little compared to the money they are controlling, someone will be taking advantage.

there would be no smoke at all, because the site would never let anything get out for fear of getting invesitgated or losing business. im sure major sites have caught employees looking at holecards and trying to profit from it. again you would never hear anything about it. because even the best possible story (we caught the guy, returned monies, and sent him to prison) is very bad news for them.