U.S. Crackdown on internet gambling intensifies

July 18, 2006 8:58 AM

Foreign owner of internet gambling site arrested as he attempted to change planes in Dallas. The Department of Justice announced his indictment on 22 counts and caused stock prices to drop rapidly on publicly traded gambling issues. A cynic might suppose that the arrest was related to his outspoken role as a critic of the pending anti-gambling legislation. The proposed legislation is clarified on the Daily Show
posted by Lame_username (57 comments total)

Wow... that's exactly what I predicted would happen when I took my computer law course in university. And I only got a B on that exam! I demand a recount!
posted by antifuse at 9:06 AM on July 18, 2006

And the moral of the story is: Never change planes in America if America might have some real or imagined gripe against you.
posted by Artw at 9:21 AM on July 18, 2006

Yeah, that was pretty stupid. If you're running an company offshore because you're afraid you might be infringing on US law, it's probably a good idea to stay out of the US yourself.


Hopefully he can post bail and flee.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:25 AM on July 18, 2006

I find one of the great ironies that the US government spends so much time legislating against actions that might allow an individual to hurt themselves (gambling, helmets, drugs, etc.) but are so averse to legislation that prevents individuals from hurting others (weapons, vehicles, etc.)
posted by aubin at 9:26 AM on July 18, 2006

He would only have been extradited at the drop of a hat if he'd been in the UK. Just like the Nat West Three (who, say all the Americans...)
posted by A189Nut at 9:31 AM on July 18, 2006

government in action!
what a waste.

oh, and by the way- our ports are so insecure anyone can bring anything in.
posted by stevejensen at 9:32 AM on July 18, 2006

They have exceptions for Horse Racing and online lotteries. If they could just make an exception for online poker, I'd be happy. Come on, poker isn't really gambling!

Seriously though, what a pain in the ass. The truth is, I'm somewhat anti gambling, but I like to play poker online. If it's just the operators and not the players targeted I'm not too worried, but in Washington state any sort of gambling is now a felony, and there was one mefite thinking of moving to Oregon just to get around that (it was in an ask, which I couldn't find at the moment)

But why does the government have to ruin everything fun? What a pain in the ass.
posted by delmoi at 9:35 AM on July 18, 2006

Hopefully he can post bail and flee.

Which is exactly why they won't let him post bail. This guy defines 'flight risk' :P
posted by delmoi at 9:36 AM on July 18, 2006

Yeah, that was pretty stupid. If you're running an company offshore because you're afraid you might be infringing on US law, it's probably a good idea to stay out of the US yourself.

It might have been dumb, but this guy is not "running [his] company offshore because [he's] afraid [he] might be infringing on US law." BetOnSports is a prominent internet gambling company that is publicly traded in Britain. Carruthers is a UK citizen and legally runs a UK-based company with a UK-based website.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:41 AM on July 18, 2006

this is by far the most vindictive administration i've ever lived through.

also the most puritanical.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:45 AM on July 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

The lottery exemption is a clear demonstration that this is as much about pushing out the competition (using your monopoly on force) as anything else.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:00 AM on July 18, 2006

Carruthers wasn't arrested, though.

FTA: "The indictment alleges that Gary Kaplan started his gambling enterprise via operation of a sportsbook in New York City in the early 1990s. After Kaplan was arrested on New York state gambling charges in May 1993, Kaplan moved his betting operation to Florida and eventually offshore to Costa Rica. According to the indictment, BetonSports.com, the most visible outgrowth of Kaplan’s sports bookmaking enterprise, misleadingly advertised itself as the “World’s Largest Legal and Licensed Sportsbook.” The indictment also alleges that Kaplan failed to pay federal wagering excise taxes on more than $3.3 billion in wagers taken from the United States and seeks forfeiture of $4.5 billion from Kaplan and his co-defendants, as well as various properties.

The indictment alleges that Gary Kaplan and Norman Steinberg, as the owners and operators of Millennium Sportsbook, Gibraltar Sportsbook, and North American Sports Association, took or caused their employees to take bets from undercover federal agents in St. Louis who used undercover identities to open wagering accounts. The indictment also alleges that Kaplan and Mobile Promotions illegally transported equipment used to place bets and transmit wagering information across state lines and that DME Global Marketing and Fulfillment shipped equipment to Costa Rica from Florida for BetonSports.com."

So it kind of sounds like he's been busted for tax evasion before and just kept on going at it.
posted by drstein at 10:00 AM on July 18, 2006

Whoops. My bad. I read the indictment before the reuters.co.uk article (took forever to load) so I didn't see this: "LONDON (Reuters) - David Carruthers, chief executive of online gaming group BETonSPORTS, has been detained by U.S. authorities while changing planes, the company said on Monday, sending the shares down more than 20 percent."
posted by drstein at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2006

monju_bosatsu writes "BetOnSports is a prominent internet gambling company that is publicly traded in Britain. Carruthers is a UK citizen and legally runs a UK-based company with a UK-based website."

It's traded on the London stock exchange, with nominal headquarters in London, but it's run out of San Jose, Costa Rica, with additional infrastructure in Antigua and Barbuda....
posted by mr_roboto at 10:17 AM on July 18, 2006

I don't think the government is as concerned about the morality of gambling as they are about protecting their turf. Lots of states make a great deal of money by running the only legal gambling franchises- and like mobsters, they do not like competition.
posted by Jatayu das at 10:20 AM on July 18, 2006

Jatayu das has it right - the law in Washington was passed with the strong backing of the Indian tribes who run reservation based casinos.
posted by bashos_frog at 10:28 AM on July 18, 2006

I'm confused. So if you do something in a foreign country where that act is legal, but the act is illegal in the US, the Americans are going to try to put you away?

Or is it because they bought heir computers in the US? Does this mean that if I buy a computer at Price Club and bring it back across the border to Canada and then use the computer to share a bunch of music, I might get busted when I next visit my aunt in Seattle?

Or is it because they took bets from people in the US? Does this mean that if I sell Cuban goods to an American (perfectly legal up here) I can look forward to time in Club Fed instead of Disneyland?

No, wait, I already know the answer. So: fuck the American government and all who would defend it.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:34 AM on July 18, 2006

oh, and by the way- our ports are so insecure anyone can bring anything in.
posted by stevejensen at 12:32 PM EST on July 18 [+fave] [!]

And yet they don't bring everything in. No nukes or bombs so far...

What's funny is that if they actually secured the ports, they'd win the drug war to. No more coke, heroin, etc. and probably a lot less pot.

Tey guys are busted because they advertise to Americans and encourage americans to use their service, which happens to be illegal in america.

If you (a canadian?) see Cuban goods to an American in Canada you didn't break any US laws. If you advertised to Americans in the US through email or the web, then yes, you did break a U.S. law and if you came to the states they could arrest you.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:45 AM on July 18, 2006

Pastabagel: And yet they don't bring everything in. No nukes or bombs so far...

Not to sound alarmist, but I'm assuming that you're assuming that this is true, merely by the fact that no one has used said munitions. Unfortunately, one could more easily assume that there's a stockpiling action taking place, instead of just using the one or two bombs you got in yesterday's shipment.
posted by thanotopsis at 10:50 AM on July 18, 2006

So if you do something in a foreign country where that act is legal, but the act is illegal in the US, the Americans are going to try to put you away?

IANAL, but I believe that the Justice Department's position is that because bets were accepted from US citizens located in the US at the time they placed the wager that the transactions were covered under US law.

If they could just make an exception for online poker, I'd be happy.

That is the source of my interest in the subject as well. Unfortunately, on-line poker is very much a target of the proposed legislation, so an exception is exceedingly unlikely.
posted by Lame_username at 10:51 AM on July 18, 2006

Pastabagel, if I sell a Cuban cigar to an American who is using my website which is wholly based in Canada (server, processing system etc), and ship the cigar to the U.S., who is breaking the law? The vendor for selling the cigar, or the purchaser for buying it?

Whose laws apply to whose countries? That's the basic question here. Some countries have laws that apply to their citizens even outside the country's boundaries (for instance the laws against child sex tourism in the U.K.), but to arrest a foreign citizen who runs a company which is legal in all its domicile jurisdictions is very questionable.

The DoJ is already very active in trying to stop advertising of online gambling services, which is why the online gambling services don't advertise any more; they advertise their "learning sites" instead, where no money changes hands. Yes, it's all a big game, but if the DoJ doesn't like the laws, they should be lobbying Congress and the Senate to change them. Good luck with that.
posted by lowlife at 10:53 AM on July 18, 2006

If you (a canadian?) see Cuban goods to an American in Canada you didn't break any US laws.

I kinda doubt that this is true, given the result of this fiasco.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:53 AM on July 18, 2006

but to arrest a foreign citizen who runs a company which is legal in all its domicile jurisdictions is very questionable.

They're not arresting him for what he does at home but for what he does in America, i.e. actively promote and provide his illegal-in-America service to Americans in America. As top-level management he can only blame himself either for ignorance of a major market's legal situation vis a vis his service or blame himself for being dumb enough to put himself in an arrest-able position. I'm guessing the latter, it's called hubris... or maybe he just likes gambling?
posted by scheptech at 11:07 AM on July 18, 2006

In principle, given the NatWest 3 and this, I would be very upset with my government if I were a British citizen. In this specific case, things seem a little less straightforward. From The Economist (paid registration required):

Legal opinion is divided over the extent to which the 1961 Wire Act, a statute designed to stop gambling over the phone, can be applied to betting over the internet. In this case, that may not matter. BetonSports—unlike most of its rivals—takes wagers both online and, crucially, over the phone.
posted by yerfatma at 11:49 AM on July 18, 2006

If I am considered a felon for playing texas hold 'em on the internet, for money, then maybe I really don't belong in this country.

Christ.
posted by Raoul.Duke at 12:01 PM on July 18, 2006

If I am considered a felon for playing texas hold 'em on the internet, for money, then maybe I really don't belong in this country.

Christ.
posted by Raoul.Duke at 3:01 PM EST on July 18 [+fave] [!]

In answer to this and the question above about selling cigars on a website, the key is the promotion or inducement of americans, said promotion or inducement taking place in the United states.

I don't know precisely whether playing online poker is as illegal as running a poker website, but in any case, you are still supposed to pay taxes on any gambling winnings. So regardless of web gambling, there's a tax issue.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:15 PM on July 18, 2006

Artw writes "Never change planes in America if America might have some real or imagined gripe against you."

Standard operating procedure since they started deporting Canadians to Syria.
posted by Mitheral at 12:27 PM on July 18, 2006

lowlife writes "The DoJ is already very active in trying to stop advertising of online gambling services, which is why the online gambling services don't advertise any more; they advertise their 'learning sites' instead, where no money changes hands."

That's the money vector! I couldn't figure out how all those sites advertising on TV to learn poker were making money.
posted by Mitheral at 12:30 PM on July 18, 2006

As much as I dislike adding more government oversight on our lives, I would much rather prefer a Gaming Commission-type role for the government as opposed to an anti-gambling enforcement role.

The added income in taxes would more than pay for the service, and I wouldn't have to worry as much that the poker site's server is biased towards dumb, loose players (who drive up the pot, and rake, values). Anyone who has played online knows that long-shot out-draws happen more often than statistics dictate.
posted by wabashbdw at 12:47 PM on July 18, 2006

"So if you do something in a foreign country where that act is legal, but the act is illegal in the US, the Americans are going to try to put you away?"

Oh yes. this all stinks of this poor guy. Very similar circumstances... except that he had never been trouble in the US before, and he wasn't involved in shady stuff like offshore gambling.
posted by drstein at 1:31 PM on July 18, 2006

No, wait, I already know the answer. So: fuck the American government and all who would defend it.

But you already said the answer: Or is it because they took bets from people in the US?

They do business in the U.S. and as such are subject to U.S. law. If they don't like it, they don't have to do business in the U.S.

Would you support me if I made a web site (hosted in the U.S., of course) that published the names and photos of anyone charged under the Young Offenders Act with intent that it would be viewed primarily by Canadians, and then got arrested when I set foot in Canada?
posted by oaf at 1:55 PM on July 18, 2006

I don't know precisely whether playing online poker is as illegal as running a poker website

Traditionally, this would be a subject of state law. There are some states where it is clearly legal, at least one state where it is clearly a crime (Washington), and most states where the legal status is unclear. If you are interested in more background, Professor Nelson Rose's website is the best summary of gambling law on-line.
posted by Lame_username at 1:58 PM on July 18, 2006

delmoi, I'm guessing you were sort of kidding when you said poker isn't really gambling - obviously it is, but I get the idea - it being a skill game does make a difference in some ways. It is an equally valid target for gambling opponents, though, because it has the same appeal as blackjack, slots, sports betting, etc for unskilled players to come and lose all of their money. I know this because I've played internet poker. I'm not saying gambling opponents are right, wrong, or whatever - just a few facts.

And pastabagel, no one is really sure right now whether playing poker online is illegal. If the bill that recently passed the house makes it through the senate (it probably won't, from what I've heard), then everyone will be sure - it will be. However, the only thing making it illegal now is the Wire Act, and opinions differ on whether or not that applies to internet poker - no jurisdiction has (to my knowledge) ever tried to prosecute anyone, so it remains untested. I'm specifically and only talking about internet poker here, not any other forms of online or offline gambling, including sports bets. The tax issue, however, is easily resolved. There is a line on the 1040 for gambling winnings, and it doesn't ask if you won them on the internet or not - just put them there.
posted by pinespree at 2:09 PM on July 18, 2006

They do business in the U.S. and as such are subject to U.S. law.

Yes, obviously you and your country's leadership think that this is true, but it is obviously preposterous.

Let's imagine this scenario: a plane makes an emergency landing in Tehran. On this plane are a variety of famous American artists: musicians, painters, actors, and the like. A dozen are taken off the plane, tried and executed because their works are viewed as ungodly and blasphemous. They have committed no crime on Iranian soil, but their works have been (illegally) viewed or heard in Iran. I guarantee that there would be war as a result.

Would you support me if I made a web site (hosted in the U.S., of course) that published the names and photos of anyone charged under the Young Offenders Act with intent that it would be viewed primarily by Canadians, and then got arrested when I set foot in Canada?

Do whatever you like. You would not be arrested for it when you set foot in Canada, because we're a civilized fucking nation who understands that sovereignty ends at ehe border. People release that info all the time, and they even market their newspapers, websites, and TV channels to Canadian sudiences.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:13 PM on July 18, 2006

Yes, obviously you and your country's leadership think that this is true, but it is obviously preposterous.

Why? They're doing business in the U.S., with U.S. citizens. How does the U.S. not have the right to regulate that? What a silly claim.

They have committed no crime on Iranian soil, but their works have been (illegally) viewed or heard in Iran.

This is where your analogy breaks down. The online gambling company is actively doing business in the U.S. If the artists in question were directly marketing to Iranian citizens in Iran, and taking their money over the Internet and sending them blasphemous goods in violation of Iranian law, then you'd have a good analogy. But then they'd also be able to be arrested legitimately.
posted by oaf at 2:22 PM on July 18, 2006

I wonder how this discussion fares when compared to the vitriol expressed when Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, and others are forced to obey the laws of a country with whom we don't agree.
posted by FormlessOne at 3:14 PM on July 18, 2006

Why? They're doing business in the U.S., with U.S. citizens. How does the U.S. not have the right to regulate that?

The US has every right to regulate its own citizens, not the citizens of any other nation, unless the citizen is in that nation at the time. Whether a US citizen is involved is absolutely irrelevant. You can prosecute your own people, not mine.

There was worldwide outrage when the US Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to kidnap foreign nationals to be tried in the US. You can call an act legal all you like; it doesn't make it justifiable.

This is where your analogy breaks down.

No, it doesn't. But let's look at your own analogy:

But then they'd also be able to be arrested legitimately.

No, they would not. It would result in war, I guarantee.

I am absolutely astonished at the idea that you think that if I sell a box of old Playboys to a guy in Iran over the Internet that it is justifiable for Iran to execute me should I later set foot in that country.

If I sell a box of Cuban cigars to someone in New York, or mail a dildo to someone in Alabama, or have steamy phone sex with someone in tennessee to whom I am not married, or break the copy-protection on a PDF written in California and then send it to someone in Vegas -- all acts which are perfectly legal in Canada but illegal in the States (or at least in some states) -- you think that the US should have the right to prosecute me if I cross the border?

Seriously?

That's mind-boggling and indefensible. I think, in fact, that I will have to let you have the last word. I don't think it is possible to debate you.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:17 PM on July 18, 2006

You can prosecute your own people, not mine.

Except when your people are conducting business in my country, which has the right to control what goes on within its own borders.
posted by oaf at 3:23 PM on July 18, 2006

Online gambling, like those low lifes that spam my mail and my blogs all the time?

Let him fry.
posted by cardoso at 3:25 PM on July 18, 2006

solid-one-love, are you really being so obtuse as to deny that an international business transaction takes place at least partially within the U.S.? And if so, are you then saying that the U.S. cannot regulate it?
posted by oaf at 3:25 PM on July 18, 2006

Except when your people are conducting business in my country, which has the right to control what goes on within its own borders.

Except that I'm not in your fucking borders, dumbshit. If you can't get my country to extradite me, you can found sand.

I'm done with you. Hell, you're done with you. The smell of stupid around you is so overwhelming I would recommend cutting off your own head to escape.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:26 PM on July 18, 2006

Except that I'm not in your fucking borders, dumbshit.

Part of your transaction is, and that can be regulated. Is the Canadian educational system in that much trouble?
posted by oaf at 3:31 PM on July 18, 2006

Let me explain it in terms you can understand, perhaps: in order to get money from within the U.S., you must conduct a transaction that takes place in the U.S.
posted by oaf at 3:33 PM on July 18, 2006

Pastabagel wrote: I don't know precisely whether playing online poker is as illegal as running a poker website, but in any case, you are still supposed to pay taxes on any gambling winnings. So regardless of web gambling, there's a tax issue.

Speaking as someone who plays online poker and who does report (and pay taxes) on that income, I wish the Fed. Gov't. would stay the hell out of my personal life. It seems to me that, apart from the RICO indictments that are specific to this case, the underlying issues with online gambling, and gambling in general, are issues of personal responsibility. "ZOMG!! People gamble online and get into trouble!!1! We must save the people from themselves before they 'click a mouse and lose their house'"!

Meanwhile, the amount of consumer debt in this country continues to rise to levels that were unthinkable even a generation ago. If the paternalistic minders that make the legislative agenda in this country really want to safeguard Americans against their baser impulses, they should outlaw consumer credit cards. A big chunk of my income comes from playing poker, but I don't personally know anyone who has ruined their life due to a gambling debt. I'm not doubting their existence, I just don't know anyone personally in this situation, even though I know a lot of gamblers. I do, however, have several friends and family members that have destroyed their financial well-being due to excessive use of consumer debt and credit cards. They never gambled, they just did their part to support the new economy by buying everything they needed online. Unfortunately, because buying online is so easy, they also bought a bunch of shit they shouldn't have. Should we introduce legislation to make online shopping a crime? Because a lot of Americans do it, at home, in their bathrobes ferchristsakes, with 24/7 availability, and some percentage of these folks really shouldn't be spending their money on Lands End clothing and power saws from the Amazon Tool Crib. Think of the children!

Seriously, though, the carveouts for horseracing and online lottos built in to HR4411 (the Goodlatte bill that recently passed the House), makes this attempt to outlaw certain types of online gambling even worse than a joke. Without getting into too many messy details, parimutuel wagering, the kind of wagering that takes place at horse and dog tracks, is one of the worst types of betting you can engage in, as a very large percentage of the total amount wagered, as much as 17%, is taken off the top as "juice" for profit and to cover expenses. And lotteries are even worse, with payouts of approx. 50% or less of the actual monies wagered. As it has often been stated, you are 300 times more likely to be struck by lightning than win a lottery. So explain to me again how horse racing and fucking lotteries are games that should be protected, but poker, a game which the even the US Tax Court recognizes as a game of skill, threatens our sense of morality?

Aarrrggg. This whole exercise reeks of hypocrisy. I'll take my answer off the air...
posted by mosk at 3:56 PM on July 18, 2006

solid-one-love writes "If you can't get my country to extradite me, you can found sand."

Unless you're stupid enough to change planes in an airport within my borders. In that case, there's no extradition necessary!

solid-one-love writes "If I sell a box of Cuban cigars to someone in New York, or mail a dildo to someone in Alabama, or have steamy phone sex with someone in tennessee to whom I am not married, or break the copy-protection on a PDF written in California and then send it to someone in Vegas -- all acts which are perfectly legal in Canada but illegal in the States (or at least in some states) -- you think that the US should have the right to prosecute me if I cross the border?

"Seriously?

"That's mind-boggling and indefensible."

Mind boggling and indefensible as it may be, that's how the law works. Seriously. You can't sell Nazi memorabilia in France over ebay, publications in Britain are subject to British libel law regardless of where they were authored, and you'd better not be shipping codeine into the US. If you want to do business within a country, you have to obey that country's laws (subject to specific exceptions carved out by international treaties).
posted by mr_roboto at 3:58 PM on July 18, 2006

Many of the charges being laid agains Mr. Carruthers and others involve actual gambling on-shore in the US. Like any large case, they have loaded as many other charges as they can think of in there (ie: calling buying computers in the US and taking them to Costa Rica "Transporting gambling paraphernalia across state lines".. that's unlikely to stick).

The people involved in this case have a somewhat dodgy history it seems, or so the industry buzz goes. They had on-shore illegal gambling operations in the past, and although they have moved offshore, the prosecution still feels they operate some on-shore activity as well. This is one thing that largely differentiates them from other offshore sports gambling operations. Most are very careful to ensure that no transactions are actually taking place within the US.

Half of the charges may be dropped fairly quickly... some of the more serious ones involving on-shore operations probably won't.

The prosecution is aiming for lots of negative publicity here, and it's working.. statements like "Undercover officers gambled online".. why do you have to be undercover over the internet? Seriously....

Further, if off-shore gambling operations were in such clear violation fo US law, a great many more people would be in prison, given the number of owners & CEOs who are in the US constantly for very open industry conferences and whatnot over the last decade.
posted by TravellingDen at 4:05 PM on July 18, 2006

That's the money vector! I couldn't figure out how all those sites advertising on TV to learn poker were making money.

Yep. Notice that the "learning" commercials are all for the .net sites. The pay sites for these companies are actually .com addresses. So the average person looks for Party Poker or Bodog or whatever, and they probably aren't gonna remember that .net was the suffix used in the commercial, so they go to partypoker.com instead, and boom, they're on the "real money" site. It's genius, really.

A lot of people play at these sites. Where's the outrage? Where are the riots in the streets? This legislation is taking food off their tables!
posted by First Post at 4:08 PM on July 18, 2006

Mind boggling and indefensible as it may be, that's how the law works. Seriously.

That's not how the law works. Subjective territoriality only applies to acts which are illegal in all countries involved. Where countries disagree, we have treaties, as you say. There's no treaty betwen the US and Britain that says "we get to do this to your citizens".

The examples you have given are not precise analogies; you cannot sell Nazi memorabilia in France over EBay because EBay forbids it. Publications in Britain are subject to British libel law regardless of where they are published, but if the Author is Japanese, he's safe, even if he visits Britain. And the shipment of codeine is governed by treaty; if I, as a Canadian, ship codeine to Seattle, even though possession of codeine is perfectly legal for me, my country will gladly extradite me.

In any case: no, it's still mind-boggling and indefensible, and it's not the way it works. Seriously. The US is, essentially, resting on the doctrine of ubiquity (in the legal sense, not the Christian sense) and that's really an in extremis fallback position. There's no way to defend holding this guy.

If you want to do business within a country, you have to obey that country's laws

This is a simplistic application of the word "within", and not well-defended.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:12 PM on July 18, 2006

you cannot sell Nazi memorabilia in France over EBay because EBay forbids it

You cannot sell Nazi memorabilita in France over anything because France forbids it. Unless you never plan on entering the EU ever again.
posted by oaf at 4:25 PM on July 18, 2006

This is a simplistic application of the word "within", and not well-defended.

Sorry, but the facts are that if any part of a transaction takes place within a country, that country may regulate it. Otherwise, you could claim that since neither country on the end of an international transaction could regulate it, you could do whatever you wanted. The answer is not that no one can regulate it. The answer is that someone can, but who can is up for debate.
posted by oaf at 4:27 PM on July 18, 2006

First Post writes: A lot of people play at these sites. Where's the outrage? Where are the riots in the streets? This legislation is taking food off their tables!

Actually, there is a lot of concern on the poker forums. Several online sites and industry folks have organized a lobbying group (The Poker Players' Alliance), but by far the greatest concern is that the looming threat posed by this legislation will scare away new players. The poker economy, such as it is, requires a constant influx of new blood...er, money, to operate. In a poker game, the money always moves to the left, because that's the way the action of the game moves around the table. in a cardroom or online site, the money always flows upwards, as people take their winnings from smaller games and take shots in larger ones. Without new people entering into the bottom tier of this ladder, the folks in the middle and top tiers are gonna going to lose their best income stream. Trust me, this is more terrifying than any on-the-books penalty imposed by the legislation, because this will definitely impact the bottom lines of the winning players.
posted by mosk at 4:30 PM on July 18, 2006

oaf writes "And if so, are you then saying that the U.S. cannot regulate it?"

Which is of course begs the question why they aren't arresting the guys playing, you know the guys living, earning and gambling on these games in the USA?
posted by Mitheral at 5:08 PM on July 18, 2006

Which is of course begs the question why they aren't arresting the guys playing, you know the guys living, earning and gambling on these games in the USA?

I'm guessing it's less work. Think about how effective suing individual file-sharers has been versus suing Napster in its original incarnation.
posted by oaf at 5:10 PM on July 18, 2006

solid-one-love : "you cannot sell Nazi memorabilia in France over EBay because EBay forbids it."

...and EBay forbids it because doing so would be a criminal act in France, even if the seller were outside of France, and EBay would be held criminally liable, even though EBay is not in France.

You know, generally when you provide examples when arguing a position, you're supposed to provide examples that support your position, not examples that support the opposing position.
posted by Bugbread at 6:44 PM on July 18, 2006

This whole thing weirds me out - I've asked a question on AskMeFi...
posted by runkelfinker at 3:27 AM on July 19, 2006

Another interesting angle to this story that seems to be missed here is that they have arrested executives from not only the gambling company, but from their suppliers as well. It's hard to tell how intertwined the other three companies are with BetOnSports (DME Global Marketing, Mobile Promotions, Inc., and Direct Mail Expertise, Inc.). DME Global was the only company I could find on the 'net, and they look like a legitimate direct mail marketing company. The DOJ press release states that "DME Global Marketing and Fulfillment shipped equipment to Costa Rica from Florida for BetonSports.com". Is that simply selling them a computer? Or did they do direct mail campaigns on behalf of BetOnSports?
posted by dripdripdrop at 6:58 AM on July 19, 2006

aubin - your comment is perfect for arguments I have with mouth breathers every day. I would like to use it.
posted by evilelvis at 9:53 AM on July 19, 2006