BetOnSports

[nomembername]

Not sure how many of you are big online gamblers but for those who haven't heard the U.S. has brought charges up against one of the top online gambling websites on the web which is based out in Costa Rica.

Of course with my luck, I use one of it's affiliates BosPoker and have had a few hundred dollars which I had in my account frozen since last week. It has just been reported that the CEO of BetOnSports, David Carruthers has been fired in an effort for them to distance themselves from anyone that has been arrested. I'm not sure how long this will go on, I know they are going through appeal processes and I have been told that the site will be up and running shortly but who knows. I don't really see what the US will get out of this?...they can not go after the actual betters and people will just move on to the next site. I JUST WANT MY MONEY TRANSFERED TO MY BANK ACCOUNT!!!!

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=betonsports&sa=N&tab=wn

[bullseye]

degenerate

[nomembername]

thanks for your imput

you'll be divorced in a year

[bullseye]

thanks for your imput

you'll be divorced in a year

[calebdead]

Yeah that was about a week ago. Right after that happened Calvin Ayre, CEO of BODOG Poker cancelled a conference in Vegas because he was scared of what would happen to him.

It's crazy with all of the HR477 shit recently passing the House and now waiting to be voted on in the Senate. It's going to be tough to make money transfers, even if you use Neteller. I know alot of online poker pros who are moving out of the country because of all this shit happening. I really hope this bill doesn't pass the Senate. btw, online poker is already banned in the state of Washington.

Whats funny is, BOS actually trades on the London Stock Exchange, and they're actually legitimate.

[lolahotass]

just go to be vegas boys!!!!

[hehateme]

why is it scary? the shit is illegal, no ifs ands or buts. i do it too, and just like buying drugs you are taking a risk everytime you log on.

[calebdead]

What are you talking about? It's not illegal. Who told you that? HR477 is a bill that, if passed in the Senate and approved by the President, will then make it illegal.

[hehateme]

The United States Federal Appeals Courts has ruled[2] that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across state lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[3] that the Wire Act \"\'in plain language\' does not prohibit Internet gambling \'on a game of chance.\'\"Some states have specific laws against online gambling of any kind. Also, owning an online gaming operation without proper licensing would be illegal, and no states are currently granting online gaming licenses.

[hehateme]

New York ConstitutionArticle ISec. 9. 1.No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings; except as hereinafter provided, no lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or any other kind of gambling, except lotteries operated by the state and the sale of lottery tickets in connection therewith as may be authorized and prescribed by the legislature, the net proceeds of which shall be applied exclusively to or in aid or support of education in this state as the legislature may prescribe, and except pari-mutuel betting on horse races as may be prescribed by the legislature and from which the state shall derive a reasonable revenue for the support of government, shall hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state; and the legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section.

[hehateme]

According to the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, Article 4, Section 7, Paragraph 2, \\"No gambling of any kind shall be authorized by the Legislature unless the specific kind, restrictions and control thereof have been heretofore submitted to, and authorized by a majority of the votes cast by, the people at a special election or shall hereafter be submitted to, and authorized by a majority of the votes cast thereon by, the legally qualified voters of the State voting at a general election...\\" By action of the legislative, certain legalized games of chance, licensed casinos in Atlantic City, authorized State lotteries, and authorized gambling on running and harness horse races have been made legal in New Jersey.

[kaydup]

Oh great his lawyer side is back

[calebdead]

Dude, that is the reason why these online gaming/poker sites are offshore. It's illegal to run an online casino in the US, but it is not illegal to play on one that is located offshore.

That is how HR477 comes into play.

[hehateme]

it\'s illegal for a states resident to play the game from within the state. No one will ever be charged though. HR477, which will NEVER be passed anyway makes it illegal for a credit card company to allow its cards to be used to gamble on the net.

[calebdead]

Credit cards have long been illegal to use on online casinos because of all the chargebacks people were making.

Here's an article that can better explain this shit:

There seems to be some confusion in the press regarding what bill just passed in Congress. It has been reported that the “Goodlatte” bill passed in the House. Actually what is referred to as the Goodlatte Bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, is H.R. 4777, which was fraught with problems previously reported by CardPlayer. Click here for that article. The common name of that bill was the “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.”

Another milder bill was introduced by Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican. That bill, commonly known as the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” is H.R. 4411, which basically prohibits credit card companies and financial institutions from sending payment to gaming sites.

The bill that passed was an amended version of H.R. 4411, which is the Leach bill that added some of Goodlatte’s proposals. Before this bill becomes law, it must pass both the House and the Senate. Currently, there is no commensurate bill pending in the Senate.

Poker Players Are Not at Risk

The first thing to note is that the bill does not prohibit a poker enthusiast from playing online poker. One Democrat introduced such an amendment to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the bill, but the amendment failed. There is no mention of the poker player in the bill nor any penalty associated with playing poker.

H.R. 4411

After almost four hours of debate, the bill passed by a vote of 317-93. In a nutshell, here’s the meat of the statute and the predictable problems associated with each section of the bill.

Online gaming sites are prohibited from accepting payment from a United States financial institution. Since all online sites are outside of the United States, our government has no jurisdiction to enforce this part of the law. Simply stated, the United States cannot make laws or enforce laws regarding business outside the United States.

Financial institutions are forbidden from delivering funds to online gaming sites. However, most banks and credit card companies already refuse to send money to offshore sites. Therefore, offshore third-party companies have already been set in motion to handle United States financial transactions.

The amended 1961 Wire Act modernizes its language by including the Internet and prohibiting games “predominantly subject to chance.” This will be the start of expensive and time-consuming litigation regarding whether poker is predominantly a game of skill or chance.

A burden is placed upon Internet service providers and other technology providers to block access to online gambling sites when requested to do so by a law enforcement agency. This will prove to be an unenforceable nightmare for all involved.

The bill directs the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to issue regulations outlining policies and procedures that could be used by financial institutions to identify and block gambling-related transactions that are transmitted through their payment systems. If the bill ever becomes law, these entities have 270 days to write such procedures. The implementation is mind boggling.

The bill contains carve-outs for such things as lotteries, horse racing, and the stock market. Every opponent of the bill criticizes the bill because, while it attempts to legislate morality, it prohibits only certain forms of gambling while allowing others.

As a matter of fact, although the proponents of the bill say that online gaming is destroying the moral fiber of society, the bill allows a state to house an online gaming site for its citizens.

Political Motivation

The bill was clearly politically motivated by Republicans who are worried about losing control in the House after the November election. Last month, House Republican leaders announced that this bill would be part of a 10-part “American Values Agenda,” which consists of 10 unrelated pieces of legislation, including a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, tax cuts, a flag burning law, and extensive restrictions on stem cell research.

Furthermore, this is a way our legislators can separate themselves from the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who lobbied against previous versions of this bill using bribes, fraud, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist in the bill’s defeat.

The Future Players

As I see it, there are a number of players and organizations to be watching in the near future. Although Senate leaders have not identified the bill as a top priority, Arizona Republican Jon Kyl has pledged to pursue a similar bill in the Senate.

Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the American Gaming Association president, recently announced that the AGA supports a study of the feasibility of regulating online gaming.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget said that although it supports the House’s vote, it has concerns about the bill.

Sam Vallandingham, vice president for the First State Bank in West Virginia has said, “Our concern is that the added burden of monitoring all payment transactions for the taint of Internet gambling will drain finite resources currently engaged in complying with anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering regulations, and daily operation of our bank.”

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, continue to vocally oppose the bill: “Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, and it won’t work for gambling,” Frank said. Paul agreed, adding, “the only thing (prohibition) does is increase the price.”

U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nevada, offered an amendment that would have eliminated what she called the “hypocritical exemption” by completely banning all forms of Internet gambling. It failed by a vote of 114-297.

My favorite Representative, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, also offered such an amendment. He called all the exceptions and carve-outs “loopholes as big as a barn door.”

The Poker Players Alliance is another group to be watched. Reuters reported that regulating Internet poker instead of banning it could bring the U.S. government $3.3 billion in taxes annually, according to a study by the Poker Players Alliance. Income taxes on winnings from Internet poker alone — which is estimated to have attracted $60 billion in wagers worldwide in 2005 — could amount to $2.5 billion each year. The study also said that a 1 percent user fee on online poker transactions would generate another $800 million to $1 billion in revenue per year for the U.S. government.

Finally, Rep. Jim Kasper from North Dakota should be watched as well. I had the pleasure of speaking with him this morning. He informed me that he was in contact with AGA president Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., discussing possible ramifications of the bill.

Rep Kasper told me: “I intend to draft the Legislation to allow any Internet company located in North Dakota to be able to do business worldwide, not just in North Dakota. If the DOJ or the Congress try to stop us, it is my intention that the state of North Dakota initiate legal proceedings in federal court, to have the courts rule on the Constitutional issues. And, I am looking for input and help from the gaming industry in the drafting of the new bills.” Representative Jim Kasper can be reached at jmkasper@amg-nd.com.

In conclusion, I will reiterate what I have predicted every year for about the last 10 years. My prediction is that no law will pass in 2006 banning online gaming. The attempts are more complicated but no more feasible than they have ever been. Online gaming is a $12 billion a year business that is here to stay. Show your support for the right to play online by going to www.CardPlayer.com/link/savepoker and sending a letter to your Congressional representatives opposing this legislation.

[calebdead]

And a NY Times artice:

By MATT RICHTEL and HEATHER TIMMONS

Published: July 25, 2006

Can the United States handcuff online wagering?

Glen Walker, a professional sports bettor in North Carolina who places up to 70 bets a week of $2,000 to $5,000 each during football season, does not think so. “They’re not going to stop the offshore sports books,†Mr. Walker said. A crackdown will “just force it back to the black market.â€

Last week, one such wagering site, BetOnSports.com, a publicly traded company in Britain, became the focal point of an American crackdown on offshore casinos, where gamblers anywhere in the world can use the highly profitable sites to place wagers on sporting events. They can also play casino games like blackjack and poker from their personal computers.

Federal agents arrested the British chief executive of BetOnSports, David Carruthers, who was in the United States on a flight layover. He is in custody in Fort Worth; the betting site has temporarily suspended operations to satisfy a temporary restraining order that prohibits the company from taking bets from United States residents. Mr. Carruthers is awaiting a hearing on his detention.

In Washington, the House overwhelmingly approved legislation recently that would clamp down on Internet casinos in part by restricting the ability of American financial institutions to process wagers.

The legislative-prosecutorial one-two punch appears to be the most concerted effort yet by the federal government to undermine Internet gambling in an era of well-organized, publicly owned offshore casinos. For the first time, Washington has succeeded in temporarily shutting down a publicly owned site and its effort has gained the attention of the operators, whose share prices plummeted last week.

Still, few experts expect the crackdown to do anything more than dent the industry. Sebastian Sinclair, an analyst with Christiansen Capital Advisors, which tracks online gambling trends, said offshore gambling could be “curtailed but it cannot be stopped.â€

Other experts see the recent moves as little more than an elaborate cat-and-mouse game serving only to benefit Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos, along with Indian gambling operations, rather than seriously protecting Americans from falling prey to excessive gambling.

Some eight million Americans like Mr. Walker wager $6 billion annually through the Internet, many making bets on their favorite sports team or the N.C.A.A. basketball pool. About half of all online wagers come from the United States.

Critics say that online gambling is the equivalent of putting a slot machine in every home, providing an easy chance to lose money with a few mouse clicks, all without the social controls at a bricks-and-mortar casino.

Mr. Walker disagrees. “We’re not doing anything immoral or illegal,’’ he insisted. “I just don’t see that I’m harming anyone.â€

While prosecutors argue that Internet casinos violate the law, there is no federal prohibition against actually placing a bet. So how much success the federal push can have “is a very profound question,†said Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, the co-author of the legislation, who says the gambling is detrimental to families and the economy.

But even he concedes that Washington’s best efforts will lead only “to a reduction but not necessarily to an ending†of online gambling.

The question of further curbing Internet gambling has been a perennial issue in Congress in recent years. But people involved with the legislation say the reason for its success, at least in the House, is mainly explained by lawmakers wanting to distance themselves from the corruption scandal involving the convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his association with Indian casinos. Mr. Abramoff had lobbied vigorously against versions of the bill in the past. Still, some politicians in the House came out strongly against the bill, including Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who called it “cultural authoritarianism.â€

Industry executives and analysts say similar bills have failed in the Senate, and many feel that it is unlikely to gain traction there. Analysts from Dresdner Kleinwort in London call the measure inconsistent and unenforceable.

Nevertheless, executives, lawyers and analysts say that Washington, depending on the resources it is willing to commit, can at least make life more miserable for the offshore casinos. They say the effort resembles attempts to restrict the sex and drug trades, an endless pursuit in which users and suppliers constantly develop new ways to skirt law enforcement.

Offshore casinos “are going to continue to thumb their noses at the Department of Justice,†Mr. Sinclair said. “The operators will say, ‘I’m sitting here in Costa Rica drinking a mai tai. What are you going to do?’ â€

And, he said, if the government succeeds in shutting some sites, others will pop up.

This is not the first time that the American government has taken on Internet gambling. In 2001, a federal court sentenced Jay Cohen, the operator of an Internet sports book in Costa Rica, to 21 months in prison for taking bets from Americans.

But there is a new intensity to this latest crackdown, particularly with the simultaneous attacks from Congress and law enforcement. Legislators and prosecutors said their efforts were not coordinated, but industry analysts view it as a powerful combination.

And by going after Mr. Carruthers, a British citizen who runs a company listed on the London Stock Exchange, Washington has upped the ante. “This is absolutely a legitimate business in the U.K.,†said Tim Evans, a lawyer representing Mr. Carruthers.

Mr. Carruthers, among the outspoken executives in the industry, has traveled frequently to the United States to meet with investors and media companies, and to debate the merits of online gambling. In April, he took part in a debate on the subject with Representative Leach.

Catherine L. Hanaway, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, who brought the indictment against Mr. Carruthers, said the fact that the activity was legal in Britain and Costa Rica, where BetOnSports has major operations, “does not entitle them to do business in the United States.â€

Asked if Mr. Carruthers’s British citizenship created a problem for the prosecutors, Ms. Hanaway said, “thus far, no.â€

Mr. Evans said his client faced up to 20 years if convicted of conspiring to operate an illegal gambling operation.

Lawrence Walters, a lawyer who specializes in Internet gambling law, said prosecutors faced serious jurisdictional questions. One central question is whether any illegal activity is taking place on American soil; the bettors, he said, are not breaking the law, because placing a wager is legal.

Further, he said, there are legal questions about whether prosecutors can establish that offshore casinos have met the test for “minimum contact†in the United States, a standard needed for prosecutors to have jurisdiction.

“The government has to show that BetOnSports has sufficient ties and contacts with the U.S.,†he said. “That’s an open question — they have no offices or representatives here.’’

Many online gambling companies based outside Britain list on the London Stock Exchange because the British government made offshore gambling companies legal as part of a sweeping Gambling Act passed in 2005. The government’s intent is to regulate the industry and stop gambling proceeds from going to criminal interests.

The investors in the companies have included some of America’s largest investment houses, among them Goldman Sachs and the FMR Corporation, parent of Fidelity Investments, which bought shares for some of its mutual funds. Share prices of those funds plummeted after the arrest of Mr. Carruthers, but have recovered somewhat in recent trading.

The issue has fueled a political fire in Britain, where the United States recently extradited several white-collar suspects in an effort to prosecute them for actions that Britain did not consider illegal, or that British courts chose not to prosecute.

Opponents say that United States prosecutors are reaching outside their boundaries and the opponents are lobbying the British government to protect its own citizens.

But Mr. Walters said prosecutors might be able to mitigate the jurisdictional challenges because they also brought charges against BetOnSports’ founder, Gary Kaplan, and several of his relatives, who worked for the company and are American citizens.

The government could argue that the company has a fundamentally American origin and continuing ties, he said.

The case could dictate how much breadth and power prosecutors have to enforce gambling laws. It “could be a chance to clear up the gray area that’s always existed†as to the legality of offshore casinos, said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for BetOnSports.

Prosecutors argue that the Wire Act of 1961 prohibits not just Internet sports betting but also casino games, including online poker. Some industry executives, legal experts and analysts, even those without a vested interest, say it is not clear that the Wire Act was intended to cover those casino games.

The legislation approved by the House would make it explicit that the wire act covers these games. It also seeks to create a new enforcement mechanism by criminalizing the processing of payments for Internet gambling. It would prohibit banks, credit card companies and online payment processors, like ******, from transacting such business.

“For the first time, we have a methodology that has enforcement clout,†Mr. Leach said. “This legislation has a lot of teeth.â€

Yet this is not the first effort to cut off payment methods. In November 2001, many major banks that issue credit cards began voluntarily refusing to process credit card payments for gambling. That gave rise to new overseas payment processors, like Neteller and FirePay, in which customers can deposit money to be forwarded to offshore casinos.

Having new overseas processors can spring up does present a problem, Mr. Leach said. But if the bill becomes law, it would also prohibit American financial institutions from transferring money to overseas payment processors known to do a lot of business with casinos. In turn, it could make people work harder to place bets.

“It could quite effectively reduce impulse betting,†Mr. Leach said. “It might be a slightly less-effective barrier to some of the poker kinds of games. I aspire to total curtailment. But I cannot guarantee that will occur.â€

[lolahotass]

omg

[nomembername]

Yeah that's great and all but how about telling us about the crazy, hooker party these guys had