Bellavegas(Microgaming) won't pay 20K

**sdaddy** · 1st April 2006, 02:40 AM

Linus,

You are really making some solid arguments here. You get to what has been my biggest problem with Bella Vegas actions all along: that they chose to selectively apply anti-gambling restrictions on players in the United States and in a very self-serving way.

**suzecat** · 1st April 2006, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Linus

No, this has nothing to do with the Congress or the Senate. This has to do with state law. And it's no more illegal for Autumn to gamble in Nevada than it is for you to gamble in CA. If they can take her winnings, they can take yours.

Linus I guess you haven't been following the other threads concerning the federal government's attempts to ban online gambling. The BIG difference in online gambling in California vs. Nevada is that in California it is a misdemeanor and in Nevada it is a felony. BIG DIFFERENCE. These legalities aside, you have not addressed the issue of her being an underage gambler as recognized by the State of Nevada.

**winbig** · 1st April 2006, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by sdaddy

Linus,

You are really making some solid arguments here. You get to what has been my biggest problem with Bella Vegas actions all along: that they chose to selectively apply anti-gambling restrictions on players in the United States and in a very self-serving way.

I give up

Yes they did selectively apply rules to her, but only when they found out she was underage.

**sdaddy** · 1st April 2006, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by winbig72

I give up

Yes they did selectively apply rules to her, but only when they found out she was underage.

That's true. In fairness I need to acknowledge that the rule in question was in their T&Cs, so they were technically permitted to apply it, provided it was done in a responsible way.

Nevertheless, I just don't see the basis for adopting some, but not all, of a particular state or country's anti-gambing statues. In other words, if a casino is saying they are obligated to respect Nevada's underage law, then to be consistent they would also have to follow Nevada's general ban on online gambing.

**suzecat** · 1st April 2006, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by sdaddy

That's true. In fairness I need to acknowledge that the rule in question was in their T&Cs, so they were technically permitted to apply it, provided it was done in a responsible way.

Nevertheless, I just don't see the basis for adopting some, but not all, of a particular state or country's anti-gambing statues. In other words, if a casino is saying they are obligated to respect Nevada's underage law, then to be consistent they would also have to follow Nevada's general ban on online gambing.

Once the underage law was applied, it made moot the anti-gambling statute of Nevada. I believe that Nevada (as a state of the USA) lacks standing to litigate a foreign held enterprise. Only the US federal government has the requisite standing to sue and in order to do so, the federal ban on internet gambling would have to be in place. As there is no federal ban in place, there is no standing to sue offshore casino operations.

**amandajm** · 1st April 2006, 11:28 AM

Even more reason to pay the gambler.

All this industry stuff is for the casino operators. That ain't my concern.

If they don't like the job, don't do it.

**winbig** · 1st April 2006, 02:07 PM

I think we're all beating a dead horse here. Can we all just agree to disagree?

**ChristopherB** · 2nd April 2006, 12:11 AM

from suzecat:

"The BIG difference in online gambling in California vs. Nevada is that in California it is a misdemeanor and in Nevada it is a felony."

You are 100% incorrect, suzecat. It is not a felony in Nevada, it's a misdemeanor. You should really get your facts straight before you post.

**suzecat** · 2nd April 2006, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by ChristopherB

from suzecat:

You are 100% incorrect, suzecat. It is not a felony in Nevada, it's a misdemeanor. You should really get your facts straight before you post.

Here are the facts upon which I relied:

NRS 465.088 Penalties for violation of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive.

1. A person who violates any provision of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished:

(a) For the first offense, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

(b) For a second or subsequent violation of any of these provisions, by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. The court shall not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this paragraph, or grant probation to the person convicted.

2. A person who attempts, or two or more persons who conspire, to violate any provision of NRS 465.070 to 465.085, inclusive, each is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imposing the penalty provided in subsection 1 for the completed crime, whether or not he personally played any gambling game or used any prohibited device.

NRS 465.091 �Medium of communication� defined.

As used in NRS 465.091 to 465.094, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires, �medium of communication� includes, but is not limited to, mail, telephone, television, telegraph, facsimile, cable, wire, the Internet or any other similar medium.

**Linus** · 2nd April 2006, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by suzecat

Once the underage law was applied, it made moot the anti-gambling statute of Nevada. I believe that Nevada (as a state of the USA) lacks standing to litigate a foreign held enterprise. Only the US federal government has the requisite standing to sue and in order to do so, the federal ban on internet gambling would have to be in place. As there is no federal ban in place, there is no standing to sue offshore casino operations.

Well, it's true that it's difficult to sue foreign corporations in places like Gibraltar and Belize. Courts need jurisdiction, in order to hear a lawsuit. As a general rule, courts in one country don't have jurisdiction over another country.

Also, since internet gambling is illegal in the US, no US court would hear a lawsuit over an activity that was illegal in the first place.

Finally, even if you did somehow get a court to rule in your favor, you wouldn't be able to collect on any judgment, unless the casino had assets that you could seize. Since the casinos are careful not to keep assets in the US, that would be impossible.

The casino industry runs on trust.

The only they have to fear is that people will find out that their money isn't safe with them, and that new players won't keep depositing.

Even though Autumn has no effective recourse, at least now other players have been warned.

BellaVegas was happy to advertise for 18 year-olds. They were happy to take Autumn's money, even after she told them she was 19. They're happy to take Americans' money, even though - according to their Terms and Conditions - no American is eligible to play there.

They only became unhappy when Autumn won money at their casino.

What's to stop them from becoming unhappy if you or I win money there?

Apparently, nothing.

"Nicky's methods of betting weren't scientific, but they worked. When he won, he collected. When he lost, he told the bookies to go f... themselves. I mean, what were they going to do, muscle Nicky? Nicky was the muscle."

--Robert Deniro, Casino