spearmaster said:
If a judge renders an opinion but not a ruling, and another judge makes a ruling based on his opinion, whose opinion should I believe?
I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "opinion" and "ruling." To my knowledge, the "opinion," the "ruling," and the "decision" of the court are all interchangeable.
There's no point in going around in circles. A Federal judge has ALREADY ruled that online casino gambling does NOT fall within the confines of the Wire Act.
Please state the laws which are related to wagering. RICO is certainly NOT one of them.
The Carruthers indictment alleges violations of -
The Wire Wager Act
Mail Fraud
Wire Fraud
Interstate travel in aid of Racketeering
Operation of an Illegal Gambling Business
Interstate transportation of Gambling Paraphermalia
Money Laundering.
It also alleges violations of multiple state laws in MO, FL, NY, NJ, WA, and IL.
Tax evasion is also not related to wagering. Wagering taxes imply that wagering is LEGAL - if illegal, how the hell can they tax it?
In the US, you're supposed to pay taxes on illegal earnings, as well as legal ones.
Let's not try to skirt the obvious - the only law which governs the legality of wagering in any shape or form is the Wire Act.
Did you actually research this?
Did it occur to you that in some states, what is not considered gambling may be considered gambling in another? For example, in California stud poker is prohibited - but draw poker is not. Some states define lotteries as gambling, others do not. Some states even considered video poker terminals as games of skill (and thus not gambling) if I am not mistaken. Some states allow poker in private places (ie. the home) but NOT in public places.
State law varies widely. Many states, including mine, permit social gambling - games where no one has an advantage, except by luck or skill (ie -there's no house rake, or house advantage.) Many states have state-run lotteries, but that's just because they decided to have state lotteries - not because lotteries aren't a form of gambling. Other states allow some games, but not others. Some permit charitable bingo games at churches and the like. No state allows private, for-profit, commercial gambling without a license, however. If you know of one, please tell me which one it is.
I think that your claim above is a bit premature, or maybe just a bit too general.
The businesses are located outside the US. The fact that one can make a phone call or connect to an overseas website is completely irrelevant to a business license in the US.
To (legally) operate a gambling business in the US, you have to comply with US law. Keeping yourself and your assets offshore may well protect you as a practical matter, but it doesn't protect you legally.
Having a license to sell pot in Amsterdam, for example, doesn't give you the right to sell pot in the US.
For example, you can legally buy pot in the Netherlands - by phone call, or by visiting a website. You have not broken the law in either country.
You WILL break the laws of the US, however, if you import the pot. But the law does NOT govern the purchase of the pot in a foreign country from a foreign-based business.
I'm not sure I understand your example. But sending a controlled substance into the US is illegal, just as receiving it is. And the US has a long history of arresting people who do it, even foreign nationals, even if they are doing it from foreign countries.
If anyone is sending pot to Americans from Amsterdam (or wherever), he ought to keep a low profile, because he's asking for trouble.
Simple as that. BetOnSports is legally licensed as a bookmaker under the laws of the United Kingdom. It does not require a license in the US in order to operate its business.
It needs to comply with US law in order to (legally) conduct business in the US. Unfortunately, US law requires a gambling business to obtain a license from each state in which it hopes to conduct business.
My own opinion is that that's an entirely backward and inefficient state of affairs. It would make infinitely more sense, for the US to regulate and license internet gambling at a national level, rather than at the state level. But for historical and constitutional reasons, that is the law in the US, and it's liable to remain the law for the foreseeable future.
On the bright side, if it weren't for the split between federal and state authority in gambling matters, it would have been more difficult for the offshore sites to have penetrated the US market in the first place.
Also, the fact that the states have always traditionally (and in my view, constitutionally) had the right to decide which games to allow within their borders means that there will always be the possibility that internet gambling will become legal in some state, at some point in the future - regardless of what happens in Washington.
However, if it accepts sports wagers from Americans, it can then be considered in breach of US law because wagers on sporting events are explicitly prohibited by the Wire Act. This does NOT apply to casino gambling according to a Federal judge.
Another case in point - lotteries may not be sold interstate - that is to say, you cannot buy a lottery ticket issued by the state next door from your home state unless your home state also participates in this lottery. Yet you can look in any Time or Newsweek and find ads for lotteries in Spain, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Germany etc. You may do this by sending in the order form in the magazine, or you can call in a purchase by phone. Is this not illegal?
I repeat again: The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and not other types of online gambling. The Supreme Court has not officially ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to onlin[e gambling.
