First of all, in his statement, I've noticed that Mr. John G. Malcolm, the US Department of Justice Deputy Assistant Attorney General, qualifies the legality of on-line gambling for US citizens with the phrase "we believe" it is illegal instead of "it IS" illegal. Basically he/they believe that various US codes support their belief in the illegality of on-line gambling and I cover that later below.
Mr. Malcolm expresses concerns about minors gambling on the Internet which can be addictive, especially to young people. Minors also drink alcohol but we don't ban alcohol (which didn't work the one time US tried to do just that). Trying to ban a whole industry for the children is not a good idea. Zero tolerance approach isn't always a good one. In any case, rarely is a minor left to gamble indefinitely because obviously parents or guardians eventually find out. Of course, the parents, after losing a few thousand dollars, would wish on-line gambling were illegal, but so we should ban automobiles because their kid died in one?? When a minor gambles without their parents' permission, it should be left to the parents/guardians for discipline.
He next says that scam casino operators appear and disappear like illicit telemarketers. But they don't ban the whole telemarketing industry. This is why we got various forums that rate the casinos. Longevity is or should be one of the criteria for evaluating the credibility of the on-line casino.
Another point he makes is casinos can manipulate odds in their favor, make unauthorized credit card charges, skim accounts, hackers can get cc and other info on other gamblers. Various software, such as Cipher's software, can evaluate the randomness of the cards and/or outcome of blackjack for instance. The other problems is typical of operating on the Internet. So what.
Mr. Malcolm continues on....If on-line gambling were regulated on a federal level, there would be difficulties with varying 50 states laws regarding on-line gambling. I say, ok, just leave the whole issue alone then!
Then he tries to make the Wire Act (USC Section 1084 of Title 18) cover non-sporting bets placed across state and international borders. Mr. Malcolm says, This statute makes it a crime, punishable up to two years in prison, to knowingly transmit in interstate or foreign commerce bets on any sporting event or contest. The Department of Justice position is the Wire Act covers "other forms of gambling" too but this is not spell out in the Wire Act. The Justice Department does not make the laws but they seem to bend it. Mr. Malcolm gives the example of the successful case against of Jay Cohen of World Sports Exchange but he didn't specify that Jay was tried for SPORTS Betting, not for accepting bets on blackjack.
Next, he mentions USC Section 1955 of Title 18 as being applicable to on-line casinos but the example he gave was a successful case against a New Jersey company that had a part of their business on US soil. A more applicable example would be a successful case against a regular non-US on-line casino.
Going on, he mentions the Justice depart has employed the RICO and the Travel Act against on-line casinos but he doesn't mention that those acts were used SUCCESSFULLY against them. He doesn't give an example of a successful case.
He mentioned that they successfully got various credit card companies and Paypal to stop the servicing of gambling-related transactions. Congrats. But four years later, Congress is still trying to make it unlawful code-wise for US credit card companies to fund gambling endeavors.
He is worried about advertisements that give the impression that on-line gambling is legal when it is not. Here he makes his strongest statement, getting closer to saying that on-line gambling is illegal without any qualifications. Reading that paragraph again, this time it reads that offshore sports books and on-line casinos is illegal!!! Wait a minute.....we know that on-line casinos ON US SOIL is illegal but US cannot judge the legality of sports books and on-line casinos to exist IN OTHER COUNTRIES!!! He needs to state clearly that US citizens placing bets with non-US based sports books and on-line casinos is illegal. But perhaps that makes it TOO clear that the Justice Department wants to over-reach their jurisdiction over US citizens.
Now he comes to the money-laundering issue. He said that individuals can put their ill-gotten money into an on-line casino account, do a little betting, then request a withdrawal and ta-da!...the money is now not ill-gotten in the eyes of the individual. Another way is to have an overseas confederate (his word) do off-setting bets or have an insider transfer money or rig a game. I have no idea how much of this goes on but I believe a legitimate on-line casino would be suspiciously watching large volumes of money going in and out with funny betting patterns....always with the same people. Does he think that a person with ill-gotten money deposits a million dollars, bets a little, then request a million dollar withdrawal? Red flags should be going up at Intercasino or
32Red or wherever if this happened.
I believe the last paragraph of his speech is most telling....he says In conclusion, let me state that although the United States Department of Justice continues to believe that interstate on-line gambling should be prohibited.... You would not be saying should be prohibited if it IS prohibited.
The Justice department should be commended for pursuing money-laundering activities but to shut down the whole industry to US citizens isn't the right way to go about it.
An idea.....perhaps giving governmental ratings of the legitimacy of individual on-line casinos, clearing them for legal play, is a way to go. But if state/federal issues get tangled, then just let the federal government leave the whole thing to the states and the individual.
I'll stop here. P.S. Congrats to Pirate of c21 for your 100th post a couple of days ago.
