U.K. Gambling Website Settles With DOJ

Radley Balko | April 7, 2009

Cato's Sallie James reports that U.K.-based PartyGaming has settled with the U.S. Department of Justice. For a $105 million "fee," DOJ will drop its case against the site for allowing U.S. users to gamble online prior to the passage of the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act.

James calls this "semi-good news." I'm having a hard time conjuring even that much optimism. A foreign company and its executives, operating out of a country where everything the company was doing was legal, was being prosecuted in the U.S. for violating an ambiguous law the Justice Department was using to  paternalistically prohibit Americans from consensually wagering online. Now in exchange for agreeing to stop doing business with Americans and paying a $105 million fine, the U.S. government has graciously agreed not to throw the company's executives in prison.

Whether you're scoring in terms of individual freedom, free trade, common sense, or the rule of law, it seems like a net loss all around to me.

Reason archive on Internet gambling here.

Comments

Taktix®|4.7.09 @ 5:04PM|#

Whether you're scoring in terms of individual freedom, free trade, common sense, or the rule of law, it seems like a net loss all around to me.

Pretty much. The only good outcome is if the Gambling site is just faking to get their executives out of jail, then planning to stiff the DOJ once the guys are safely back in England.

By the way, since when did the DOJ start imposing arbitrary fines? Who do they think they are, the FCC?

SpongePaul|4.7.09 @ 5:08PM|#

WTF they are not even based in the us and are not expected to follow US laws. if US citizens Gambled on thier website, then the Goverment can go after the citizens, not the website, since it is based where they have NONE ZERO AND NO JURISDICTION.

SpongePaul|4.7.09 @ 5:10PM|#

After almost two years of discussions, the U.S. Attorney's Officer for the Southern District of New York has agreed not to prosecute PartyGaming or any of its subsidiaries for providing internet gambling services to customers in the U.S. prior to the U.S. government banning the online gambling industry in October, 2006." [italics mine]
______________________________________________
so they went after a forieng company for doing things that were legal, since it was BEFORE the act went into effect..... Anyone have any ideas on where to form a new counrty at, lol

SpongePaul|4.7.09 @ 5:12PM|#

seriously can someone explain to me how they were able to do this, this seems patently wrong!

SpongePaul|4.7.09 @ 5:22PM|#

no one? no one can exp[lain how the US goverment went after a legal buisness in another country and was able to fine them, or more laughable prosecute them. thats why the DOJ settled, they were out of Jurisdiction to start with , i would have to ld them to suck it!

|4.7.09 @ 5:31PM|#

You know I'm going to lose
And gambling's for fools
But that's the way I like it baby
I don't want to live forever

...and don't forget THE JOKER

¢|4.7.09 @ 5:31PM|#

seriously can someone explain to me how they were able to do this

They did it. Then no one carpetbombed D.C.

That's all the "how" there is.

|4.7.09 @ 5:33PM|#

raivo pommer-www.google.ee
[e-mail]

Royal Bank of Scotland


streicht 9000 Stellen
Die Hälfte der Jobs soll in Großbritannien wegfallen: Die weitgehend verstaatlichte Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) will in den kommenden zwei Jahren weitere 9000 Stellen abbauen. 2008 hatte die Bank mit 24,1 Milliarden Pfund den größten Verlust in der britischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte geschrieben.
Ein Schutzmann vor einer Filiale der Royal Bank of Scotland in London: Während der G20-Proteste vergangene Woche richtete sich die Wut auch gegen die verstaatlichte Bank.




Beratungen mit den Gewerkschaften hätten bereits begonnen, teilte die Bank am Dienstag mit. Die Hälfte der Jobs soll in Großbritannien wegfallen.

Bereits in den vergangenen Monaten hatte die britische Großbank den Abbau von 2700 Jobs angekündigt. Weltweit beschäftigt RBS rund 180.000 Menschen.

Wegen der Finanzkrise war die RBS in eine extreme Schieflage geraten und hatte im vergangenen Jahr mit 24,1 Milliarden Pfund (26,6 Mrd Euro) den größten Verlust in der britischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte verzeichnet.

SpongePaul|4.7.09 @ 5:45PM|#

¢ | April 7, 2009, 5:31pm | #
seriously can someone explain to me how they were able to do this

They did it. Then no one carpetbombed D.C.

That's all the "how" there is.
__________________________________________
ah so they are just bullying other countries and other countries legal buisness around the world, and then they wonder why terroists want to kill us. umm bullies always get there ass handed to them sooner or later. I HOPE THEY REM THAT! but who are we kidding, we are already the laughingstock of the globe. and before i get the if you dont like it leave boy rednecks on here. well i am trying to change it from the inside. if it rots too much, then yeah i got no qualms at all bout packing it up. but first lets try to make things better before i give up on the patient.

Paul|4.7.09 @ 6:25PM|#

This is a two-way street. I can't wait until a U.S. executive is jailed in France or Italy for doing something that's legal here, but illegal there.

Taktix®|4.7.09 @ 6:31PM|#

This is a two-way street. I can't wait until a U.S. executive is jailed in France or Italy for doing something that's legal here, but illegal there.

What exactly would fall into that category?

Shannon Love|4.7.09 @ 6:47PM|#

Just to repeat myself, I don't think it is at all obvious that the location of the server controls the legality of an internet transaction. Each internet transaction takes a server and a client. The client and the server can be in different countries.

squarooticus|4.7.09 @ 6:50PM|#

¢ | April 7, 2009, 5:31pm | #
seriously can someone explain to me how they were able to do this

They did it. Then no one carpetbombed D.C.

That's all the "how" there is.

QFT.

As a true patriot, I can't wait to see the federal government get its comeuppance. Fortunately, the current situation is unsustainable, which means the comeuppance is inevitable; unfortunately, the follow-through will mean a lot of pain for the vast majority of Americans, who are largely innocent by virtue (!) of ignorance.

The people get the government they deserve, and they will indeed get it good and hard; the question remains whether they will learn the right lessons from it or not.

dfd|4.7.09 @ 7:00PM|#

This is a two-way street. I can't wait until a U.S. executive is jailed in France or Italy for doing something that's legal here, but illegal there.

What exactly would fall into that category?

I don't know... maybe offering free home delivery for your book orders?

|4.7.09 @ 7:12PM|#

Shannon Love,

It's not complicated unless you want to make it so. If the client is in the US and the server is not, then the actions of the client, but not the server, are subject to US law. If the DOJ wants to prosecute someone they can prosecute the end user of online gambling services...but they know that will get them nowhere so they attack the source.

|4.7.09 @ 7:22PM|#

A "net" loss? Just an Orwellian slip for Randy. It happens to all of us.

jtuf|4.7.09 @ 8:28PM|#

By the DOJ logic in this case, the government of another country could sue the White House and demand that it stops allowing its citizens to access the White House webite if that government finds one of postings on it against their speech codes. So much for an end to unilateralism.

|4.8.09 @ 12:10AM|#

A foreign company and its executives, operating out of a country where everything the company was doing was legal, was being prosecuted in the U.S. for violating an ambiguous law the Justice Department was using to paternalistically prohibit Americans from consensually wagering online. Now in exchange for agreeing to stop doing business with Americans and paying a $105 million fine, the U.S. government has graciously agreed not to throw the company's executives in prison.

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds ridiculous.

|4.8.09 @ 12:04PM|#

DOJ = Department of Jackasses