FBI says Online Gambling is Illegal

[bigboydan]

Don't Roll the Dice - Online Gambling is Illegal

If you've ever thought about visiting a cyber casino, here's something you should know: it's illegal to gamble online in the United States.

"You can go to Vegas. You can go to Atlantic City. You can go to a racetrack. You can go to those places and gamble legally. But don't do it online. It's against the law," says Leslie Bryant, head of our Cyber Crime Fraud unit at FBI Headquarters.

That means:

... No placing cyber bets on sporting events or in virtual card games;

... No transferring money electronically for gambling; and

... No wagers in offshore Internet casinos even if you live in the U.S.

What's allowed? Some free online games, fantasy leagues, and Indian gaming sites that aren't strictly defined as Internet gambling.

It's also illegal for businesses to run gambling websites and to solicit online bets. Even companies handling transactions for cyberspace bettors can face federal charges.

Cracking down. Our strategy for tackling illegal online gambling-as a key enforcement agency-is to start with the companies providing the services in the first place. "We're going after the people making the money-the owners of these virtual casinos, gaming rooms, and off-track betting parlors," Bryant says.

We currently have about a dozen of these cases in motion. One of the biggest came last July when a federal grand jury in St. Louis returned a 22-count indictment against 11 individuals and four companies for their involvement in illegal online gaming and related activities. On May 24, one of the companies-BetonSports- pled guilty to racketeering charges in the case.

We've also had success against companies supporting the money flows behind virtual gambling. In January, for example, two Canadians were charged with operating an Internet payment services company that transferred billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds between U.S. citizens and the owners of online gambling sites outside the country.

In 2003, another Internet financial services company paid $10 million in a civil agreement to settle allegations that it aided illegal offshore and online gambling agreements. The U.S. government has also settled several cases with online businesses that have accepted money to market virtual gambling operations.

Think a little online gambling can't cost you? Don't bet on it. Even if you don't get caught gambling, you could well lose the money you have in an online gaming account if the company faces charges, since the U.S. government seizes assets in these cases whenever possible.

Source: FBI

[BuddyBear]

The United States government should be ashamed of themselves......I've never seen anything so blatantly unconstitutional and hypocritical in my life.

[MaxDemo]

you could well lose the money you have in an online gaming account if the company faces charges, since the U.S. government seizes assets in these cases whenever possible.

Think anyone from Neteller will get a dime back...I doubt it....JMO

[vanzack]

Laughable.

I challenge her to cite the law she is going to charge to an internet bettor. There is none.

Absolute, 100% horseshit. The FBI doesnt make the laws, and she can say whatever she wants. Nobody has ever been arrested or tried in court because the law and precedent protects the bettor.

Leslie Bryant has about 1 million online gamblers to prosecute - ever wonder why they never even try? Because there is no law. This is bullshit propaganda.

[vanzack]

For anyone interested in reading the LAW:

Placing a wager on sports is totally legal at the federal level in the US and is not governed by the Wire Act. The act of accepting wagers is what is covered by the wire act, an important distinction.

Let me quote the ruling that has stood since Nov 25, 1981 and has NEVER been challenged (USA vs Robert Baborian 528 F.Supp 324 paragraph 5):

Congress intended the "business of gambling" to mean bookmaking, i.e. the taking and laying off of bets, and not mere betting. The provocative question is whether this is still the proper definition when the bettor wagers substantial sums and displays the sophistication of an expert in his knowledge of odds making. This court concludes that the statute simple does not covers such a situation. This court finds that Congress never intended to include a social bettor within the prohibition of the statute and that Congress did not contemplate prohibiting the activities of mere bettors, even where, as with Mr Baborian, they bet large sums of money with a great deal of sophistication.

The truth of the matter is that the DOJ does interpret the law the way I stated it, and that is evidenced by the fact that there has not been a single prosecution at the Federal level since the case I cited (USA vs Baborian 1981). Not one single bettor has been brought up on federal charges since 1981 unless there was tax evasion, money laundering, or RICO thrown at them. The Wire Act simply applies ONLY to those in the business of gambling, and as defined by the judicial system that means someone who TAKES bets. The following are some articles on the subject - keep in mind when reading them that when they say sportsbetting is illegal under the wire act - the key definition is that of someone "in the business of gambling" which has been defined to exclude the person placing bets.

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htm

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006sprin...e/federal.html (important pertinent text quoted in italics below - its about the 4th paragraph in the link)

Criticisms of the Wire Act’s Applicability to Online Gambling
• In the Business of Betting or Wagering
Even if the Wire Act is shown to apply to internet gambling it would only apply to gambling operators, since it expressly states that it applies only to those “engaged in the business of betting or wagering.” 18 U.S.C. 1084, U.S. Code Collection, Cornell Law School , at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html . Obviously, this would exclude individual bettors from any liability under the Act. This point is fairly uncontroversial, and is supported by the language of Congressman Emanuel Celler, then Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who stated during debate on the Act that “[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler.” Jeffrey R. Rodefer, Internet Gambling in Nevada : Overview of Federal Law Affecting Assembly Bill 466, 8-13, http://web.archive.org/web/200403031...nt_gamb_nv.pdf (quoting United States v. Baborian, 528 F. Supp. 324, 328 (D.R.I. 1981) (quoting 107 Cong.Rec. 16,534 (1961))).


At the state level, certain states have specific laws that make gambling illegal. Even other states (nevada, california, louisians, and washington) have specifically made online gambling illegal. Any way you slice it, NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN PROSECUTED FOR ONLINE GAMBLING. The closest thing was Jeffrey Trauman of North Dakota - who paid a 500 dollar fine and never went to court in the only known attempt at harassing an online gambler in US history.

http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/161_Busted_Online_Bet.htm

The politicians love to stand up and say that online gambling is illegal because it helps their causes and they can say whatever they want to further their agendas. The proof is simply that it is totally untrue. Sports bettors are exempt because they are not in the "business of gambling".

If sports gambling was already illegal under the wire act why would they be trying to pass the proposition to update the wire act? They wouldnt need to. Politicians love to say that sports betting is illegal but then at the same time are trying to pass a bill that makes it illegal. Does that make sense to you? That should be proof alone.

Simple google searches on the subject will all be consistent - if it is a politician talking they will say the wire act makes it illegal and if it is an attorney or independent party they will state the facts - that no federal statute covers online gambling (poker or sportsbetting) if you are placing wagers and not in the business of gambling as defined in 1981.

Now this is all at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Every state is different on their state statutes with regards to gambling, but they are generally considered to be soft laws considering the lack of effort to even enforce them. But the federal law is clear to anyone who does not have an agenda, take bets and you are in trouble, place bets and you are ok.

[pico]

i think the safest books are the ones that refuse to take USA bettors (i.e. pinnacle). i wonder which book will be the next one to get busted.

i think i should start a poll

[Seattle Slew]

I wouldn't hold out hope, at least until the Neteller case is settled. Interesting how they cite cases that haven't been proven in court yet! Innocent until proven guilty? Not in these cases.

Think anyone from Neteller will get a dime back...I doubt it....JMO

[Dark Horse]

Innocent until proven guilty? That was out the door as soon as the Supreme Leader uttered the infamous: "you are either with us or against us." Go ask the folks in Guantanamo Bay (who don't even have the right to a trial to prove their innocence), or the Cheneys of the world who are in favor of torture, so they may hear what they want to hear.

Why do bully tactics work? Because the masses are like sheep. One could make the case that the masses, for not standing up against these atrocities, are as guilty as the bullies themselves. 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst' is not a valid excuse in my book. How could you have known with your head stuck in the sand?