1. #36
    LVHerbie
    LVHerbie's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-15-05
    Posts: 6,342
    Betpoints: 1965

    Betgrandesports.com doesn't lead anywhere (at least for me)... Is this the same as Grande, ie the credit shop?

  2. #37
    frostno98
    frostno98's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-07
    Posts: 9,770
    Betpoints: 648

    Looks like the DOJ threw a KO into online gambling once in for all. Can't access withdraws or deposit with DSI. Thank goodness I withdrew everything I had just two weeks earlier, while losing whatever I had left including using up $300 dollar worth of betpoints.

    Now, it's officially time to go local. No biggie for me, since plenty's available

  3. #38
    nosniboR11
    fu
    nosniboR11's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-02-08
    Posts: 10,042

    well it was a matter of time

  4. #39
    frostno98
    frostno98's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-07
    Posts: 9,770
    Betpoints: 648

    Quote Originally Posted by King Mayan View Post
    Bookmaker works too..

    U fukk.
    You won't be able to deposit or withdraw.

  5. #40
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 97,039
    Betpoints: 7905

    how I read it is .. "here in Maryland"
    Last edited by DwightShrute; 05-23-11 at 05:06 PM.

  6. #41
    obamaismyuncle
    obamaismyuncle's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-31-08
    Posts: 17,801

    well everyone knew bookmaker would probably be one of the first to go

  7. #42
    spankie
    Long Live Rodney!
    spankie's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-10-11
    Posts: 9,992

    good bye online sports betting for americans.

  8. #43
    frostno98
    frostno98's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-07
    Posts: 9,770
    Betpoints: 648

    Looks like *** has also lost their withdraw option. Seems like the sky falling for real this time around.

  9. #44
    zacharyj53
    zacharyj53's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-07-10
    Posts: 2,514
    Betpoints: 37

    So are the other books going to fall as well?

  10. #45
    ttwarrior1
    ttwarrior1's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 06-23-09
    Posts: 28,299
    Betpoints: 9617

    § 1955. Prohibition of illegal gambling businesses




    (a) Whoever conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    (b) As used in this section— (1) “illegal gambling business” means a gambling business which— (i) is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted;
    (ii) involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business; and
    (iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day.

    (2) “gambling” includes but is not limited to pool-selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy, bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein.
    (3) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

    (c) If five or more persons conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of a gambling business and such business operates for two or more successive days, then, for the purpose of obtaining warrants for arrests, interceptions, and other searches and seizures, probable cause that the business receives gross revenue in excess of $2,000 in any single day shall be deemed to have been established.
    (d) Any property, including money, used in violation of the provisions of this section may be seized and forfeited to the United States. All provisions of law relating to the seizures, summary, and judicial forfeiture procedures, and condemnation of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage for violation of the customs laws; the disposition of such vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage or the proceeds from such sale; the remission or mitigation of such forfeitures; and the compromise of claims and the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred or alleged to have been incurred under the provisions of this section, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with such provisions. Such duties as are imposed upon the collector of customs or any other person in respect to the seizure and forfeiture of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage under the customs laws shall be performed with respect to seizures and forfeitures of property used or intended for use in violation of this section by such officers, agents, or other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.
    (e) This section shall not apply to any bingo game, lottery, or similar game of chance conducted by an organization exempt from tax under paragraph (3) of subsection (c) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if no part of the gross receipts derived from such activity inures to the benefits of any private shareholder, member, or employee of such organization except as compensation for actual expenses incurred by him in the conduct of such activity.

  11. #46
    ttwarrior1
    ttwarrior1's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 06-23-09
    Posts: 28,299
    Betpoints: 9617

    1956. Laundering of monetary instruments



    (a) (1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity— (A) (i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
    (ii) with intent to engage in conduct constituting a violation of section 7201 or 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

    (B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part— (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
    (ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
    shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph, a financial transaction shall be considered to be one involving the proceeds of specified unlawful activity if it is part of a set of parallel or dependent transactions, any one of which involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, and all of which are part of a single plan or arrangement.


    (2) Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States— (A) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or
    (B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part— (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
    (ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
    shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For the purpose of the offense described in subparagraph (B), the defendant’s knowledge may be established by proof that a law enforcement officer represented the matter specified in subparagraph (B) as true, and the defendant’s subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant believed such representations to be true.


    (3) Whoever, with the intent— (A) to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;
    (B) to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
    (C) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,
    conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (2), the term “represented” means any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a Federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section.


    (b) Penalties.— (1) In general.— Whoever conducts or attempts to conduct a transaction described in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(3), or section 1957, or a transportation, transmission, or transfer described in subsection (a)(2), is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than the greater of— (A) the value of the property, funds, or monetary instruments involved in the transaction; or
    (B) $10,000.

    (2) Jurisdiction over foreign persons.— For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person, including any financial institution authorized under the laws of a foreign country, against whom the action is brought, if service of process upon the foreign person is made under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the laws of the country in which the foreign person is found, and— (A) the foreign person commits an offense under subsection (a) involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the United States;
    (B) the foreign person converts, to his or her own use, property in which the United States has an ownership interest by virtue of the entry of an order of forfeiture by a court of the United States; or
    (C) the foreign person is a financial institution that maintains a bank account at a financial institution in the United States.

    (3) Court authority over assets.— A court may issue a pretrial restraining order or take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank account or other property held by the defendant in the United States is available to satisfy a judgment under this section.
    (4) Federal receiver.— (A) In general.— A court may appoint a Federal Receiver, in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, to collect, marshal, and take custody, control, and possession of all assets of the defendant, wherever located, to satisfy a civil judgment under this subsection, a forfeiture judgment under section 981 or 982, or a criminal sentence under section 1957 or subsection (a) of this section, including an order of restitution to any victim of a specified unlawful activity.
    (B) Appointment and authority.— A Federal Receiver described in subparagraph (A)— (i) may be appointed upon application of a Federal prosecutor or a Federal or State regulator, by the court having jurisdiction over the defendant in the case;
    (ii) shall be an officer of the court, and the powers of the Federal Receiver shall include the powers set out in section 754 of title 28, United States Code; and
    (iii) shall have standing equivalent to that of a Federal prosecutor for the purpose of submitting requests to obtain information regarding the assets of the defendant— (I) from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury; or
    (II) from a foreign country pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty, multilateral agreement, or other arrangement for international law enforcement assistance, provided that such requests are in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Attorney General.




    (c) As used in this section— (1) the term “knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity” means that the person knew the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes a felony under State, Federal, or foreign law, regardless of whether or not such activity is specified in paragraph (7);
    (2) the term “conducts” includes initiating, concluding, or participating in initiating, or concluding a transaction;
    (3) the term “transaction” includes a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, or other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution includes a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange of currency, loan, extension of credit, purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument, use of a safe deposit box, or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected;
    (4) the term “financial transaction” means (A) a transaction which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce (i) involving the movement of funds by wire or other means or
    (ii) involving one or more monetary instruments, or
    (iii) involving the transfer of title to any real property, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or

    (B) a transaction involving the use of a financial institution which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in any way or degree;

    (5) the term “monetary instruments” means (i) coin or currency of the United States or of any other country, travelers’ checks, personal checks, bank checks, and money orders, or
    (ii) investment securities or negotiable instruments, in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery;

    (6) the term “financial institution” includes— (A) any financial institution, as defined in section 5312 (a)(2) of title 31, United States Code, or the regulations promulgated thereunder; and
    (B) any foreign bank, as defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101);

    (7) the term “specified unlawful activity” means— (A) any act or activity constituting an offense listed in section 1961 (1) of this title except an act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31;
    (B) with respect to a financial transaction occurring in whole or in part in the United States, an offense against a foreign nation involving— (i) the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance (as such term is defined for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act);
    (ii) murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, destruction of property by means of explosive or fire, or a crime of violence (as defined in section 16);
    (iii) fraud, or any scheme or attempt to defraud, by or against a foreign bank (as defined in paragraph 7 of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978)); [1]
    (iv) bribery of a public official, or the misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by or for the benefit of a public official;
    (v) smuggling or export control violations involving— (I) an item controlled on the United States Munitions List established under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778); or
    (II) an item controlled under regulations under the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. Parts 730–774);

    (vi) an offense with respect to which the United States would be obligated by a multilateral treaty, either to extradite the alleged offender or to submit the case for prosecution, if the offender were found within the territory of the United States; or
    (vii) trafficking in persons, selling or buying of children, sexual exploitation of children, or transporting, recruiting or harboring a person, including a child, for commercial sex acts;

    (C) any act or acts constituting a continuing criminal enterprise, as that term is defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848);
    (D) an offense under section 32 (relating to the destruction of aircraft), section 37 (relating to violence at international airports), section 115 (relating to influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member), section 152 (relating to concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery), section 175c (relating to the variola virus), section 215 (relating to commissions or gifts for procuring loans), section 351 (relating to congressional or Cabinet officer assassination), any of sections 500 through 503 (relating to certain counterfeiting offenses), section 513 (relating to securities of States and private entities), section 541 (relating to goods falsely classified), section 542 (relating to entry of goods by means of false statements), section 545 (relating to smuggling goods into the United States), section 549 (relating to removing goods from Customs custody), section 554 (relating to smuggling goods from the United States), section 641 (relating to public money, property, or records), section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), section 657 (relating to lending, credit, and insurance institutions), section 658 (relating to property mortgaged or pledged to farm credit agencies), section 666 (relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds), section 793, 794, or 798 (relating to espionage), section 831 (relating to prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials), section 844 (f) or (i) (relating to destruction by explosives or fire of Government property or property affecting interstate or foreign commerce), section 875 (relating to interstate communications), section 922 (l) (relating to the unlawful importation of firearms), section 924 (n) (relating to firearms trafficking), section 956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure certain property in a foreign country), section 1005 (relating to fraudulent bank entries), 1006 [2] (relating to fraudulent Federal credit institution entries), 1007 [2] (relating to Federal Deposit Insurance transactions), 1014 [2] (relating to fraudulent loan or credit applications), section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse), 1032 [2] (relating to concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of financial institution), section 1111 (relating to murder), section 1114 (relating to murder of United States law enforcement officials), section 1116 (relating to murder of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), section 1201 (relating to kidnaping), section 1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1361 (relating to willful injury of Government property), section 1363 (relating to destruction of property within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), section 1708 (theft from the mail), section 1751 (relating to Presidential assassination), section 2113 or 2114 (relating to bank and postal robbery and theft), section 2252A (relating to child pornography) where the child pornography contains a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, section 2260 (production of certain child pornography for importation into the United States), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit goods and services), section 2332 (relating to terrorist acts abroad against United States nationals), section 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), section 2332b (relating to international terrorist acts transcending national boundaries), section 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), section 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), section 2339A or 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorists), section 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism), or section 2339D (relating to receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization) of this title, section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, a felony violation of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 (relating to precursor and essential chemicals), section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590) (relating to aviation smuggling), section 422 of the Controlled Substances Act (relating to transportation of drug paraphernalia), section 38 (c) (relating to criminal violations) of the Arms Export Control Act, section 11 (relating to violations) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, section 206 (relating to penalties) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, section 16 (relating to offenses and punishment) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, any felony violation of section 15 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (relating to supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits fraud) involving a quantity of benefits having a value of not less than $5,000, any violation of section 543(a)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 (relating to equity skimming), any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, any felony violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122) (relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) [3] environmental crimes
    (E) a felony violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Ocean Dumping Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), or the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.); or
    (F) any act or activity constituting an offense involving a Federal health care offense;

    (8) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
    (9) the term “proceeds” means any property derived from or obtained or retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including the gross receipts of such activity.

    (d) Nothing in this section shall supersede any provision of Federal, State, or other law imposing criminal penalties or affording civil remedies in addition to those provided for in this section.
    (e) Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and, with respect to offenses over which the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction, by such components of the Department of Homeland Security as the Secretary of Homeland Security may direct, and, with respect to offenses over which the United States Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service. Such authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Postal Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Postal Service, and the Attorney General. Violations of this section involving offenses described in paragraph (c)(7)(E) may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and the National Enforcement Investigations Center of the Environmental Protection Agency.
    (f) There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section if— (1) the conduct is by a United States citizen or, in the case of a non-United States citizen, the conduct occurs in part in the United States; and
    (2) the transaction or series of related transactions involves funds or monetary instruments of a value exceeding $10,000.

    (g) Notice of Conviction of Financial Institutions.— If any financial institution or any officer, director, or employee of any financial institution has been found guilty of an offense under this section, section 1957 or 1960 of this title, or section 5322 or 5324 of title 31, the Attorney General shall provide written notice of such fact to the appropriate regulatory agency for the financial institution.
    (h) Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
    (i) Venue.— (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a prosecution for an offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in— (A) any district in which the financial or monetary transaction is conducted; or
    (B) any district where a prosecution for the underlying specified unlawful activity could be brought, if the defendant participated in the transfer of the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity from that district to the district where the financial or monetary transaction is conducted.

    (2) A prosecution for an attempt or conspiracy offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in the district where venue would lie for the completed offense under paragraph (1), or in any other district where an act in furtherance of the attempt or conspiracy took place.
    (3) For purposes of this section, a transfer of funds from 1 place to another, by wire or any other means, shall constitute a single, continuing transaction. Any person who conducts (as that term is defined in subsection (c)(2)) any portion of the transaction may be charged in any district in which the transaction takes place.

  12. #47
    robmpink
    Update your status
    robmpink's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-09-07
    Posts: 13,205
    Betpoints: 43

    interesting information i read here.

  13. #48
    King Mayan
    STFU AND SQUAT PUTO
    King Mayan's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-22-10
    Posts: 21,325
    Betpoints: 3679

    Shit baseball lines anyway.

  14. #49
    EaglesPhan36
    EaglesPhan36's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-06
    Posts: 71,662

    Umm, the Cashier's page loads for me.

  15. #50
    Slainte
    Slainte's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-13-09
    Posts: 2,442
    Betpoints: 36

    dsi was one of the very few good options for non-american sports betting i will miss them if they go completely off the market

  16. #51
    ttwarrior1
    ttwarrior1's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 06-23-09
    Posts: 28,299
    Betpoints: 9617

    The Ghost Hand
    Maryland law enforcers aim to take the pot by secretly sitting at the online gambling table

    Illustrations By David Plunkert







    More Destinations



    On Dec. 21, 2006, someone in Maryland opened an account with bodog.com, an online gaming site whose customers bet on sports and horse-racing and play poker and casino games on their computers. The same day, that same someone placed two online bets on football games with Bodog. Over the course of 2007, after more wagering, the online gambler requested and received two payout checks from Bodog: one for $1,500 and another for $700.
    Mundane as they may seem, the Maryland gambler's wagers and payouts have had major repercussions in the online-gambling world. That's because, starting in 2008, the details of that person's online betting activities were included in meticulous affidavits supporting warrants to seize the contents of bank accounts said to be tied to illegal gambling. The Maryland gambler was actually a special agent working undercover for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation Division.
    Under U.S. law, facilitating transactions tied to online gambling is illegal. Yet, due to the immense popularity among Americans of wagering over the internet, the overseas companies that provide this kind of entertainment continue to seek ways to do business with U.S. customers. In order to pay out winnings to gamblers in this country, they have to hire U.S. companies willing to operate as payment processors--middle-men who take foreign casino companies' money and disburse it to players when they want to cash out their online gambling accounts. These payment processors are taking a risk that U.S. law enforcement will detect the transactions and seize the money while it's sitting in the payment processors' accounts--which is exactly what federal investigators in Maryland, and elsewhere, have been doing--but due to the lucrative nature of the business, both the payment processors and the online-casino companies have been willing to take that gamble.
    In the post-Sept. 11 world, the U.S. government has developed a heightened interest in augmenting its ability to track the ways and means of global money-moving. Though the motivation is to protect the world from terrorists by interrupting their finances, this trend also means that financial crimes of all kinds--including the movement of online gambling money into the United States--face a greater risk of detection. In the world of internet wagering, whenever money is sitting in a U.S. bank account, it is exposed to possible seizure by the authorities. And, as investigators' successes mount, it's clear they are getting better at it.
    IRS criminal investigators in Maryland "opened a formal investigation of Bodog in 2006," court records state, after having "conducted interviews regarding Bodog.com, Calvin Ayre, and Bodog's operations in approximately 2003." Ayre, a Canadian who's been living in exile for several years now, is the founder of Bodog, which is based in Antigua and has operations in Costa Rica.
    Bodog, a 15-year-old company which claims to be the world's pre-eminent online gambling site and whose operations span the globe, is not the first to be targeted by American law enforcement's crackdown on internet gambling. That honor goes to Jay Cohen, who in 1998 was indicted in New York along with numerous other defendants for violating the federal Wire Wager Act in running the Antigua-based World Sports Exchange. Cohen fought the charges, saying federal laws prohibiting wire transfers of gambling proceeds do not apply to the internet. He lost and was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Since then, the feds have continued to focus on an industry that, in effect, presents opportunities for people to gamble anywhere and anytime, despite the laws of any particular country or state.
    "If you're in Antigua running a casino, that's fine," says Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein. "But if you're actually operating a casino in someone's bedroom in Montgomery County over the internet, that's illegal." Thus, any proceeds that can be traced to gambling activity that takes place in Maryland--whether it's actual betting over the internet, or just the arrival of checks in the mailboxes of Maryland gamblers cashing out their online-gambling accounts--could end up seized by Maryland authorities.
    Since early 2008, according to federal court records, the ongoing federal investigation of online gambling based in Maryland--which, in addition to the IRS, also involves members of a Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) task force--has brought at least $29,206,594.62 in alleged gambling proceeds into federal coffers. The latest warrant in the investigation was signed by U.S. magistrate judge Paul Grimm in early February, and it targeted the contents of a Mercantile Bank account in Tampa, Fla. The account, held in the name of a company called Direct Channel LLC, yielded $860,335.90 on March 5. Direct Channel, like the other companies included in the Maryland internet-gambling seizures, allegedly provided payment-processing services in the U.S. for gambling web sites based in other countries. Though the Maryland investigation initially appeared to focus on payment processors for Bodog, such as Direct Channel, it has since broadened to include funds held by companies serving another gambling site, goldencasino.com, which is also based in Antigua.
    Any U.S. bank account used by a payment processor working with online casinos could be targeted by investigators, potentially wiping out millions of dollars when a seizure warrant arrives at the bank. But due to the magnitude of online gambling in the United States--half of the $16 billion per year that internet gambling is estimated to generate is believed to originate in the United States--the risk may be worth it. Though federal investigators in Maryland and elsewhere, including New York, Missouri, and Florida, go for the money, there's so much in play at any given moment that what they seize is only a small portion of money flow.
    So far, after several years of effort, Maryland law enforcers have seized nearly $30 million in suspected online-gambling proceeds. That's equal to less than one half of one percent of the $8 billion that U.S. online gamblers are estimated to spend each year. But it's a start. And as the effort builds and grows more sophisticated and nimble with experience, the potential is as vast as the American online-gambling economy itself.
    "There are very big numbers in internet gambling," say Rosenstein, acknowledging the sizeable cut the government could get through seizing and forfeiting assets, which are funneled into law-enforcement budgets to support the efforts of the agencies that seized them. Asked if seizures, in the long run, could undermine gambling web sites' ability to pay out to U.S. customers, he says: "That's a possibility, and it's certainly a risk for customers. And it's a pretty effective deterrent, since customers have no remedy if the gambling operator fails to pay. They won't be able to go into court and enforce that. It's an illegal contract."
    Seizing and forfeiting criminally derived assets, including those from online gambling, has been made a priority by Rosenstein's office. Last year, he hired the nation's top asset-forfeiture prosecutor--Stefan Cassella, who literally wrote the book on the subject, a 950-page tome entitled Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States--to lead the effort. Among Cassella's achievements is the largest forfeiture in U.S. history: $1.2 billion from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International in the 1990s. Given the size of the online-gambling industry's assets, Cassella may have an opportunity to break his own record while working in Maryland.
    Law-enforcement efforts to interrupt internet-gambling money flowing in and out of the United States were ramped up after the 2006 passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was signed by President George W. Bush in October that year. Before that law was passed, the federal Wire Act, which dates back to 1961, already prohibited the transfer of gambling proceeds via wire communications. That law had been used to go after internet gambling prior to the UIGEA's passage. But unlike the Wire Act, the UIGEA specifically outlaws internet-gambling transactions and requires financial operators, such as banks and payment processors, to determine which transactions are tied to online gambling and report them to regulators.
    The banking industry, concerned that UIGEA requirements would be difficult to enforce and would force bankers to become anti-gambling police, persuaded the Obama administration to postpone the law, scheduled for implementation in December 2009, for six months. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), meanwhile, is currently trying to usher through legislation that would repeal the UIGEA and instead set up a regulate-and-tax scheme for the industry, arguing that online gambling is a liberty--and a potentially large source of public revenues--that the government should not prohibit.
    But Rosenstein contends that going after the illegal profits gained from the U.S. market for internet gambling is a matter of fairness. "What Americans find particularly galling," he says, "is when something is criminalized, honest people don't engage in the activity, but criminals do, so they get excess profits because their only competition is from other criminals."
    Those seeking to legitimize aspects of online gambling, though, have other thoughts on the matter. Last year, in trying to persuade a federal judge to release funds seized from a payment processor allegedly tied to online gambling, lawyers for the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), a Washington, D.C.-based interest group, argued that online poker is a game of skill, not of chance, and thus is not illegal gambling. They also contended that the UIGEA establishes criminal culpability for "persons who operate illegal gambling sites, rather than those who process payment transactions," and that restricted transactions under the UIGEA do not include funds going to a gambler because a gambler is "not engaged in the business of betting or wagering."
    The lawyers for the PPA (whose motto is "Poker is not a crime: Join the fight.") did not prevail. But their efforts--and the well-heeled existence of the PPA, which has its own lobbying arm, PokerPAC, and whose board is chaired by former U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-New York)--indicates that powerful forces in American society don't like the online-gambling crackdown. Recent public-opinion polling, though, indicates the prohibition of online gambling is popular; two-thirds of those responding to a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll released on March 11 say they do not favor legalizing it.
    Though online gambling is legal in many parts of the globe, enjoyed by many Americans, and accepted in many cultures--to the point that online-gambling companies' stocks often are publicly traded in other nations--its continued prohibition in the United States may be explained by the longtime association of the gambling industry with unseemly characters making obscene profits.
    Recent cases against internet gambling operations, for instance, give a sense of the profit potential the business presents and sometimes allege organized-crime ties. In New York in October 2009, the operators of Panama-based betonline.com were charged with illegal online gambling; authorities claimed the group made $587 million in 28 months and was linked to the Gambino and Genovese crime families. In a 2006 Missouri case against the longtime gambling figures who ran Costa Rica-based betonsports.com, the indictment states that the company's promotional materials boasted "100,000 active players, who placed 33 million wagers, worth over $1.6 billion" in 2003, before the company went public on the London stock exchange. In February, Missouri authorities indicted the operators of Costa Rica-based Elite Sports, which ran the web sites best24b.com and best24b.net, and among the defendants were members of the Kansas City's storied Cammisano crime family.
    In addition, federal authorities in New York have charged two men--Anurag Dikshit in 2008 and Douglas Rennick in 2009--with illegally running online-gambling ventures. Dikshit, who was born in India and is one of the youngest billionaires in the world thanks to the success of his online-gambling business, is co-founder of the Gibraltar company that operated partypoker.com; charges against him include the forfeiture of $300 million in gambling revenues. Rennick, a Canadian, ran a series of payment-processing companies that allegedly served the internet-gambling industry, and the government is seeking to forfeit more than a half billion dollars of the proceeds from his financial dealings.
    Another alleged payment processor was charged in Florida in February, when a bank alerted federal authorities that customers were trying to cash large checks they said were the payouts from online-gambling winnings. Michael Olaf Schuett, a German man living in Naples, Fla., had set up hundreds of companies and had dozens of bank accounts that were allegedly used to operate the scheme since 2007. The complaint against him says that he transferred online-gambling payments to about 23,000 people, mostly in the United States, and that the total amount of money involved was $70 million.
    In what may have been the first federal gambling case involving the internet in Maryland, IRS investigators and Montgomery County police teamed up to bust a ring that, in 2003 and 2004, handled action from Maryland customers on behalf of a Dominican company called World Wide Wagering, which runs the web site wager.dm. The conspiracy case, which ended with the convictions of seven men from Montgomery County, Baltimore, and Florida, followed the money flow to and from bettors and the defendants. The case included the cashing of more than $150,000 worth of checks at University Liquors in Hyattsville.
    Just as IRS agents in Maryland were cracking the World Wide Wagering case, they started looking into Bodog. But it wasn't until December 2006, shortly after the UIGEA was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, that the Bodog investigation got serious--it began with an investigator logging onto the web site, posing as a customer, and starting to gamble.
    Once the investigator started receiving payout checks in 2007, the money trail could be tracked. In the meantime, the investigation gained a cooperating witness from inside the internet-gambling industry, who corroborated facts about Bodog's operations, including the contention that "Bodog takes in from $250,000 to millions per day on sports bookmaking alone," court records show. An informant also helped out by corroborating facts based on experience using Bodog's site to gamble in Florida. The informant was able to explain the betting process to investigators; additional information was gleaned from investigators working online-gambling probes in other jurisdictions.
    By 2008, sufficient cause had been established by Maryland IRS investigators to seize funds from the bank accounts of three payment-processing companies suspected of handling funds for Bodog: JBL Services and Transactions Solutions in Georgia, and a California company called ZAFTIG Instantly Processed Payments Corp., operating as ZipPayments.com.
    On Jan. 18, 2008, U.S. District Court magistrate judge Beth Gesner signed a search-and-seizure warrant application for bank accounts in the name of JBL Services and Transactions Solutions; $14,200,195.73 was seized. On June 28, 2008, U.S. District Court magistrate judge Susan Gauvey signed another warrant application for ZipPayments.com bank accounts, which yielded another $9,869,283.05. By July 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland had filed forfeiture actions against both pots of money. The legal actions were based on lengthy affidavits written by IRS criminal investigator Randall Carrow.
    In September 2008, the case against ZipPayments.com's money suddenly heated up. A claim for nearly $10 million was filed by ZipPayments.com and Edward Courdy, a California man who sought to have the money returned, saying it was lawfully his. Within days of filing his claim, Courdy was charged with money laundering, as was Michael Garone, a Georgia man connected to JBL Services and Transaction Solutions ("Bodog Internet Gambling Investigation Leads to Money-Laundering Charges," Mobtown Beat, Oct. 30, 2008). In February 2009, as a result of a forfeiture settlement negotiated by Courdy's attorney, Stanley Greenberg, and assistant U.S. attorney Richard Kay, the government returned $200,000 of the ZipPayments.com money to Courdy, and kept the rest.
    Today, the status of the criminal cases against Courdy and Garone is unclear. Some time in the fall of 2009, a little over a year after they were filed, the online records of the cases against them disappeared from the federal court-records database system, known as Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). Since Maryland's federal courts handle only electronically filed documents, PACER is the only repository of its records. The disappearance from PACER of Maryland criminal case numbers 08-454 (against Courdy) and 08-455 (against Garone), creates the illusion that they were never filed at all--though City Paper still has copies of the documents charging them, which bear Rosenstein's signature. Despite City Paper's requests for explanation, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland has remained mum about what happened.
    Courdy's lawyer, Greenberg, has consistently declined City Paper's request for comment about his client's troubles in Maryland. Efforts to contact Garone, and to identify his lawyer in the Maryland case, have been unsuccessful.
    After the money seizures and criminal charges involving Courdy and Garone were filed, the online gambling investigation in Maryland appears to have shifted from the IRS to Immigration and Customs Enforcement--and the level of secrecy surrounding the investigation increased. Though numerous search-and-seizure warrants have been filed for the contents of bank accounts and an e-mail account associated with payment processors since last summer, nearly all of them were granted under seal, so probable cause for the seizures has not been revealed to the public.
    Despite the secret nature of many of the seizure filings, certain information about them is available. Three ICE task force members in Maryland--Maryland State Police trooper Robert J. Mignona, ICE special agent M. Lisa Ward, and Anne Arundel County Police detective Richard S. Gunn--and one ICE special agent in Louisiana, Augusta B. Ferenec, filed the warrant applications. The companies whose bank accounts have been seized--HMD, Forshay Enterprises, and Electracash in California; Atrium Financial Group (AFG) in Delaware; and Direct Channel in Florida--are in the payment-processing business. The amounts seized so far from these companies' bank accounts add up to $5,137,115.84. And, in the case of Electracash--a business that has past associations with Courdy--warrants have been issued not only to seize the contents of bank accounts, but of an e-mail account the company has with Intermedia, a New York City communications company. (The Electracash e-mail warrant, unlike the bank-account seizures, so far has yielded nothing, court records show.)
    One of the unsealed search-warrant affidavits--the one filed early this year against Direct Channel's bank account in Florida--was written by Ward, but draws directly from the IRS affidavit in the Courdy and Garone seizures, and thus sheds no new light on the investigation's details. The other unsealed warrant, against Atrium Financial Group and written by Ferenec, shows that ICE's financial-investigations group in New Orleans, La., along with the Louisiana State Police, are in on the Maryland probe ("GoldenCasino.com's Payment Processor Targeted in Latest OnLine Gambling Seizures in Maryland," The News Hole, Oct. 28, 2009).
    The Louisiana end of the Maryland investigation began on July 14, 2008, when Louisiana State Police officers opened a gambling account with goldencasino.com. They did not immediately succeed, because the bank they were using to deposit $100 into the gambling account apparently blocked the transaction. On the second try, though, they succeeded. They then requested a payout.
    The first payout check bounced, but the second one, from AFG, cleared, and the investigators, using information they gleaned from their transactions, used their investigative powers to start on up the money trail. They discovered funds moving between Canadian companies' bank accounts in Canada and Cyprus and on to AFG bank accounts in the United States, which then issued checks to U.S. residents, including in Maryland. The transactions they tracked involved millions of dollars zipping across the globe.
    "Because of enhanced monitoring of financial transactions since Sept. 11, we have a much better handle on the movement of funds," Rosenstein says about the ability of investigators to dig into the online-gambling industry. In fact, the affidavits of investigators Carrow and Ferenec indicate that initiating a successful seizure of funds from payment processors doesn't require particularly sophisticated investigative techniques. The trick, it seems, is trying to pinpoint where the money will be at any given moment, hoping to gain court orders to freeze it, and seize it before it shifts yet again.
    Rosenstein points out another challenge investigators face in trying to seize online gambling funds: While it's relatively easy to go after funds in U.S. accounts, going after offshore accounts--where the big money is, since that's where the online gaming companies operate--is tricky.
    "It's similar to the challenges we face with child pornography, which is often stored overseas and transported to the United States over the internet," Rosenstein says. "The degree of international cooperation with regard to child pornography is far greater than with offshore gambling, though. But we can readily intercept the money flowing through financial institutions that we have jurisdiction over."
    Rosenstein says online gambling can be prosecuted anywhere that customers are located, and that the public should expect to see more enforcement efforts taking place in more jurisdictions. He says that criminal activity is increasingly becoming more internet-based, and that investigative agencies are becoming more focused on financial crimes. They're also becoming more sophisticated when it comes to following the money.
    "Anything that illegally generates large amounts of money is a concern on many levels," Rosenstein says. "People engaged in such conduct may be committing other crimes. They may not be paying taxes, and they may be investing in other illegal activities."

  17. #52
    Coming Back!
    Coming Back!'s Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-09-09
    Posts: 1,470

    We need a Mod to comment on BM story

    Before I vomit.....

    Thx

  18. #53
    frostno98
    frostno98's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-07
    Posts: 9,770
    Betpoints: 648

    Quote Originally Posted by EaglesPhan36 View Post
    Umm, the Cashier's page loads for me.
    Yeah it working, positive sign for folks with money still in their.

  19. #54
    cyberinvestor
    cyberinvestor's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-30-10
    Posts: 1,952
    Betpoints: 138

    I am not a mod but the only question, assuming Bookmaker was smart with their money and location, is whether they leave the US market. I assume like PokerStars they will provide payouts and you will just have to access them in other ways and not through Bookmaker.com.

    If they do leave the US market, well then US gambling is pretty much dead. Hopefully the Greek hangs in there (which they should since they would get everyone!) but with Bookmaker down other books will drop like flies.

    Pretty sad!

  20. #55
    LVHerbie
    LVHerbie's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-15-05
    Posts: 6,342
    Betpoints: 1965

    I would give me a few hours... Unlikely if bookmaker got caught with their pants down at this point that SBR knew anything either... I'm sure you get a statement shortly...

  21. #56
    jjgold
    jjgold's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-20-05
    Posts: 388,190
    Betpoints: 10

    Why do these sites do business in usa??

  22. #57
    Cap dat 4ss
    okst. -13.5
    Cap dat 4ss's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-11-10
    Posts: 3,665

    Screen shots or this shit ain't happening.

  23. #58
    fury
    fury's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-20-10
    Posts: 1,651

    If this ends up being true I might be done with offshore for good. Fukk the government.

  24. #59
    mighty maron
    USA Bra over 2.5
    mighty maron's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-20-09
    Posts: 4,215
    Betpoints: 85

    The same thing happened with Stars, Full Tilt, and Ultimate Bet. It takes up to 48 for the DNS to catch up. Pokerstars.com changed to Pokerstars.eu...full tilt went to uk site.

    I am really surprised that all the big boys did not already change their domain names from .com to .eu or the country of their origin. It makes the seizing of the domain a little more difficult.

    It is the end....when Tony from 5 dimes said that they would be few USA options left maybe he was prophetic

  25. #60
    ElLoco23
    ElLoco23's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-22-11
    Posts: 233

    Anyone else pulling their money out of Bookmaker/DSI???

    Just in case the sky is falling? Looks like BetJamaica is about to get a lot more deposits this week.

  26. #61
    Grandmaster B
    Retired
    Grandmaster B's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-05-09
    Posts: 6,035

    Ive always stated when bookmaker goes down offshore for Americans will be officially DEAD

    is that what happened here today?

  27. #62

  28. #63
    mighty maron
    USA Bra over 2.5
    mighty maron's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-20-09
    Posts: 4,215
    Betpoints: 85

    How the f do they seize bank accounts in all these countries. As part of the investigation, 11 bank accounts located in Charlotte, North Carolina; Guam; Panama; Malta; Portugal; and the Netherlands


    Im surprised that the books dont have their bank accounts out of Antigua. Antigua won a big judgment against the USA in the world trade court and would be loathe to hand over the bank accounts

  29. #64
    Cap dat 4ss
    okst. -13.5
    Cap dat 4ss's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-11-10
    Posts: 3,665

    Quote Originally Posted by mighty maron View Post
    The same thing happened with Stars, Full Tilt, and Ultimate Bet. It takes up to 48 for the DNS to catch up. Pokerstars.com changed to Pokerstars.eu...full tilt went to uk site. I am really surprised that all the big boys did not already change their domain names from .com to .eu or the country of their origin. It makes the seizing of the domain a little more difficult. It is the end....when Tony from 5 dimes said that they would be few USA options left maybe he was prophetic
    The problem here is that when this happened with the poker websites, many people had screenshots showing the domain had been seized. Then it took 24-48 hours for the DNS to catch up.

    What we have here is a known troll with a very unofficial looking OP without any proof. This may very well turn out to be the case, and if so, so be it. But until at least one poster other than excel posts a screen shot, I'm not believing anything Dumbo types.

  30. #65
    beermankirk
    beermankirk's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 11-17-09
    Posts: 1,512
    Betpoints: 885

    This is starting to suck, surprised they dont shut the SBR sportsbook next...

  31. #66
    frostno98
    frostno98's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-07
    Posts: 9,770
    Betpoints: 648

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandmaster B View Post
    Ive always stated when bookmaker goes down offshore for Americans will be officially DEAD

    is that what happened here today?
    Actually no. Sportsbook.com and Betus probably has the highest volume of customers of all them books. When they get shut down, that will mean the end of world as we know itSportsbook are being raptured away as were witnessing.

  32. #67
    fury
    fury's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-20-10
    Posts: 1,651

    Quote Originally Posted by mighty maron View Post

    It is the end....when Tony from 5 dimes said that they would be few USA options left maybe he was prophetic

    Will the feds fukk with God next? I'd love to see a chat log of that.

  33. #68
    illmatick
    Update your status
    illmatick's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-05-09
    Posts: 5,433
    Betpoints: 115

    fok this shit

    I'M withdrawing 80% of my offshore money today.

    Selling Sbr doesn't sound like such a bad idea now.

  34. #69
    spankie
    Long Live Rodney!
    spankie's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-10-11
    Posts: 9,992

    yep. gone.

    hopefully withdrawl requests go thru.

  35. #70
    alling
    alling's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-13-10
    Posts: 1,403
    Betpoints: 1802

    looks like feds going after the books/poker rooms who have used echecks

First 123 Last
Top