Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1. Introduction
When you add the anonymity of the Internet, the troubles caused by
lose a small amount of that money, and then cash out the remaining
funds.
cocaine of the Internet" due to the ease with which online gamblers
can play from home. Online players can gamble 24 hours a day from
certify that they are of legal age, most make little or no attempt to
Internet by those under the age of 21 has led to concerns that they
$30,000 each year and rack up $20,000 to $25,000 in credit card debt,
via industry revenues. Some estimates show that internet gambling is now
a $12-13 billion a year industry, with about half of that coming from
was estimated that nearly 2,300 different websites provide gamblers with
Although these numbers are hard to verify as they are ever changing
regulated gambling in all of its forms since at least 1961 (as discussed
operations. This section will introduce the various federal laws that
currently regulate gambling and various bills that have been recently
1961 ("The Wire Act") (18 U.S.C. [section]1084, 2008) and the
both have been used to regulate Internet gambling. Next, the Unlawful
internet gambling was not an issue in 1961, the Wire Act and Travel Act
have been used to regulate Internet gambling because the Wire Act deals
Internet gambling operations is the Wire Act. The Wire Act prevents a
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both
overseas.
3.1.2. The Travel Act
Travel Act. Similar to the Wire Act, the Travel Act may also be used to
activity,
title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and if death
results shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life (18 U.S.C.
[section]1952).
includes illegal gambling, which can include sports betting. The courts
these transactions can also come under the regulation of the Act.
brought under both the Wire and Travel Acts, the following cases will be
has used the Wire Act to prosecute those involved in Internet gambling
operations. Jay Cohen ran one of the most lucrative online sports
the Wire Act. In 1996, Cohen, along with several business partners,
bets on American sporting events through both the Internet and over the
bets, WSE required them to open an account with WSE and wire at least
$300 to a bank in Antigua to open that account. After opening the
bets.
The FBI began investigating Cohen and WSE during late 1997 and
early 1998. FBI agents contacted WSE by both phone and Internet to place
bets after they had opened accounts. In March 1998, Cohen was arrested
and charged with conspiracy to violate and actually violating the Wire
Act. After a jury trial found him guilty of violating the Wire Act, he
2001, p. 70).
During sabung ayam the late 1990s as Internet gambling became more popular,
behavior and wanted to prevent this from occurring. In 1998, the state
of New York sued World Interactive Gaming Corporation (WIGC) and Golden
Chips Casino, Inc. (GCC) to enjoin them from operating within New York
Corp., 1999).
In Vacco, the main issue the court needed to determine was whether
p. 846). WIGC operated its offices in New York and was incorporated in
promoted its Internet casino over the Internet and through a gambling
gambling. Anyone who entered a state that did not allow land-based
get around the system by going back to the registration page and
circumvent the system, the defendants did not make a good faith effort
defendants claimed that the transactions occurred off shore and that
there were no state or federal laws that regulated internet gambling and
that its activity not only violated New York state statutes, but also
the Wire and Travel Acts (Vacco, 1999, p. 851). as the court explained,
this case. The Travel Act then prevents anyone from using any facility
any illegal activity (p. 846). The defendants here used a facility in
Antigua and New York to both promote and manage the illegal activity of
their behavior is illegal gambling under both the Wire and Travel Acts.
concern over the negative impact that gambling can have on American
in order to ensure that that all users are of legal age, to prevent
[section]5361, et. seq. 2008). However, the provisions of the law are
extensive.
Act was enacted for several reasons. Initially, Congress recognized the
bet or wager as
outcome;
[section]5362(1), 2008).
means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where
such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law
such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit
card);
person;
financial institution; or
Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may
[section]5364, 2008), and gives federal and state attorneys general the
power to seek civil remedies to help enforce the other provisions of the
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992] and that meets
[section]5362(I)(E)(ix), 2008).
organizations who come under the Act (12 C.F.R. 233 (2008). as part of
the Code related to banks and banking, the provisions set forth
after its passage, many Internet gambling sites stopped taking bets from
Enforcement Act
Although there have not been many cases brought under this new law,
a few cases have tested the waters to determine how the law will be
enforced.
Enforcement Act was unconstitutional and moved to enjoin the Act from
Gonzales, 2008). Interactive Media claimed that the Act violated the
internet gambling in certain ways. The New Jersey District Court held
that the Act does not burden any group's expressive association
freedoms because it does not prevent the group from expressing its views
Interactive Media also claimed that the Act also violated its
*27).
Gaming Ass'n, 2008, p. *27). The overbroad claim failed because the
conduct and the financial transactions included in the Act are not
The Act does not deal with constitutionally protected conduct, and
therefore, the Act is not covered by the overbreadth doctrine and cannot
business to incur additional costs because they have to ensure that the
wagers made are not illegal, it is not vague. as the court explained,
the Act clearly outlines what conduct is considered illegal and what
actions businesses need to take to ensure they are not violating the Act
(p. *28)
The court dismissed the Tenth Amendment claim for lack of standing
a Qui Tam statute, claiming that the people involved in fantasy sports
leagues were making bets. Qui Tam statutes are derived from an old
English statute that allows gamblers to recover their losses. The Qui
league where participants paid a fee to join the league and use services
that came along with it, such as real-time data. The entrance fee also
draft players as well as trade. at the end of the fantasy league season,
winners were awarded prizes that had been announced in advance and did
not have any correlation to the amount of people that registered.
explain that when there is a specific entry fee, prizes are announced in
advance, and these prizes have no correlation to the entry fees, the
entry fee to the fantasy league will not be considered a bet (Humphrey,
2007, pp. *18-20). The court also pointed to the Unlawful Internet
So far these are the only United States court decisions that have
Presumably as the provisions of the Act are given fuller affect more
of the Internet gambling business, and agree to abide by all of the laws
of the United States related to Internet gambling. The Director would
and executives of the company. Once licensed, the operators must agree
place. The House and Energy Commerce referred this proposed bill to the
2007.
* The Internet Gambling Study Act (H.R. 2140, 2007), would re quire
(H.R. 2607, 2007), would amend the Internal Revenue Code in an attempt
of all funds deposited with the operator for purposes of placing bets.
The fee would have to be paid within thirty days of the deposit, and all
fees would be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury. The bill
was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means on June 7, 2007.
Bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means in March of
2008.
July 15, 2008, the bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
Implementation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6663, 2008), would further clarify the
2006. Specifically, this bill would force the United States Attorney
offer Internet sports betting in the United States, or those who process
July agen sabung ayam 30, 2008, the bill was referred to the Committee on Financial
Internet gambling.
Enforcement Acts, the United States Congress has set up a scheme that
how a United States citizen can engage in any legal form of online
gambling. and the latest federal law in 2006 has not ended the
the United States the analysis must now shift to an analysis of these
For instance, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Dakota have all enacted
profit when accessing the Internet, World Wide Web, or any part
[section]14:90.3, 2008)
Similar statutes can be found in Oregon and South Dakota (Or. Rev.
2008).
that
The legislature finds that for the purpose of ensuring the proper
d protect the state and local governments from those who would
activities; and
and their families (Mont. Code judi sabung ayam Ann., [section]23-5-110, 2007).
Internet gambling as
[section]23-5-112, 2007)
Interestingly, the state of Nevada, one of the few states where
gambling is legal within the United States, has made Internet gambling
the future (Nev. Rev. Stat. [section]463.750, 2007). This statute states
that the Nevada Gaming Commission will not allow the licensing of an
compliance with applicable laws and they are secure and reliable.
because few states allow for any form of legalized gambling, coupling
these laws with the federal laws already discussed, leads to an overall
scheme that prohibits virtually any form of Internet gambling within the
United States.
5. Conclusion
continues to grow. While Congress and the states have put forth
legislation at both the federal and state level is still too difficult
foreseeable future.
References
Humphrey v. viacom, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44679, No. 06-2768
Gonzales, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16903, Civ Act. No. 07-2625 (D.N.J. Mar.
4, 2008).
(2008).
(March 4, 2008).
[section]463.750 (2008).
Congressional Testimony.
[section]23-5-110 (2007).
(N.Y. 1999).
States of America.