No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Internet gambling conundrum: Extraterritorial impacts of U.S. laws on Internet businesses
Abstract
Internet gambling is a significant commercial activity that has been successfully adapted to the online environment. The geographical transcendence of the Internet presents challenges for government regulation, which varies considerably. U.S. patrons have historically provided a significant portion of the Internet gaming market, despite a dubious legal status. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) enacted in October 2006 clarifies the legal status otherwise imposed by state law by prescribing felony criminal status to the Act of receiving an Internet wager from a jurisdiction where such wagering is illegal. This article provides an analysis of the UIGEA and its effects on Internet gambling firms, as well as related businesses. Despite targeting gambling firms, this legislation may also assist in the prosecution of other firms through aiding and abetting liability. UIGEA also targets financial services providers, requiring additional safeguards to stop unlawful transactions destined for Internet gaming sites. Financial markets suggest that this legislation has reduced Internet gambling in publicly traded firms. However, the bill may also have the effect of enhancing investment capital flows for online gambling firms, due to clarification of the legal status for firms who are not targeting U.S. residents in violation of UIGEA. The ultimate result may depend on whether other nations follow suit in targeting extraterritorial business with domestic gambling patrons.
... Nevertheless, most people do not live near a casino, wish to gamble in more private locations or, most significant, they wish to wager on sporting events which is permitted in only four states (Delaware, Nevada, Oregon and Montana), and there are limits on the types of sports betting permitted. The general prohibition of sports wagering in the U.S. under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (1992), the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1988), and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 has resulted in giving Nevada, and a very small number of other locations, a monopoly on the legal sports betting business (Kelly 2011;Morse 2007). The outcome has enabled organized crime elements using illegal gambling businesses to prosper in catering to the demand for sports gambling not permitted by law. ...
Illegal gambling operations have been alleged to support organized crime and victimize participants, rather than benefit them. This is said to occur through cheating in the games provided, defrauding the government of tax revenue, and funding other illicit and criminal activities. What has been missing is a systematic analysis of actual cases involving illegal gambling businesses to determine precisely who is involved, how these businesses operate, the nature of the threat posed, and the law enforcement response to it. The analysis reported here examines all federal convictions involving operation of illegal gambling businesses during a single year. There were more than 80 persons charged and convicted of participation in illegal gambling businesses, centered around 40 distinct enterprises. The results indicate that illegal gambling businesses in the United States are long-term operations consisting of four general types, and that enforcement of existing laws, particularly related to illegal online sports betting, are not working effectively.
Blogs with defamation and insults, social networks with fake profiles and blackmailing content, downloading of illegal copies of music and movies, ‘phishing’ frauds and ‘denial of service’ attacks, cyber-bullying, child pornography, offenses committed in cybergames: In Web 2.0 anyone can become the producer of information. Countless ‘intermediaries’ function as go-betweens for the transmission of such data and information: Classical access and host providers (ISPs), search engines (Google, Yahoo), social networks (Facebook, Myspace), electronic encyclopedias (Wikipedia), websites for video uploading (YouTube), blogs, internet games platforms (Second Life, World of Warcraft), webpages for short messages (Twitter) etc. In what circumstances can they be liable for the data involved? In 2000, the EU Electronic Commerce Directive established immunity of ISPs from liability for illegal and harmful content. Greek Constitution and subsequent interpretations of legislation have imposed controversial disclosure obligations. This Chapter tries to identify the role of theplayers in this disputed field and to address questions such as: What are the limits for disclosure of personal data? Will Intermediaries become, in the future, quasi-judges controlling every Internet activity? Are they entitled to defend not only the rights of users but, generally, legitimacy in Cyberspace? Legislators must take into serious consideration the attitude of these new custodians toward compliance and social responsibility.
Transformed by technology, the virtualisation of gambling has prompted administrations around the world to respond swiftly to the challenges posed by the new way of carrying out an age-old practice. However, approaches to regulation differ. Within the USA online gambling is prohibited by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 31 U.S.C. 5361-5367 (enacted in the USA in October 2006). This has been played out by the threats of extradition and arrests of senior executives in Texas and ultimately imprisonment for criminal infringements in among other places Las Vegas. By contrast the UK has implemented a regulatory regime through the Gambling Act 2005. The European Community has provided a regime somewhere between the two following recent European Court of Justice decisions (Plancanica 2 CMLR 25) finding against Member States operating state monopolies preventing the establishment of private providers in this specific sphere of commercial activity, contrary to Article 43TEC (right of establishment) and Article 49TEC (the right to provide services, this will of course also have the corollary of the right to receive services). The appropriateness of these responses leads the commentators back towards embryonic Internet governance discussions on cyber-paternalism and cyber-liberalism with online gambling as the case study.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.