You. S. Gambling Culture Spreads to Wall Street

In 1995 we saw the emergence of internet casino wagering, which includes winning contests of chance such as poker, blackjack, and roulette as well as gambling on sports events. By the year 2000, nearly 300 companies around the world powered almost 2, 000 internet wagering websites. And in 2005, worldwide live22 deposit pulsa online wagering revenue is expected to be over $US10 thousand for such operators while a total of $US 200 thousand is expected to have been wagered.

Widely an issue of intense debate since its invention, the criminality of online wagering has been asserted at the You. S. Department of Justice as well as in the halls of the You. S. Congress. But since internet gaming sites are primarily ocean going, You. S. residents are presently not held accountable for breaking federal law in the absence of such precedent. However, individual states may mandate such practices illegal, seeking bankers to prevent such transactions, for example, but individuals haven’t been prosecuted.

The prevalence of online gaming and the large revenues enjoyed from it has however caused major You. S. brokerage firms to claim their little bit of the quiche. At stake is whether or not the Department of Justice will apply the Wire Act of 1961 in enforcing the law and how long it will be before the Congress can agree on passing new legislation which will help strengthen the Wire Act. The main claim is that the Wire Act was intended exclusively for placing gamble on the phone to bookmakers for sports events, and was largely applied at the same time Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, in order to discourage organized crime and bookmaking. Whether the law now applies to communication between a home computer and an establishment or casino not located in the You. S. still remains a dull area.

But in the era of industrial globalization, it appears that firms such as Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co. and Fidelity Investments are willing to risk the vagueness of the law in order to make investments on behalf of their clients by way of stocks and mutual funds. By providing financing for ocean going casinos the question remains whether they are skirting the law as well as whether they are making reliable investments for their clients, for whom most have no idea of that their mutual funds are involved in such investment strategies.

It is now commonplace for American firms to buy overseas businesses, even those which may be considered illegal under You. S. federal law, such as those manufacturers utilizing sweatshops and child labor or by outsourced workers business to countries which sell to other countries endorsed by the You. S. government. However, the issue of online gaming is perhaps just the latest industry in worldwide commerce in which laws and customs haven’t yet caught up to it, given the sophistication of the technology involved.

The argument is whether someone who generates a wagering transaction from their living room to a country outside of the You. S. qualifies as an illegal You. S. transaction and whether or not it can be reasonably policed beyond You. S. shores. In addition to the Wire Act, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was enacted in 1992, which banned all wagering on sports events in all states except especially those with pre-existing operations in the states of Nevada, Oregon and Delaware. That was pursued by both Chief executive Clinton’s administration as well as the present Chief executive Bush’s administration both of which presented that the Wire Act applied to all forms of internet wagering and therefore illegal under existing law.

Yet the You. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Routine in 2002 interpreted the Wire Act in another way. In Thompson v. Mastercard International et. al., the court affirmed a lesser court lording it over that according to federal statutes sports gambling conducted over the internet is illegal, but casino games are legal. Consequently, since the Wire Act was specifically enacted to prevent sports gambling, it would seem that the court got it right, with the wagering industry fighting that banning online gaming would require additional legislation.

And in 2004 the world Trade Organization got their say when the Caribbean Island nation of Antigua sued the You. S. government in 2003 small company isn’t always block You. S. actions to prohibit online gaming. The WTO overshadowed that the You. S. government was in infringement of commercial services accords, and that the You. S. could be be subject to trade sanctions. But Elliott Spitzer, New york State Attorney General, through his Internet Bureau Office lodged an investigation against national bankers based out of New york such as Citibank, In. A., Bank of America, In. A., JP Morgan Chase & Co. and MBNA America Bank, In. A., that process credit card transactions online. They as well as Visa and Mastercard agreed to of your accord block transactions to online wagering sites according to the laws of the state of New york. However, other states must set up their own components in preventing such wagering.

While the societal impact of wagering has been debated endlessly for decades, from mental health issues to risk of bankruptcy, the evils of wagering will continue to feed upon those most vulnerable. However, the repercussions of online wagering are too new for them to be realized as yet on a grand scale. And while we hear of more and more minor children and the younger generation using credit cards to participate in online gaming, according to experts, more research and education needs to be done in order to warn children and their parents about irresponsible wagering.

But with respect to those who choose not to gamble, the issue of brokerage houses maintaining mutual funds, unbeknownst to their clients, by investing in ocean going gambling by way of the internet, will perhaps present unanticipated complaints, once consumers are more aware of how their life savings are usually now being invested.
Consequently, Americans should have the selection of investing in a product which has been deemed illegal by several You. S. administrations. Without a clear and decisive law, which does not conflict with cyberspace jurisdiction as well as world trade policies, such transactions continue to go on unabated.

Until there is legal clarity, however, the online wagering industry will continue to trump any perceived notion of criminality. And since 2005 saw no new legislation proposed by either the house of Representatives or the Senate to restrict online gaming, it appears that the You. S. would rather gamble itself, in doing nothing about it, rather than protect its consumers and those most susceptible to its ills. Rather than owning up to their responsibilities to protect the interests of the American people and thereby You. S. consumers, the You. S. government and You. S. businesses would rather gamble that most will not love their cashing in, either.

Diane Mirielle. Grassi is a freelance columnist, credit reporting and writing commentary on current events of the day providing honest and often politically incorrect medical tests. From You. S. public policy to Major Little league Baseball, she is an eclectic thinker, and demanding of her readers to reflect on their own thinking patterns from an alternative perspective. Whether you agree with her or not, Diane Mirielle. Grassi will have you coming back to note her opinions, and if at best she wakes you up, then her goal will have been accomplished.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *