In 1995 we saw the emergence of internet casino gaming, which includes playing games of chance such as poker, blackjack, and roulette as well as gambling live22 deposit pulsa on on sports events. By the year 2000, nearly 300 companies around the world handled almost 2, 000 internet gaming websites. And in 2005, worldwide online gaming revenue is expected to be over $US10 billion for such operators while a total of $US 200 billion is expected to have been wagered.
Widely an issue of intense debate since its creation, the criminality of online gaming has been put forward the proposition at the U. S. Department of Justice as well as in the halls of the U. S. Congress. But since internet gaming sites are primarily offshore, U. S. residents are presently not held accountable for breaking federal law in the absence of such precedent. However, individual states may requirement such practices illegal, following up on finance institutions to prevent such transactions, for example, but individuals never have been prosecuted.
The prevalence of online gaming and the large revenues enjoyed from it has however advised major U. S. broker firms to claim their joint of the pie. At risk is whether or not the Department of Justice will apply the Line Act of 1961 in enforcing regulations and how long it will be before the Congress can acknowledge passing new legislation which will help strengthen the Line Act. The main contest is that the Line Act was intended exclusively for placing proposition wagers on the phone to bookmakers for sports events, and was largely used by then 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 U. S. still remains a greyish area.
But in the era of industrial globalization, it seems that firms such as Goldman Sachs & Corp., Merrill Lynch & Corp. 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 offshore casinos the question remains if they are skirting regulations as well as if they are making reliable investments for their clients, for whom most have no concept that their mutual funds are involved in such efforts.
It is now commonplace for American firms to invest in overseas enterprises, even those which may be considered illegal under U. S. federal law, such as those manufacturers utilizing sweatshops and child labor or by outsourcing techniques business to countries which invest other countries ok’d by the U. S. government. However, the issue of online gaming could very well be just the latest industry in worldwide commerce in which laws and customs never have yet trapped to it, given the style of the technology involved.
The argument is whether someone who generates a gaming transaction from their living room to a country not in the U. S. qualifies as an illegal U. S. transaction and whether or not it can be reasonably policed beyond U. S. shores. In addition to the Line Act, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was enacted in 1992, which banned all wagering on sports events in all states except include those with pre-existing operations in the us of Nevada, Oregon and Delaware. That was and then both Director Clinton’s administration as well as the present Director Bush’s administration both that carried that the Line Act applied to all forms of internet gaming and therefore illegal under existing law.
Yet the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Rounds in 2002 interpreted the Line Act in another way. In Thompson v. Mastercard International et. ‘s., the court established a lower court ruling that according to federal statutes sports gambling on conducted over the internet is illegal, but casino games are legal. Therefore, since the Line Act was specifically enacted to prevent sports gambling on, it would seem that the court started using it right, with the gaming industry in conflict 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 U. S. government in 2003 to help block U. S. actions to prohibit online gaming. The WTO led that the U. S. government was in violation of commercial services accords, and that the U. S. could be at the mercy of trade sanctions. But Elliott Spitzer, New york State Attorney General, through his Internet Institution Office set an investigation against national finance institutions based out of New york such as Citibank, N. A., Bank of America, N. A., JP Morgan Chase & Corp. and MBNA America Bank, N. A., that process credit card transactions online. They as well as Visa and Mastercard agreed to voluntarily block transactions to online gaming sites according to laws of the state of New york. However, other states must set up their own accessories in preventing such gaming.
While the societal impact of gaming has been disputed endlessly for decades, from mental health issues to risk of bankruptcy, the evils of gaming will continue to quarry upon those most vulnerable. However, the fallout of online gaming are too new for them to be realized confirmed on a grand scale. And while we hear of more and more minor children and 16 and up 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 gaming.
But with respect to those who choose not to gamble, the issue of broker houses maintaining mutual funds, unbeknownst to their clients, by investing in offshore gambling on by way of the internet, will perhaps present unforeseen complaints, once consumers become more aware of how their life savings will be invested.
Therefore, Americans should have the decision of buying a product which has been deemed illegal by several U. S. administrations. Without a clear and decisive law, which does not conflict with cyberspace legislation as well as world trade policies, such transactions continue to go on unabated.
Until there is legal clarity, however, the online gaming industry will continue to trump any perceived notion of criminality. And since 2005 saw no new legislation offered by either the house of Representatives or the Senate to restrict online gaming, it seems that the U. S. would rather gamble itself, in doing nothing about it, rather than protect its consumers and those most susceptible to its problems. Rather than owning up to their responsibilities to protect the interests of the American people and thereby U. S. consumers, both the U. S. government and U. S. enterprises would rather can guess that most will not value their cashing in, either.
Diane Meters. Grassi is a freelance columnist, revealing and writing discourse on current events of the day providing honest and often politically incorrect lab tests. From U. S. public policy to Major 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 Meters. 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.