Most of the case the U.S. gov't has against the online gambling company is that most of the customers were U.S. citizen, so therefore it was illegal since gambling is illegal.

The only way the goverment could know that is because this company trades on the London Stock Exchange and that info is public as part of the public disclosure req'ts for filing financial statements.

This is a perfect example of greed runneth over.

Did the company really need the additional money from going public ?

Could the company have grown and sustained itself without that capital ? yes probably.

Now they are in trouble ...

Whether or not they will be convicted of the charges is questionable but it will take alot of time and money to fight this garbage.

But my question with any business (including this one) is ... at what point does greed become unprofitable (due to goverments breathing down your neck, lawsuits, etc ?

Is there a delicate line and how to do you find it ?

Someone should come up with a formula.

PROFIT FROM GREED - COST TO DEFEND AGAINST LAWSUIT = (+)(-) ANSWER

Comments ?

XO Lisa

There are some interesting points here, but I don't think the owners of the website can be faulted for undue greed.  

First, the prosecution is a federal prosecution, which is odd.  Gambling is not a crime under federal law. If you read the link carefully, it's not brought for violating a federal gambling law, but for conspiracy to violate other laws.  The government, in other words, is "reaching" to find a violation.   Gambling is only a crime under certain state laws.  Indeed, gambling is legal in Nevada and in many locations in many states.  So why is the federal government concerned?   Second, it is legal to operate a gambling company -- in fact, most of the casinos in Vegas are operated by public companies -- that are public on US stock exchanges.  It's not unusual for the owner of the site to have gone public.  Gambling is legal in a lot of venues in England.  This is legitimate, big business.  

Here is what is interesting:  There is no shortage of advertising for the gambling industry in legal venues in the US -- just google "Las Vegas" and you'll see what I mean.  Suppose, because of one of these ads, I get on a plane and go to Vegas and gamble.  What's wrong with that?  Now, some guy sets up an on-line casino.  Let's suppose it's headquartered in London, and that it's perfectly legal there.  I "go" to his casino from my computer in the US and gamble.  Why is this any different from taking a trip to Vegas?  Why should he get prosecuted but the Vegas casino does not?

If you ask me, this is a witch hunt.  There's plenty of crime for the government to pursue.  Prosecutions like this are about as useful as, say, prosecutions of websites that provide intormation about activities that are illegal in most jurisdiction, such as prostitution, no?


-- Modified on 7/18/2006 11:56:19 PM

This is all about $$. Enormous tax revenues are at stake.  If the US could figure out how to collect what it considers its fair share, then internet gambling would be legal.

This administration has its head up its ass so far that they need to burp to see daylight.

Las Vegas casinos are legal, you can't compare the two.

If you operate an illegal business, you must be prepared for witch hunt tactics - which is precisely why being a public company is not WISE.

Lisa

Just so you know goverments are allowed to do witch hunts.

That is why they are called the goverment.

Noone said it was right or well conceived but sadly it happens all the time, if you are in something slightly outside of the line, then try to keep your nose as clean as possible is my message.

-- Modified on 7/20/2006 7:17:20 PM