| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: U.S. DoJ v. BetonSports |
 |
|
WELCOME!
U.S. Dept. of Justice v. BetOnSports:
U.S. arrests one-time outspoken Internet gambling spokesman David Carruthers of BetonSports:
Meet Me in St. Louis
DVD
Sing along with Judy Garland at YouTube.com.
View the 27-page indictment, which lists the charges:
| Quote: | 18 U.S.C. 5 1962(d) - Racketeering Conspiracy [Count 1, pp. 1-17]
18 U.S.C. 5 1341 - Mail Fraud [Count 2, p. 18]
18 U.S.C. 5 1084 - Transmission of WagerslWagering Information [Counts 3-12, pp. 18-19]
18 U.S.C. 5 1953 - Interstate Transportation of Gambling Para. [Count 13, p. 20]
18 U.S.C. 5 2 -Aiding and Abetting
26 U.S.C. 5 7201 - Tax Evasion [Counts 14-16, p. 20-221
26 U.S.C. 5 7212(a) - Interference with Administration of Internal Revenue Laws [Counts 17-21, pp. 22-231
~Forfeiture pursuant to: 18 U.S.C. 5 1963 [Forfeiture Count, p. 23] |
Follow the assets headed to the U.S. Treasury beginning at para. 46 of the indictment :
| Quote: | 46. The interests of the defendants subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(l), (a)(2), and (a)(3), include but are not limited to:
a. at least $4.5 billion dollars;
Recreational vehicle with VIN number 5B4MP67G023338413;
Recreational vehicle with Florida license tag number S53-8XW;
Recreational vehicle with Florida license tag number S79-7KJ;
PT Cruiser with VIN number 3C8FY4BB41T586360;
PT Cruiser registered to Mobile Promotions or William Lenis;
PT Cruiser with Florida license tag number V65-TAG;
Humvee with serial number 5GRGN23US4H116407;
Humvee with serial number 5GRGN23US74H120068;
Vehicle trailer VIN number 4DFTS 10 122N050735
Dell Latitude laptop computer, serial number 25633081;
Gateway laptop computer, serial number 0027465903;
Gateway laptop computer serial number 0015533205;
Gateway laptop computer serial number 002804106; and
Sprint cell phone assigned number 305-527-6674, forfeitable
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1963(a)(l) and
1963(a)(3);
b. all right, title and interest in BETONSPORTS PLC and its subsidiaries and affiliates identified in paragraph 17 of this Indictment, forfeitable as each convicted defendant's interest in the ENTERPRISE pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(2)(A);
c. all right, title and interest in those entities identified in paragraph 19 of this Indictment, forfeitable as each convicted defendant's interest in the ENTERPRISE pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963(a)(2)(D);
47. If any of the property described in paragraphs (ii) and (iii) above, as a result of any act or omission of a defendant --
(1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
(2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
(3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;
(4) has been substantially diminished in value; or
(5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of any property set forth in paragraphs 45 and 46 above.
48. The above-named defendants, and each of them, are jointly and severally liable for the forfeiture obligations as alleged above.
All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963. |
More on forfeiture at the excellent Forfeiture Endangers America's Rights (FEAR) website edited by Washington, D.C. attorney Brenda Grantland:
| Quote: | In response to our FOIA requests, this week the DOJ released three manuals to us voluntarily - the 2006 versions of: Selected Asset Forfeiture Statutes, Money Laundering Statutes and Related Materials, and the DOJ Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual. These manuals are hot off the presses - the two compilations of statutes (both of which include what appears to be a complete collection of every relevant federal statute on the subject - and some very useful tables and "related material") were published in May, 2006.
The Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual, published in January, 2006, is a treasure trove of information. Forfeiture-savvy journalists will have a field day with this! Defense lawyers will love it too. Although the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979) that the government's "official policies" are not enforceable in court in suits brought by private parties, the government's policies are valuable to defense lawyers and pro se litigants, enabling them to make intelligent decisions in settlement discussions and other matters. Also, when the forfeiture prosecutor takes an unreasonable stance in court or in negotiations, it certainly helps to quote the official policy manuals of the DOJ! |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=250#250
Last edited by legal on Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:23 am; edited 27 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can the U.S. detain a foreign national merely changing planes as Carruthers was?
Introduction to the Law and Legal System
of the United States
Paperback
By Wayne State Unitversity light William Burnham
| Quote: | Cross-Border Abductions Under U.S. Law
The United States follows the so-called Ker-Frisbie rule, under which the process by which the defendant got before the court is irrelevant and does not bar prosecution. The rule was reaffirmed in 1992 in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, a case that attracted considerable attention from the international community. In Alvarez-Machain, federal narcotics agents forcibly abducted a Mexican national from Mexico whom they believed to have been involved in the torture and murder of a U.S. narcotics agent in Mexico. Vigorous protests demanding the defendant's return were made by the Mexican government. However, the Court held, unless abductions are expressly prohibited by treaty, "the rule of Ker applies, and the court need not inquire as to how [defendant] came before it. Moreover, any decision on release and return of the person was one for the executive branch, not for the courts. The decision has met with almost unanimous international condemnation. (Footnotes omitted) (From Ch. XVII, International Aspects of U.S. Law, at p. 684) |
More about the Ker-Frisbie rule:
| Quote: | | ... the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 7 S.Ct. 225, 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886), and Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952), the court held that the manner in which Toscanino was brought into the territory of the United States was immaterial to the court’s power to proceed. (From U.S. v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1974) |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=258#258
Last edited by legal on Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:11 am; edited 11 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antigua attorney sends a flame to BOS for caving to U.S. pressure tactics:
Gambling 911.com
Antigua lead counsel in WTO case Mark Mendel sits down with G911
By Kira Wissman
Aug. 14/06
| Quote: | As a final note, we discussed last week's events in the BOS sports betting case. The decision by BOS management to cease taking wagers from U.S. citizens has left many scratching their heads.
Mark believes that the management of BetonSports did absolutely everything wrong. They sacked Carruthers and left him out to dry simply for doing what he was hired for and paid to do. They have effectively destroyed their company and put customer funds at risk. They should have never shut down and ceded to the American jurisdictional claims. He cannot imagine the situation being handled any worse.
Mark goes on to assert that regulated Antiguan providers of all gaming services should continue business as usual and not change anything they do. The same is true for any offshore operators offering non-sportsbook services. Further, not accepting telephone bets is a meaningless gesture.
When asked about the portion of the indictment that accuses BOS of not properly remitting the wagering excise tax, he states that is simply a tactic. He doesn't see how the US can assert taxing jurisdiction over a foreign entity with no American presence. (emphasis added)
..."I think the whole offshore gaming world has been very poorly served by the deer in the headlights panic of the remaining BOS executives. They have literally taken a company with over US $100 million in market capital and thrown it all away--not to mention the looming consumer disaster. Contrast their reaction with that of companies such as WSEX (World Sports Exchange) and WWTS back in 1998. They kept the doors open, carried on as usual and no punter lost a cent as a result. " |
On U.S. jurisdiction:
| Quote: | ss24:40 - Obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign party in a U.S. court
The jurisdictional test does not differ substantially in determining whether a given U.S. court has jurisdiction over the foreign defendant. The main difference in the analysis is the determination whether the exercise of jurisdiction over the foreign defendant could be considered reasonable based on the circumstances. Resolution of these cases is necessarily fact specific. That said, courts will exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants who meet the Zippo test in circumstances the courts deem appropriate. In MacConnell v. Schwamm, for example, the court exercised personal jurisdiction over a Japanese defendant accused of cybersquatting a domain name using an American company's trademark. The court took into account the fact of the Japanese defendant's residency, but concluded that minimum contacts were met, and the court's interest in protecting California companies outweighed any inconvenience that litigating in a foreign forum caused.
ss 24:41 - The approach of foreign courts, and a U.S. court's reaction
Of significant concern to U.S. individuals and businesses is the exercise of jurisdiction, based on Internet activity, by foreign courts. Such cases have increasingly made headlines, as courts across the world have exerc ised jurisdiction over U.S. companies for their Internet-based activity. The case that to date has raised the most significant First Amendment concerns is that involving the French government's prosecution of Yahoo!, Inc. - a U.S. company whose English language Web site targets U.S. audiences. At issue in the Yahoo! case was the auction of memorabilia on Yahoo!'s Web site. Such activity is clearly lawful, and indeed constitutionally protected, in the in the U.S. In France, however, any display of Nazi memorabilia is unlawful. Although Yahoo!, Inc. has a separately incorporated French subsidiary that hosts a Web site in French and complies with French law, the French court nonetheless exercised jurisdiction over the U.S.-based Yahoo!, Inc. on the ground that French users could access the U.S. Web site if they chose and thus "the damage was suffered in France." The French court ordered Yahoo! to render its site inaccessible to French users, or face a daily fine.
In response to the French court's order, Yahoo!, Inc. filed suit in federal district court in Northern California, seeking a declaration that the French court order is unenforceable in the U.S. The court issued the declaration... The federal district court decision is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the meantime, the French authorities have initiated criminal proceedings against Yahoo!, Inc. and its former Chief Executive Officer. (footnotes omitted) (From Casino City's First Amendment gambling challenge) |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=263#263
Last edited by legal on Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:52 pm; edited 9 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BOS files motion based on Antigua's WTO double victory!
The Real St. Louis Blues
CD Audio
Featuring the legendary Henry 'Mule' Townsend
(Track 17, Going Back Home, PokerPulse dedicates to BoS)
Gambling 911.com
BetonSports Motion Could Vindicate All Sportsbook Owners
Christopher Costigan
Jan. 8/07
| Quote: | In a bizarre twist to the ongoing BetonSports saga, the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case based on the U.S. violation of the WTO treaty and its decisions and appeals...
"I don't think that anybody has realized the impact of filing this motion yet," a source told Gambling911.com. "If this motion flies it is the key to freedom for every person who has been indicted within this industry or convicted of the Wire Act offshore dating back to 1995. Jay Cohen included." Jay Cohen, a co-founder of World Sports Exchange based in Antigua, was convicted of violating the aforementioned "Wire Act" and served nearly two years in a Nevada Federal penitentiary. His partners, Steve Shillinger and Hayden Ware, were also indicted but never returned to the United States. They continue to operate World Sports Exchange.
... "Maybe little Antigua can't do much with their victory in the WTO case and appeal, but the decision is being put to the test for the *first time in a U.S. court of law, and has international ramifications."
Meanwhile, BetonSports attorney Jeff Demerath did not appear at the arraignment hearing for criminal charges against the company on Friday at the request of his client. Though BOS resolved their civil issues with the Department of Justice, they are also named in the criminal indictment with the other individuals. |
Bloomberg.com
Betonsports Lawyer Stays Away From U.S. Arraignment
By Margaret Cronin Fisk and Benjamin Israel
Jan. 5/07
| Quote: | | ..The individual defendants asked (U.S. District Judge Carol E.) Jackson to throw out the criminal case, arguing the indictment violates a World Trade Organization treaty. "The cross-border supply of gambling and betting services'' from Betonsports offices in Costa Rica is a service "which the United States committed to not prohibit'' when it joined the WTO, attorney Alan Ross said in court papers. Ross represents William Hernan Lenis, a direct-mail marketer. The company maintained offices in Costa Rica and Antigua. In 2005, the World Trade Organization ruled U.S. laws criminalizing Internet-based remote-access gambling violated WTO treaty obligations, Ross, of the Miami law firm Robbins, Tunkey, Ross, Amsel, Raben & Waxman, said in court papers. Prosecutors haven't filed papers opposing that motion. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=295#295
Last edited by legal on Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:54 am; edited 13 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BOS fined $5K per for ignoring Judge Carol's siren song:
Mae West: The Glamor Collection
DVD
Listen to Mae's Come Up and See Me Sometime
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
BetOnSports fined $5,000 a day
By Robert Patrick
Feb. 5/07
| Quote: | A federal judge in St. Louis today ordered the international online betting company BetOnSports and its executives to pay a fine of $5,000 per day for ignoring pending criminal charges. Until federal prosecutors in St. Louis and Washington filed civil and criminal charges against the company last summer, London-based BetOnSports PLC was taking in more than $1 billion in U.S. bets. The company shut down its operations in the U.S. as part of a civil settlement, but hasn't refunded the money still in customer accounts or provided all the documents prosecutors have demanded. And they have also skipped court hearings in a pending criminal case.
Lawyer Jeffrey Demerath didn't show for a hearing on Friday that was called so the company could explain why it shouldn't be penalized for ignoring the criminal case. U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson said she'd talked to him the day before and he wouldn't say why the company told him not to show up.
Today, Jackson said BetOnSports, “without just cause or excuse,” disobeyed and “deliberately ignored” court orders. Jackson found the company was in contempt of court and ordered the company and its officers and directors to pay $5,000 per day starting Feb. 2, the date of the hearing. "It's a very serious matter and I will be conferring with the client shortly,” Demerath said by telephone this afternoon. |
So why is BetOnSports pulling a classic Mae West?
Are defendants trying to import an international human rights approach to their U.S. Internet gambling case, we wonder? We can only speculate on this no-show rationale, but that may be the objective considering that counsel has already raised Antigua's WTO challenge in its defence (see above).
View the Human Rights Watch 13-page submission Nov. 17/06 on trials in absentia:
| Quote: | ... since the creation of the ad hoc court for the former Yugoslavia, all international and mixed tribunals have rejected trials in absentia, making it clear there is an increasing international acceptance of a standard prohibiting these sorts of proceedings.
... in Prosecutor v. Delalic, the defendant was not present one morning for unknown reasons and also had not explicitly waived through his counsel his right to be present. In that case, there were multiple defendants, and the Office of the Prosecutor proposed tendering documents as a group and allowing the defense to object later. Rejecting that idea, the court adjourned finding that the right to be present at trial is virtually absolute in the absence of a clear waiver.
It is also notable that two of the most notorious accused whose alleged crimes would be in the jurisdiction of the ICTY, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, are not in custody of the tribunal. Instead of proceeding with trials in absentia, the courthas delayed their trials with the hope that they will be brought into custody.
...Trials in absentia are generally not allowed in common law jurisdictions. For example, the United States Supreme Court has found that when a defendant is absent from the commencement of the trial, he or she cannot be tried in absentia because an accused has a right to be present at every stage in a proceeding. Exceptions to this rule are limited to a situation in which a defendant flees or disappears in the midst of a trial which can constitute a waiver of the defendant’s right to be present. A defendant also waives his or her right to be present where a defendant is warned, but his or her continued disruptive conduct requires his or her removal from the courtroom. (footnotes omitted) |
If defendants fail to appear without waiving their right to be present, will they be able to assert later that the proceedings were somehow defective?
Or are defendants maybe hoping to rely on diplomatic entitlements if the U.S. Supreme Court resolves Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon in the petitioners' favor?
| Quote: | | Both Petitioners in these cases are foreign nationals convicted of crimes within the United States. They argue that under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, they were entitled to both notification of their right to speak with their respective consulates and that law enforcement officials inform those consulates of their detentions. They further argue that because police violated their rights to consular notification under the Convention, any statements they made to authorities during interrogation must be suppressed and their convictions overturned. Therefore, the Court must determine whether the VCCR creates personally enforceable rights, and if so, whether the appropriate remedy for a violation of those rights is suppression of incriminating statements. Further, the Court must determine whether state courts will be forced to hear these sorts of cases regardless of state jurisdictional bars that may exist. (emphasis added) (From LII, Cornell Law School's excellent database) |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=315#315
Last edited by legal on Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:08 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not a hint of violent crime yet Kaplan's arrest a Who's Who of int'l police enforcement:
| Quote: | | What was the total cost of such a mammoth police effort, we wonder, and who will pay? |
| Quote: | Gary Stephen Kaplan was arrested late Wednesday, March 28th, in the Dominican Republic, United States Attorney Catherine L. Hanaway announced today. “Mr. Kaplan was arrested at a hotel in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, without incident by the Dominican National Police (see Nations Encyclopedia), the U.S. State Department and the FBI. Interpol Washington and Interpol Buenos Aires have worked tirelessly in cooperation with the International Police in providing information that was crucial in the apprehension and deportation of Kaplan. The U.S. State Department, specifically in Costa Rica, has provided and will continue to provide vital assistance in relation to all aspects of this investigation, including the apprehension and deportation of fugitives such as Gary Kaplan,” said Roland Corvington, Special Agent in Charge, FBI-St. Louis Office.
“Diplomatic Security's regional security offices in the Caribbean area maintain excellent working relationships with local law enforcement personnel in the Dominican Republic and throughout the region, thus enabling the capture,” said Greg B. Starr, Director of the U.S. State Department's Diplomatic Security Service. “It's this type of close, worldwide law enforcement liaison that gives Diplomatic Security unparalleled ability to locate, pursue and apprehend fugitives.”
“This case helps to establish the effectiveness of the ]Interpol System of executing international arrest warrants. Officials at Interpol, as well as officials with the Dominican Republic, are to be commended for their cooperation with U.S. authorities,” added Hanaway. “This was a worldwide search, and thanks to the assistance of many law enforcement agencies, this fugitive will soon be back in St. Louis to face the charges against him.”
The arrest stems from a federal grand jury indictment returned in the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) on June 1, 2006. The indictment names Kaplan and 10 other individuals and four corporations. In 22 counts the indictment alleges that the defendants engaged in racketeering, conspiracy and fraud arising out of the operation of Costa Rica-based internet gambling businesses, including BetonSports.com. Kaplan is personally charged with 20 felony violations of federal laws including: the Wire Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Conspiracy, interstate transportation of gambling paraphernalia, interference with the administration of Internal Revenue laws and tax evasion. (emphasis added)
After Kaplan’s arrest in the Dominican Republic, he was sent by Dominican authorities to Puerto Rico for an initial appearance before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge will be asked to order that Kaplan be sent to St. Louis immediately or be held in custody pending a removal hearing to remove him to St. Louis, Missouri, and for a detention hearing to hold him without bond. (At a removal hearing, the Government must prove that the person in custody and the person named in the indictment are the same. At a detention hearing, the Government must prove that the defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community.) At this time, the exact date of Mr. Kaplan’s return to St. Louis is unknown.
... The indictment alleges that Gary Kaplan and Norman Steinberg, as the owners and operators of BetonSports affiliated websites and sportsbooks, took, or caused their employees to take, bets from undercover federal agents in St. Louis who used undercover identities to open wagering accounts. The indictment also alleges that Kaplan and a Florida business, Mobile Promotions, illegally transported equipment used to place bets and transmit wagering information across state lines and that a related Florida business, DME Global Marketing and Fulfillment, shipped equipment to Costa Rica from Florida, for * BetonSports.com. The racketeering conspiracy charge alleges that the defendants agreed to conduct an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering acts, including repeated mail fraud, wire fraud, operation of an illegal gambling business and money laundering.
Co-owner Norman Steinberg is still at large, as is co-defendant Peter Wilson. ... |
*BetonSports.com
Message to visitors
April 2/07
| Quote: | This website does not accept wagers on sports or sporting events from persons in the United States. It is a violation of United States Law to transmit sports wagers or betting information to this website from the United States.
BETonSPORTS PLC
Update
Financial Services Regulatory Commission Oversees BETonSPORTS settlement with Creditors
The Financial Services Regulatory Commission (FSRC) announced today it is assiduously assisting and supervising BoS (Antigua) Ltd (“BOS”), the operator of the BetonSports family of remote gaming products, in a process for the collection of funds owed to BOS and the onward, orderly payment of collected amounts to BOS creditors and employees. The process has been implemented under the supervisory authority given to the FSRC in order to give extra reassurance to organisations that funds returned will be properly used in the settlement of creditors in line with legal requirements, as well as assuring that BOS creditors will be paid in a fair and balanced manner.
Presently, BOS has been unable to repay customers due to cash-flow constraints, along with legal and operational interruptions. A substantial amount of monies owed to BOS by payment processors and publishers have not been repaid and it is anticipated that the oversight of the process by the ommission will give these organisations the transparency and reassurance they are seeking in order to return funds, so they may be distributed appropriately. The Commission under an order received by the Eastern Caribbean High Court of Justice[ will manage and supervise all funds remitted. The Commission and BOS Directors will be communicating with all account debtors directly. After evaluating, and verifying the obligations to creditors of BOS, these funds will then be paid in the legally prescribed order by the Commission.
Kaye McDonald, Director of the Financial Services Regulatory Commission, Division of Gaming noted “We are pleased with the agreement of BOS Directors to cooperate with Antiguan and Barbudan authorities to ensure the proper discharge of creditors, namely players and employees in this difficult case. As regulators, it is our responsibility to ensure that licensees operate properly at all times even under adverse conditions. We expect that our involvement and the cooperation of BOS will encourage the prompt payment of amounts owed to BOS by payment processors and others, so that funds can be promptly returned knowing that they will be distributed properly.” Ms McDonald added “we expect BOS debtors to cooperate with the process, and I am sure BOS is prepared to use all legal remedies available, to ensure that they do so.”
Director of BOS, Mr. Clive Archer, said “we are pleased to be working with the FSRC to ensure that customers, staff and other creditors receive the money they are owed. We have been hampered by the slow return of funds owed to us and we hope that this process will give debtors the reassurance they need to swiftly pay, so that our creditors including our customers and staff can be paid. It is extremely sad that such a great business has been destroyed in this fashion but we are committed to ensuring to the best of our ability that it ends properly. We are happy to cooperate with the supportive staff of the FSRC and believe that they are best suited, as the regulatory authority to ensure that all are treated fairly. We know that the business is all about customers and staff and we want to ensure they are properly looked after.”
Contacting BetonSports
To contact BetonSports Customer Service please call toll free 1-866-481-3057. You may also send email requests to:
customer_service@betonsports.com
Customer Service hours are Monday to Friday, 10am - 7pm EST.
Please note that due to public holidays the Customer Service Dept will be closed April 5 thru April 9 and reopening April 10. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=346#346
Last edited by legal on Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:36 am; edited 13 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
From FREE David Carruthers.com:
| Quote: | On Sunday July 16, 2006, David Carruthers, a British citizen, was arrested at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in Texas, USA by US Federal agents while changing planes.
He was travelling with his wife Carol (who was also detained but subsequently released) from the UK to his home in Costa Rica, where they have resided since 2000.
So, what is his crime? Is he a murderer, a dangerous terrorist, or even a white collar criminal responsible for embezzling millions of dollars?
No, his ‘crime’ is to be a vocal advocate of online gambling regulation in the United States.
This site is dedicated to exposing the hypocrisy of the current United States Administration in its attitude to gambling, and its attempts to persecute people operating businesses legally outside its own borders.
PLEASE NOTE:
We are an independent site not affiliated with BETonSPORTS Plc, or its subsidiaries. (Please see Frequently Asked Questions.)
CONTACT US:
freedavid@freedavidcarruthers.com |
Our e-mail to Carruthers:
| Quote: | From: legal
To: freedavid@freedavidcarruthers.com
Cc: legal
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:24 AM
Subject: You're up at LegalAtPokerpulse.com!
Hiya,
Just a quick note to let you know we give you a link at our European Union forum http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=476#476, where we're covering the Carruthers prosecution. We've done our best to draw attention at our blog to the selective use by the U.S. of anti-terrorist laws to prosecute what IT considers to be white-collar crime - an especially dubious business in the Internet gambling arena, where the U.S. now has two international judgments against it http://www.pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?t=93. We've also been concerned with the aggressive U.S. expansion of its wire fraud statute, which is wayyyyyy too often applied in place of a more appropriate charge (see Pasquantino, a cross-border liquor smuggling case http://www.pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?t=24). The rationale, we suspect, is that wire fraud is easy as pie to prove AND it allows for a fastrack approach to asset seizure and forfeiture with no requirement to return the proceeds even in the absence of conviction! We were a voice in the wilderness when we started our blog about these issues in an effort to warn the industry of its vulnerability. In the wake of so many similar cases, especially those relating to Internet gambling, we hope it's now sufficiently clear to nations worldwide that the U.S. no longer enjoys much of what most of us think of as a common law legal system. Extortionist plea bargaining, rampant asset seizure and forfeiture without conviction and, in many cases, even a trial plus the use of extradition treaties enacted to combat terrorism to effectively kidnap, detain and even torture foreign nationals do not satisfy any reasonable test for 'equivalent legal standards'. The latest U.S. decision to dismantle the whole hard-won WTO framework and gosh only knows what industries worldwide by seeking to remove gambling from GATS is nothing more than a gesture of the very kind of imperialism the U.S. once waged war against.
Feel free to post this anywhere!
L.M. Murray
Editor
LegalAtPokerpulse.com
Tracking Internet gambling law and issues worldwide. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=476#476
Last edited by legal on Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:16 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Wodehouse wisdom:
A Few Quick Ones
Paperback
By the great British humorist, P.G. Wodehouse
| Quote: | Bingo, always on the lookout for omens and portents, leaped in his seat. Any lingering doubts he may have entertained as to the advisability of arranging that loan with Algernon Aubrey vanished. Obviously this was going to be his lucky night, and he would be vastly surprised if on the morrow he would not be able to pay twenty or thirty pounds into the other's wee little deposit account.
...The police raid on Number Forty-Three Magnolia Road took place, oddly enough, just as Bingo was preparing to leave. He had lost the last of his borrowed capital at the roulette board owing to a mistaken supposition that Red was going to turn up, and was standing at an open window, trying by means of some breaths of fresh air to alleviate that Death-where-is-thy-sting feeling that comes to gamesters at such times, when suddenly bells began to ring all over the place and a number of those present, jostling him to one side, proceeded to pour out of the window in a foraming stream.[
..."This is the fourth or fifth time this has happened to me," she said peevishly, as she slid into the barrel's interior. "Why can't these rozzers have a heart on and not be forever interfering with private enterprise? (emphasis added) Do you know what? I had a quid on sixteen, and sixteen came up, but before I could collect the bells began to ring and it was Ho for the open spaces. Thirty-seven pounds sterling gone with the wind. Shift over a bit, will you."
Bingo shifted over a bit. (From The Word in Season at pgs. 99-101) |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=517#517
Last edited by legal on Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:22 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Missouri
Catherine L. Hanaway
United States Attorney
News Release
April 1/09
| Quote: | Former director and CEO of BETONSPORTS pleads guilty to federal racketing charges
St. Louis, MO: David Carruthers pleaded guilty to a racketeering conspiracy that resulted in a loss of between $7 million and $20 million and involved more than 250 victims, United States Attorney Catherine L. Hanaway announced today. "Illegal sports gambling across state and international borders by telephone or internet is a crime," said Hanaway."Misuse of the Internet to violate the law can ultimately only serve to harm legitimate businesses."
Carruthers, a citizen of the United Kingdom, was hired by Gary Kaplan in approximately June 2000, as CEO of BetonSports.com, an existing sportsbook organization based in Costa Rica. Carruthers agreed to conduct the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering acts, including repeated mail fraud, Wire Wager Act violations, operation of an illegal gambling business and money laundering. He also developed BetonSports to the extent that it could be publicly offered for sale on the AIM, a market operated by the London Stock Exchange. In July, 2004, David Carruthers began serving as a Director of BetonSports, PLC.
In furtherance of the conspiracy, members of the BetonSports organization made false representations to the targets of its advertising campaigns and customers by:
Creating and disseminating advertising throughout the United States which represented that its Internet and telephone gambling operations were legal and licensed. They failed to disclose known material facts, namely that the United States government and most state governments viewed such operations as illegal, and that they did not have a license to operate legally anywhere in the United States.
Representing to potential customers that money transferred by them to BetonSports on account was safe and readily available to be withdrawn at anytime. BetonSports was actually using the funds to support and expand its operations, including the purchase of Easybets. When BetonSports ceased operations in July 2006, it could not repay its customers over $16,000,000 held on account.
"BetonSports was a very large and diverse operation. While BetonSports operated offshore, their illegal activities were not outside the long arm of the law. This plea is a significant step in the Government's efforts to end the proliferation of US-facing offshore sportsbooks," said John Gillies, FBI Special Agent in Charge-St. Louis Office.
"Gambling is not a victimless crime, especially when the internet is used with its global reach," said Toni Weirauch, Special Agent in Charge of IRS-Criminal Investigation. "IRS has focused its attention on offshore activities through the enforcement of tax, money laundering and other related financial criminal statutes within its jurisdiction."
DAVID CARRUTHERS, pled guilty before United States District Judge Carol E. Jackson. He now faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000. Sentencing has been set for October 2, 2009.
Gary Stephen Kaplan is charged with numerous felony violations of federal laws including: the Wire Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Conspiracy, mail fraud and interstate transportation of gambling paraphernalia. He and four co-defendants are facing trial in September 2009.
Hanaway commended the work performed on the case by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation and the Chesterfield Police Department. Assistant United States Attorneys Steve Holtshouser, Steven Muchnick and John Bodenhausen, and Special Assistant United States Attorney Charles Birmingham are handling the case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=643#643 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The New York Times
BetOnSports Founder Pleads Guilty in Racketeering Case
By Bloomberg News
Aug. 14/09
| Quote: | The founder of the now-defunct Internet gambling company BetOnSports pleaded guilty Friday to conspiracy and racketeering charges.
The founder, Gary S. Kaplan, admitted to multiple charges of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. He agreed to serve 41 to 51 months in prison and forfeit $43.65 million, according to a Justice Department statement.
He entered the plea in United States District Court in St. Louis.
Mr. Kaplan and his company were accused of violating federal laws banning the interstate transmission of wagers by wire. He was arrested in the Dominican Republic in March 2007, and has been in custody since then. He was indicted on the charges in 2006.
Now bankrupt, BetOnSports took in $1.25 billion in 2004, with 98 percent of that revenue coming from bets made through its Web site by clients in the United States. The company, which is based in London, suspended trading of its shares on the London Stock Exchange on July 18, 2006, one day after the indictment was unsealed.
Mr. Kaplan entered a binding plea agreement, which the judge must either accept or reject unaltered at Mr. Kaplan’s sentencing on Oct. 27.
“This brings to an end a very controversial enforcement action,” a Houston defense lawyer, Dan Cogdell, who accompanied Mr. Kaplan in court, said in a phone interview. “Kaplan long believed that what he did was lawful; it was only in the last several years he recognized it wasn’t lawful. He’s made every effort to make amends.” Mr. Cogdell said the government agreed to drop additional charges if the judge accepted the plea deal. He said Mr. Kaplan should receive credit at sentencing for the two years he has already spent in prison.
Since Mr. Kaplan’s indictment, BetOnSports filed for liquidation and, in May 2007, entered a guilty plea to racketeering charges. The indictment named the company; Mr. Kaplan; the chief executive, David Carruthers; and nine other people. Mr. Carruthers admitted to one count of racketeering conspiracy in April.
All of the other individual defendants, including the founder’s siblings, Neil Scott Kaplan and Lori Beth Kaplan Multz, pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the case, leaving their brother as the lone defendant facing trial. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=683#683 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
