Federal Poker Indictments Against The 3 Largest USA Poker Casinos
Federal investigators have taken control of the domain names of the three largest online poker companies in the United States: Poker-Stars, Full-Tilt-Poker and Absolute-Poker.
The reason for the domain name takeover is due to their continuing serving casino players within U.S. jurisdiction despite the ban raised on internet poker and gambling, which has resulted in accusations of fraud against financial institutions.
Billions worth of gaming revenue were dramatically impacted after these $3 billion laundering penalties was charged against the companies and defendants. Eleven defendants were charged in New York, including the Poker-Stars, Full-Tilt-Poker and Absolute-Poker founders with fraud, laundering and illegal gambling.
The big three poker casinos are not being singled out in the FBI’s cross-hairs, as five other internet domains hosting poker games were taken over as well. Company assets and their payment processors assets were also included in the complaint and actions were issued in relation to their bank accounts.
As internet gaming has became more and more popular, online poker rode along with a huge burst of popularity despite it’s legality in the USA remaining ambiguous. It is now clear after these actions by the USA government that proving online gambling to USA citizens is a federal crime, causing much anxiety among other casinos serving customers in the USA.
The poker websites that had their domain names taken over now show the warning message “It is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks”. According to the indictments, fraudulent methods are said to be used by poker companies, including tricking banks to accept credit card payments from these players.
The charges include information on how companies wormed through the 2006 ban, as money received from gamblers are masked and reflected as purchases for online goods or other products that are nonexistent.
Among those who were charged were Isai Scheinberg and Paul Tate (Poker-Stars), Raymond Bitar and Nelson Burtnick (Full-Tilt-Poker), and Scott Tom and Brent Beckley (Absolute-Poker).
Despite knowing that their actions were against the U.S. law, the defendants are said to be aware of their actions, took the risk and continued the scheme until the indictments came down.
Payment processors who were charged along with them were Ryan Lang, Ira Rubin, Bradley Franzen and Chad Elie. They were charged after posing for the poker companies to U.S. banks and doing the cover-up for them by creating pseudo-corporations and websites.
U.S. Justice Department Creates Professional Misconduct Review Unit
“Justice Dept. office to punish prosecutors’ misconduct,” is the USA Today report by Brad Heath and Kevin McCoy.
The Justice Department created a new internal watchdog office on Tuesday to make sure federal prosecutors face swifter and more consistent punishment if investigators find that they committed misconduct.
The change follows a USA TODAY investigation that identified 201 criminal cases in which federal courts had found that Justice Department prosecutors had broken laws or ethics rules — violations that put innocent people in jail and set guilty people free. Although each of the cases was so serious that judges overturned convictions or rebuked the prosecutors for misconduct, USA TODAY found that the department often took years to investigate what went wrong, and that prosecutors faced little risk of being fired.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement Tuesday that while most federal prosecutors meet their ethical obligations, the current procedures for disciplining those found to commit misconduct “consume too much time, and risk inconsistent resolution.” He said the new unit “will help change that by providing consistent, fair, and timely resolution of these cases.”
The unit, called the Professional Misconduct Review Unit, will be responsible for disciplining career prosecutors when the department’s ethics investigators conclude that they engaged in intentional or reckless misconduct. Until now, those decisions had been made by the prosecutors’ supervisors, most often U.S. attorneys. The department has faced criticism for not doing enough to investigate and punish misconduct.
And:
The new unit, which will make referrals to state bar association disciplinary authorities, will handle all findings of professional misconduct that occur after the unit is fully staffed, the memo said. “This is serious business. It’s a sign of a lack of faith in the behavior of U.S. attorneys around the country,” said Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. “If things have gotten so bad that the department finds willful misconduct and you haven’t been able to figure that out, you’re out of the ballgame. The message is, ‘Manage your office and impose discipline, or we will.’ ”
Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who’s now a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, applauded the effort to segregate and speed the handling of the most serious misconduct cases. “Not all prosecutorial misconduct cases are alike,” she said.
Kathleen Ridolfi, director of the Northern California Innocence Project, said the Department of Justice should go further by adding independent legal experts to the disciplinary process.
“You still have this systemic problem of a mentality that prosecutors have to win,” said Joe Lawless, author of one of the first legal textbooks on prosecutorial misconduct. “You have to change that mentality.”
The announcement is the latest step Holder has taken over the past two years to address ethical lapses by the attorneys in charge of enforcing the nation’s laws. Those efforts came after the government’s failed corruption prosecution of former Alaska senator Ted Stevens, which ended in 2009 after the department conceded it had hidden evidence that could have undermined the case against him.
The New York Times reports, “New Justice Department Office Will Discipline Prosecutors,” by Charlie Savage.
The Justice Department announced on Tuesday the creation of a unit that will decide how to discipline career officials who commit prosecutorial misconduct, including whether to refer them to state bar associations for punishment. The unit will review cases whenever the department’s internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility, finds that a prosecutor intentionally or recklessly violated the rules to which he is subject.
Savage also posted, “A Step to Deal With Prosecutors’ Misconduct,” to the Caucus blog at the Times.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. appointed Kevin Ohlson, who until recently was his chief of staff, to be chief of the new unit. In a statement, Mr. Holder said that the new process was necessary in order to speed up disciplinary review and to make sure such cases are treated the same way, no matter where in the department they arise.
“In the vast majority of cases, department attorneys meet their professional obligations but when allegations of misconduct occur, all parties deserve a fair and timely resolution,” Mr. Holder said. “This unit will be instrumental in achieving that goal and will also further the department’s mission of meeting its ethical obligations in every case.”
“Attorney General Creates Professional Misconduct Review Unit, Appoints Kevin Ohlson Chief,” is the DoJ news release announcing the office.
The Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU) will be responsible for all disciplinary and state bar referral actions relating to OPR findings of professional misconduct against career attorneys.
“The current procedures for resolving these disciplinary matters consume too much time, and risk inconsistent resolutions, but this new Unit will help change that by providing consistent, fair, and timely resolution of these cases,” said Attorney General Holder. “In the vast majority of cases, Department attorneys meet their professional obligations but when allegations of misconduct occur, all parties deserve a fair and timely resolution. This Unit will be instrumental in achieving that goal and will also further the Department’s mission of meeting its ethical obligations in every case.”
[thanks to steve hall via cc]
Might Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Affect Libraries?
With the release of leaked versions of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), opposition to the drafting process continues to grow. Recently IFLA issued a statement arguing that while it is appropriate for governments to act to stop commercial counterfeiting, the copyright and patent issues at stake in ACTA would be better addressed through the World International Property Organization (WIPO). They also object to the secrecy of the negotiations. The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) has also been active in its opposition to ACTA, most recently joining in a letter complaining about provisions in the leaked text and issuing a statementof LCA concerns. Earlier, Janice Pilch had prepared an issue brief on ACTA for the LCA.
One thing that I have not seen in the library association statements is any mention of the border control measures found in Article 2 of the draft text. In spite of the assurance of the U.S. Trade Representative that ACTA would not require alterations to U.S. law, the draft border measure provisions seem in conflict with Section 602 of the Copyright Act. For example, the draft Article opens with the assurance that travelers may import copyrighted material when it is for non-commercial purposes and included in their personal baggage. This mirrors part of the exception found in 602(a)(3)(B) of the Copyright Act, which allows people to import or export personal copies in their baggage. Some of the proposed language in ACTA, however, would limit such importation to the duty-free allowance, a limitation not found in U.S. law. More importantly, there appears to be no provision that would allow individuals to import books and movies directly from abroad, as the current law does; there would be no more ordering books from Amazon.de or Amazon.fr for your personal use.
In addition, the leaked text contains no exception for libraries. Under 602(a)(3)(C), non-profit libraries may import up to 5 copies of a foreign book or record for lending and archival purposes, and 1 copy of a foreign movie for archival purposes. As it stands, ACTA would eliminate the ability of libraries to purchase foreign material directly from foreign distributors unless those distributors had been expressly authorized by the copyright owner to distribute the work in the U.S.
In the leaked text, the sections jump from Article 2.x to Article 2.6. We can hope that library exceptions are included in the missing articles. But the border measures section are just one more example why the secret ACTA negotiations are a bad idea.
UPDATE: Jonathan Band was kind enough to explain to me that “border measures” are different than “copyright exemptions.” If I understand the distinction properly in theory even under the current law, the Customs Bureau could seize a shipment of books or movies to a library as being an importation violation. The library could then petition for the release of the material, using its exemption in 602. Jonathan argues, probably correctly, that nothing in ACTA would change this. The 602 exemptions will still exist.
I won’t argue with him as a matter of law. I am more worried about whether ACTA may lead to a change in practice. For example, the current “border measures” found in 19 CFR 133 authorizes the Customs Bureau to seize “infringing copies.” These are narrowly defined: pirated copies that “are unlawfully made (without the authorization of the copyright owner).” Could ACTA encourage a broader definition, one that might encompass the marketing behaviors of publishers, and hence encourage more seizures at the border (even if eventually the law would allow that content to enter)? If there is no need to specify the library exemptions in ACTA, why are the drafters including the personal exemptions found in 602?
Jonathan is probably right that my worries are unfounded – but I am going to read closely the promised full draft treaty when it is released.
[thanks to rachel kramer and peter hirtle via cc]
