Sportingbet (Paradise Poker owner) does deal with SDNY and DoJ - payment processing mentioned - Poker Legislation

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion General Poker Discussion

Sportingbet (Paradise Poker owner) does deal with SDNY and DoJ - payment processing mentioned

Post Reply Subscribe

...

09-21-2010 , 05:03 AM

InsidePoker

centurion

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 100

Sorry for the long title. Sportingbet, who were a giant of online gambling before UIGEA and the owner of Paradise Poker, has entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the DoJ similar to PartyGaming.

The press release from the DoJ DOES mention poker and it specifically refers to payment processing and talks about an ongoing investigation. From the press release (found here http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pres...ngbetnpapr.pdf) below

Beginning in 2001, Sportingbet began using payment processing methods designed to misrepresent the nature of its customers’ gambling transactions to United States credit card issuers that disallowed the use of their cards for Internet gambling. Sportingbet also took steps to mask payments of winnings to U.S. customers.

Very interesting to see the DoJ going after miscoding.

Quote

09-21-2010 , 06:04 AM

PokerXanadu

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,583

Here are some significant quotes from the DOJ press release, imo:

Quote:

As part of the non-prosecution agreement, Sportingbet
agreed to continue to cooperate with this Office’s ongoing
investigation by, among other things, providing the Government
with requested documents, and making employees available for
interviews with Government investigators.

So, the DOJ ain't letting up , that's for sure.

Quote:

Sportingbet also agreed to maintain a permanent restriction on providing Internet gambling services to U.S. customers, in the absence of a
change in U.S. law.

This indicates to me that the door is open for previous "law-violating" sites to be allowed back into the US, under licensing legislation. Of course, the legislation has to allow for it as well, but the DOJ is acknowledging the possibility.

Quote:

Mr. BHARARA [the DOJ] said that the decision to enter into the
non-prosecution agreement was made after carefully weighing the
factors set forth in the Department of Justice Principles of
Federal Prosecutions of Business Organizations, including: (1)
Sportingbet’s cooperation with the Government’s ongoing
investigation into the illegal online gambling industry; (2)
Sportingbet’s termination of all real-money Internet gambling
services for U.S. customers in October 2006; (3) its agreement to
disgorge $33 million; and(4) the negative effect that charges
against Sportingbet would have on the company’s innocent
employees and legitimate activities.

This is an interesting reveal of the DOJ strategy. Note #2 especially, which shows that the DOJ makes a distinction between those companies with did pull out of the US after passage of the UIGEA and those that did not.

Quote

09-21-2010 , 06:18 AM

PokerXanadu

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,583

Here are few news articles on the settlement, which have some interesting quotes from the parties involved:

Bloomburg: Sportingbet to Forfeit $33 Million in Gambling Proceeds to U.S. Customers

WSJ: Sportingbet to Forfeit $33 Million in Gambling Proceeds to U.S. Customers

BBC: Sportingbet pays $33m to settle US inquiry

Quote

09-21-2010 , 09:53 AM

Davdob

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,068

Has anyone seen the actual settlement agreement?

Quote

09-21-2010 , 05:20 PM

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Its a pretty easy give for the DOJ in this case. Just the name, Sportingbet, is never in a million years getting a US license.

Quote

09-25-2010 , 01:19 AM

novahunterpa

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,244

G911 interviews Sportingbet legal Counsel

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-...ck-092410.html

thought this was interesting

Quote:

JENNY: Finally, what are some of the most important points raised in the Non-Prosecution Agreement? Is there anything you are not happy about? Obviously, the settlement amount is the most positive outcome?

SLOTNICK: That’s a good question. I can’t say that there are things that I am not happy about. We were pleased that Sportingbet was able to receive a Non-Prosecution Agreement from the Department of Justice. We were pleased that Sportingbet had a payment schedule to pay out the total of $33 million instead of being required to pay it out in a shorter time period or in one lump-sum. We were also pleased that there is a prevision in this agreement that stated, “Nothing in this agreement shall prevent Sportingbet from offering Internet gambling services in the United States should the law of the United States be subsequently changed to permit Internet gambling services.” That is a very important point here. Sportingbet is public company that provides Internet gaming services. The United States market that Sportingbet voluntarily withdrew from in 2006 is a market that if it were to become legal – Sportingbet would presumably reenter. And by this statement being in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, it’s important to the company that it’s clear that this agreement does not prevent or bar Sportingbet from reentering the United States market when it becomes legal. And there is an expectation that it’s a question of when and not if.

Additionally, getting to your prior questions about what you do with aggressive states. The agreement has a provision, “If requested by Sportingbet, this office (Department of Justice) will bring the cooperation…of Sportingbet to the attention to other prosecuting and other investigating offices or other licensing or regulatory authorities.” So if Sportingbet requests that the Department of Justice contact another agency and tell them about this resolution with a Non-Prosecution Agreement – and the fact that Sportingbet has cooperated with the Department of Justice, they will do so.

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...