Gambling tycoon to forfeit $300m
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7786909....
It's on the BBC so his name really must be Diks
t. Hope he wasn't educated in the UK - it would have been unbearable. 
It's on the BBC so his name really must be Diks
t. Hope he wasn't educated in the UK - it would have been unbearable. Deva Link said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7786909....
It's on the BBC so his name really must be Dikst. Hope he wasn't educated in the UK - it would have been unbearable.
REPOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's on the BBC so his name really must be Diks
t. Hope he wasn't educated in the UK - it would have been unbearable. 
That is the bloke's real name.
All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumastances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumastances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
Iain328 said:
That is the bloke's real name.
All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumastances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
Poker on line here for fun is legal, money cannot change hands. It has nothing to do with "not invented here". It has to do with many things, not the least being tax evasion and the ease with which terror funding and drug money laundering can be facilitated through such a system. If you want "Anti-competative behavior lessons", look to the EU, they are better at that than the U.S.All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumastances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 17th December 17:21
Well I think that Mr Dikst has been unlucky, unfortunately Mr Dikst has committed the crime of having a lot of money and the US government need it right now. Mr Dikst has falling into the firing line, so the government have asked Mr Dikst for a lot of money.
Mr Dikst wont be happy with this, nor will Mrs Dikst (if there is one) and the baby Diksts (or Dikstettes)
So assuming Mr Dikst pays it off, the government will leave Mr Dikst alone and Mr Dikst will slip into the history books as will Mrs Dikst (if there is one) and the baby Diksts (or Dikstettes)
Edit: I'm Dikst at spelling
t has been unlucky, unfortunately Mr Dikst has committed the crime of having a lot of money and the US government need it right now. Mr Dikst has falling into the firing line, so the government have asked Mr Dikst for a lot of money.Mr Diks
t wont be happy with this, nor will Mrs Dikst (if there is one) and the baby Diksts (or Dikstettes)So assuming Mr Diks
t pays it off, the government will leave Mr Dikst alone and Mr Dikst will slip into the history books as will Mrs Dikst (if there is one) and the baby Diksts (or Dikstettes)Edit: I'm Diks
t at spellingEdited by randomman on Wednesday 17th December 17:26
Iain328 said:
All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumstances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
All of these gambling operations were told quite early on that they should not accept bets from the US, but they used a very daft argument "we can't stop it" as their defense. Frankly, that argument was absolute tripe and these online gambling companies continued to trade with Yanks because they were making an absolute fortune from them.Then, the US authorities got tough on them and you see these various sanctions against high profile people.
Got nothing to do with protectionism, or anything like that, the US just has strict gambling laws.
Since the US authorities started getting tough, the online gambling companies found ways of preventing US citizens from using their services, which isn't exactly difficult when the country code is on the bl**dy credit card that you use to open your account with, and your ip address can easily be tracked to a particular company.
Jimbeaux said:
emicen said:
Jail or $300M. Anything to prop up their ecconomy huh?
Yep, it's called enforcing the law.In this case, he gets to buy his way out. Nice. (not saying we'd do any different this side of the pond right now!)
emicen said:
Jimbeaux said:
emicen said:
Jail or $300M. Anything to prop up their ecconomy huh?
Yep, it's called enforcing the law.In this case, he gets to buy his way out. Nice. (not saying we'd do any different this side of the pond right now!)
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 17th December 19:34
tinman0 said:
Iain328 said:
All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumstances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
All of these gambling operations were told quite early on that they should not accept bets from the US, but they used a very daft argument "we can't stop it" as their defense. Frankly, that argument was absolute tripe and these online gambling companies continued to trade with Yanks because they were making an absolute fortune from them.Then, the US authorities got tough on them and you see these various sanctions against high profile people.
Got nothing to do with protectionism, or anything like that, the US just has strict gambling laws.
Since the US authorities started getting tough, the online gambling companies found ways of preventing US citizens from using their services, which isn't exactly difficult when the country code is on the bl**dy credit card that you use to open your account with, and your ip address can easily be tracked to a particular company.
The reality is that US laws could and did prevent US companies from operating in the online poker/gaming market and did so (other wise all the Casino operators would have been up in arms) but that they couldn't ban the foreign operators under the same legislation. Most importantly nor could they tax the foreign operators - so they came up with some new and really quite spurious legislation to do with Ports etc (Port Authority act?) and banned it that way.
Jimbeaux said:
Iain328 said:
That is the bloke's real name.
All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumastances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
Poker on line here for fun is legal, money cannot change hands. It has nothing to do with "not invented here". It has to do with many things, not the least being tax evasion and the ease with which terror funding and drug money laundering can be facilitated through such a system. If you want "Anti-competative behavior lessons", look to the EU, they are better at that than the U.S.All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumastances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
Iain328 said:
tinman0 said:
Iain328 said:
All goes back to the yanks banning on-line gambling using some spurious legislation designed to deal with Ports (as in where ships dock!). All because it was "Not invented here" - typical American anti-competitive behaviour really. The bloke has done the right thing under the circumstances - he's still made hundreds of millions & that business is still growing rapidly in Europe and Asia. Under current circumstances there will be a lot of people available & with nothing better to do than play Poker on-line for the next year or two. He's not going to go hungry.
All of these gambling operations were told quite early on that they should not accept bets from the US, but they used a very daft argument "we can't stop it" as their defense. Frankly, that argument was absolute tripe and these online gambling companies continued to trade with Yanks because they were making an absolute fortune from them.Then, the US authorities got tough on them and you see these various sanctions against high profile people.
Got nothing to do with protectionism, or anything like that, the US just has strict gambling laws.
Since the US authorities started getting tough, the online gambling companies found ways of preventing US citizens from using their services, which isn't exactly difficult when the country code is on the bl**dy credit card that you use to open your account with, and your ip address can easily be tracked to a particular company.
The reality is that US laws could and did prevent US companies from operating in the online poker/gaming market and did so (other wise all the Casino operators would have been up in arms) but that they couldn't ban the foreign operators under the same legislation. Most importantly nor could they tax the foreign operators - so they came up with some new and really quite spurious legislation to do with Ports etc (Port Authority act?) and banned it that way.
Iain328 said:
Pfffffttt !!! With places like Las Vegas, Atlantic city and "Indian reservation casinos" right left centre I would hardly call the US gambling laws "strict". There is far easier access to Casinos etc in the US than there is in many parts of Europe.
The reality is that US laws could and did prevent US companies from operating in the online poker/gaming market and did so (other wise all the Casino operators would have been up in arms) but that they couldn't ban the foreign operators under the same legislation. Most importantly nor could they tax the foreign operators - so they came up with some new and really quite spurious legislation to do with Ports etc (Port Authority act?) and banned it that way.
The reality is that US laws could and did prevent US companies from operating in the online poker/gaming market and did so (other wise all the Casino operators would have been up in arms) but that they couldn't ban the foreign operators under the same legislation. Most importantly nor could they tax the foreign operators - so they came up with some new and really quite spurious legislation to do with Ports etc (Port Authority act?) and banned it that way.
fountain of http said:
The words "gamble" and "gambling" are generally used to discuss an activity that may run afoul of applicable criminal laws. The word "gaming" is usually reserved for those instances where the activity has been specifically legalized by applicable laws or where the activity is exempted from the criminal laws. Thus, playing a casino-style game at a for-profit website online in the United States is referred to as gambling, since no state has yet finalized any law specifically authorizing a for-profit website operator to offer any casino games.
ref: http://www.gambling-law-us.com/You also need to remember that different states treat gaming/gambling differently, hence the existence of Las Vegas in Nevada. You can also find a big casino operation in Mississippi where gambling is allowed on the water, hence the casinos being converted barges. The native Indians can gamble in their own casinos because they own the land in the first place. In Ohio, you can gamble on a boat on the Ohio River as long as the boat is moving and is a certain distance into its voyage (Caesars).
Iain328 said:
Jimbeaux said:
The fact that many casinos exist has nothing to do with how they are regulated. The laws and accountability of them are very strict, make no mistake.
So it had nothing to do with perceived "lost tax revenues" then ? 
Edited by Iain328 on Thursday 18th December 12:59
Iain328 said:
Pfffffttt !!! With places like Las Vegas, Atlantic city and "Indian reservation casinos" right left centre I would hardly call the US gambling laws "strict". There is far easier access to Casinos etc in the US than there is in many parts of Europe.
The reality is that US laws could and did prevent US companies from operating in the online poker/gaming market and did so (other wise all the Casino operators would have been up in arms) but that they couldn't ban the foreign operators under the same legislation. Most importantly nor could they tax the foreign operators - so they came up with some new and really quite spurious legislation to do with Ports etc (Port Authority act?) and banned it that way.
Good point Ian, With Atlantic City and Las Vegas (along with Reno and Lake Tahoe) being the only places with legal gambling in America until about 15 years ago, we were literally tripping over gambling establishments, what with Casinos littering the landscape every 2,500 miles or so.The reality is that US laws could and did prevent US companies from operating in the online poker/gaming market and did so (other wise all the Casino operators would have been up in arms) but that they couldn't ban the foreign operators under the same legislation. Most importantly nor could they tax the foreign operators - so they came up with some new and really quite spurious legislation to do with Ports etc (Port Authority act?) and banned it that way.
Online gaming is illegal here and that's been pretty clearly stated to these companies before. It's also illegal for Americans to gamble online.
Whether or not I agree with the law is irrelevant, the law is the law, and it was enforced.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff