David and Gioleth
David and Goliath at WTO
Jay Cohen and two friends established an online gaming site on the islands of Antigua and Barbuda, World Sports Exchange (WSE). Cohen was prosecuted by the U.S. government resulting in a battle between the U.S. and the two small Caribbean islands of Barbuda and
Antigua. The battle known as “David and Goliath” and was mediated by the World Trade
Organization (WTO). Cohen’s prosecution raised a lot of interesting questions about international trade and internet gaming.
The primary issue seems to be that WSE was profiting from U.S. consumers and the U.S. government was not receiving any benefit. Sports organizations were upset and the country’s
“social morality” was being attacked, or at least that was the opinion of the supporters of the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (EIGEA) of 2006. The bottom-line is that Cohen was not breaking any laws within the country that his business operated in. The United States’ stand on gambling is hypocritical, many regions within the nation allow gambling, and the nation should not restrict gambling transactions with countries that it actively trades with, specifically members of the WTO.
The United States’ conviction of Jay Cohen was not justified. The Wire Wager Act of
1961 prohibited the use of a wire communication facility for the transmission of foreign bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers which entitles the recipient to
receive money or credit as a result of wagers or bets. Had the GATS agreement not unintentionally omitted online gambling and betting services from this treaty, the U.S. would then have been justified in its conviction of Cohen. However the discrepancy between the act and the treaty allowed for the conviction to be viewed as unjustified.
State and federal laws on gambling are not optimal, as they cannot accurately or effectively track payment transfers that do not fall into the realm of credit cards, electronic fund
Jay Cohen and two friends established an online gaming site on the islands of Antigua and Barbuda, World Sports Exchange (WSE). Cohen was prosecuted by the U.S. government resulting in a battle between the U.S. and the two small Caribbean islands of Barbuda and
Antigua. The battle known as “David and Goliath” and was mediated by the World Trade
Organization (WTO). Cohen’s prosecution raised a lot of interesting questions about international trade and internet gaming.
The primary issue seems to be that WSE was profiting from U.S. consumers and the U.S. government was not receiving any benefit. Sports organizations were upset and the country’s
“social morality” was being attacked, or at least that was the opinion of the supporters of the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (EIGEA) of 2006. The bottom-line is that Cohen was not breaking any laws within the country that his business operated in. The United States’ stand on gambling is hypocritical, many regions within the nation allow gambling, and the nation should not restrict gambling transactions with countries that it actively trades with, specifically members of the WTO.
The United States’ conviction of Jay Cohen was not justified. The Wire Wager Act of
1961 prohibited the use of a wire communication facility for the transmission of foreign bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers which entitles the recipient to
receive money or credit as a result of wagers or bets. Had the GATS agreement not unintentionally omitted online gambling and betting services from this treaty, the U.S. would then have been justified in its conviction of Cohen. However the discrepancy between the act and the treaty allowed for the conviction to be viewed as unjustified.
State and federal laws on gambling are not optimal, as they cannot accurately or effectively track payment transfers that do not fall into the realm of credit cards, electronic fund