legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:52 pm Post subject: U.S. Horseracing 'Carve-out' from Prohibition 2.0 |
 |
|
From Victory! Antigua won again on appeal - Antigua v. U.S. at the World Trade Organization (WTO) - Part I:
From Antigua v. U.S. at the World Trade Organization (WTO) - Non-Compliance - Part II:
| Quote: | On 5 April 2006, the US Department of Justice confirmed the position of the US Government regarding remote gambling on horse racing in testimony before a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives. The Department of Justice stated that:
The Department of Justice views the existing criminal statutes as prohibiting the interstate transmission of bets or wagers, including wagers on horse races. The Department is currently undertaking a civil investigation relating to a potential violation of law regarding this activity. We have previously stated that we do not believe that the Interstate Horse Racing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3007, amended the existing criminal statutes. (From a 2006 report by USTR listed among all documents at the WTO website) |
| Quote: | | Note: The Department of Justice views the existing criminal statutes as prohibiting the interstate transmission of bets or wagers, including wagers on horse races. The Department is currently undertaking a civil investigation relating to a potential violation of law regarding this activity. We have previously stated that we do not believe that the Interstate Horse Racing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3007, amended the existing criminal statutes. H.R. 4777, however, would change current law and amend Section 1084 to permit the interstate transmission of bets and wagers on horse races. H.R. 4777 also permits "intrastate" wagering over the Internet without examining the actual routing of the transmission to determine if the wagering is "intrastate" versus "interstate."Under current law, the actual routing of the transmission is of great importance in deciding if the transmission is in interstate commerce. The Department is concerned that these two proposals would weaken existing law. (From the Statement of Testimony of Bruce G. Ohr, Chief, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Criminal Division, DOJ, Before the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, House of Representatives, concerning H.R. 4777, THE "INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT", presented April 5/06) |
From Antigua v. U.S. at the World Trade Organization (WTO) - Remedies - Part III:
| Quote: | | One of the arbitrators is unable to agree with the analysis and conclusions reflected in paragraphs 3.41 to 3.61 above. In the view of this arbitrator, it was not unreasonable for Antigua to assume, in the circumstances of this case, a counterfactual scenario under which the United States would provide unrestricted access to its remote gambling and betting market. 3.63 In the view of this arbitrator, it is appropriate to refer, as a starting point, to the findings and conclusions of the panel and the Appellate Body in this case. Specifically, the Appellate Body has determined that, although the three federal laws at issue are measures "necessary to protect public morals or public order", the United States had not demonstrated that they were applied in accordance with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XIV of the GATS. 3.64 The Appellate Body made this determination "in light of" only one specific discrimination that it identified in the application of the measures. However, this does not necessarily imply, as the United States suggests, that the specific problem found with the US measure at issue was restricted to the "limited issue of the regulation of remote gambling on horse racing"88. Rather, *the overall conclusion of the Appellate Body was that the measures at issue (rather than simply the discriminatory treatment provided in respect of horseracing) were, as a result, not justified under Article XIV of the GATS. (From the Arbitrator's report of Dec. 21/07, a four-flusher fantasy that reduced Antigua's claim of $U.S. 3.4 billion to $21 million in IP concessions) |
Link to this entry
http://www.pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=623#623 |
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Register
Antigua attorney speaks out on landmark WTO case
DOJ, USTR keep heads in sand
By Burke Hansen
July 16/07
| Quote: | The DOJ seems to view this case - which centers primarily on cross border remote wagering on horse racing - as a kind of trojan horse for the broader internet gambling industry. How true is that? Why not just concede on that narrowly defined issue and move on?
Because it is not "that narrowly defined issue". As I mentioned earlier, the United States tried to spin its loss in this case as being only about horse racing, but that was simply not the case. Now they are having to face the reality of the case for the first time, and it is making things much more difficult for them. It is indeed about "the broader internet gambling industry" and by refusing to engage with Antigua over the issue in a timely manner, they may have opened the Pandora's box that can never again be shut.
In particular, they have now gotten the European Union seeking massive economic concessions, and if they thought that we were a problem, the EU is going to be a much more difficult monster for the United States to wrestle. While Antigua is going to have to work hard and be creative to find ways to effectively retaliate against the United States, the EU won't have any trouble at all. The United States is literally facing multi-billions of trade retaliation from the EU in all sorts of trade completely unrelated to gambling.
All of a sudden, for example, American exporters of auto parts, electric guitars or cotton sweaters to the EU are going to be shut or priced out of the market. All of those sectors stand to be sacrificed or at least severely compromised by the United States in this case, all so the United States can protect its domestic gambling industry. Or, perhaps even worse, to satisfy some dated little constituency in the DOJ. Simply boggles the mind. (emphasis added) |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=629#629 |
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
