DikShit's Admission's Results

12/27/2008		Dikshit's Admission's Results
Home History Games News Dictionary		The tentative-at-best admission of guilt this past week by co-founder of Party Gaming, Anurag Dikshit, has incited the equivalent of online mobs arguing various points of contention on the issue. The debates have spread so wide as include any number of online casino related issues, including but not limited to the coercion of the UIGEA on the new political administration, the detention and house-imprisonments of BoS founder Gary Kaplan and BetonSports CEO David Caruthers (respectively), the insanity of Kentucky governor Beshear in his attempts to seize 141 internet domain names, the arrest of Neteller founders as well as the convenient exceptions US legislature makes for horse-racing, state lotteries, and fantasy football. With the forum discussions blowing some issues out of proportion and attacking others in just the right light, the ripple effect of Dikshit’s admission has been astounding. Whether or not the Department of Justice will take any of the posting under consideration in finalizing the “settlement” with Party Gaming is unsure at best, dubious at most honest. The number $300 million was released to the press and online gaming community, with blogs voicing their opinions almost instantaneously. One of the most dominant in popularity is written by Jacob Sullum, who titled his article, “I Plead Guilty to Possibly Violating Your Ridiculous Gambling Laws.” He interprets Dikshit’s wording in his plea, saying, “Even in admitting his guilt, Dikshit alluded to the arbitrariness and vagueness of U.S. gambling laws, especially as applied to foreign companies that are perfectly legal in the countries where they operate.” Other feedback came from more powerful positions, such as from Representative Robert Wexler, who views the lashback as key evidence that something must be done to resolve the current state of US gambling laws; it is creating dissention between Americans and the European Union in the difference. He was quoted: “It is of critical importance that we find an effective and immediate way to regulate and tax internet gaming in order to avoid a serious trade dispute with the E.U., which, in turn, could have global trade repercussions for the United States. The retroactive and discriminatory enforcement against E.U. parties, who ceased operating in the U.S. a long time ago, has directly led to an escalating trade dispute with the E.U.” The most popular notion, however, can be simplified down to money, using Dikshit’s $300 price tag as prime evidence. Popular online casino publication TechDirt put it best: “If revenue generation is the goal, why not simply legalize online gambling, then regulate and tax it? That way, the government gets its slice, while US citizens can enjoy some protection while betting, instead of being forced into the grey market where they're largely at the whim of site owners.” Logical, simple, and therefore (inevitably) most unappealing to US legislators, apparently.

12/27/2008

Dikshit's Admission's Results

The tentative-at-best admission of guilt this past week by co-founder of Party Gaming, Anurag Dikshit, has incited the equivalent of online mobs arguing various points of contention on the issue. The debates have spread so wide as include any number of online casino related issues, including but not limited to the coercion of the UIGEA on the new political administration, the detention and house-imprisonments of BoS founder Gary Kaplan and BetonSports CEO David Caruthers (respectively), the insanity of Kentucky governor Beshear in his attempts to seize 141 internet domain names, the arrest of Neteller founders as well as the convenient exceptions US legislature makes for horse-racing, state lotteries, and fantasy football. With the forum discussions blowing some issues out of proportion and attacking others in just the right light, the ripple effect of Dikshit’s admission has been astounding.

Whether or not the Department of Justice will take any of the posting under consideration in finalizing the “settlement” with Party Gaming is unsure at best, dubious at most honest. The number $300 million was released to the press and online gaming community, with blogs voicing their opinions almost instantaneously. One of the most dominant in popularity is written by Jacob Sullum, who titled his article, “I Plead Guilty to Possibly Violating Your Ridiculous Gambling Laws.” He interprets Dikshit’s wording in his plea, saying, “Even in admitting his guilt, Dikshit alluded to the arbitrariness and vagueness of U.S. gambling laws, especially as applied to foreign companies that are perfectly legal in the countries where they operate.”

Other feedback came from more powerful positions, such as from Representative Robert Wexler, who views the lashback as key evidence that something must be done to resolve the current state of US gambling laws; it is creating dissention between Americans and the European Union in the difference. He was quoted: “It is of critical importance that we find an effective and immediate way to regulate and tax internet gaming in order to avoid a serious trade dispute with the E.U., which, in turn, could have global trade repercussions for the United States. The retroactive and discriminatory enforcement against E.U. parties, who ceased operating in the U.S. a long time ago, has directly led to an escalating trade dispute with the E.U.”

The most popular notion, however, can be simplified down to money, using Dikshit’s $300 price tag as prime evidence. Popular online casino publication TechDirt put it best: “If revenue generation is the goal, why not simply legalize online gambling, then regulate and tax it? That way, the government gets its slice, while US citizens can enjoy some protection while betting, instead of being forced into the grey market where they're largely at the whim of site owners.” Logical, simple, and therefore (inevitably) most unappealing to US legislators, apparently.