Prosecution Of Cross-Border Online Gambling
🔹 I. Introduction: What is Cross-Border Online Gambling?
Cross-border online gambling refers to wagering activities conducted over the internet where either:
The operator is located in one country and the players in another, or
The financial transactions pass through multiple jurisdictions.
This raises complex jurisdictional, regulatory, and enforcement issues since gambling laws vary widely across countries.
Key issues include:
Jurisdiction – Which country’s laws apply?
Licensing and legality – Whether the operator is licensed in its home country or in the player’s country.
Money laundering – Online gambling can be used to move money across borders.
Enforcement – Difficulty in prosecuting offshore operators.
🔹 II. Legal Framework
Different jurisdictions regulate online gambling differently:
United States – Prohibited by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) 2006 and Wire Act 1961 (for sports betting).
United Kingdom – Regulated by the Gambling Act 2005, which allows licensing of foreign operators under certain conditions.
European Union – Balances free movement of services (Article 56 TFEU) with public policy restrictions on gambling.
Asia-Pacific (India, Singapore, China) – Most countries prohibit cross-border online gambling or restrict it heavily.
🔹 III. Key Cases on Cross-Border Online Gambling
Below are five landmark cases that illustrate how courts around the world have approached the prosecution and legality of cross-border online gambling.
⚖️ 1. United States v. Jay Cohen (2001) – The “World Sports Exchange” Case
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Citation: 260 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2001)
Facts:
Jay Cohen operated World Sports Exchange, a sports betting company based in Antigua. The company accepted online bets from U.S. residents. Although Cohen argued that his business was legal in Antigua, he was prosecuted under the Federal Wire Act (18 U.S.C. §1084), which prohibits interstate transmission of betting information.
Issue:
Can U.S. authorities prosecute an operator based overseas for accepting bets from U.S. citizens?
Held:
Yes. The court ruled that even though Cohen operated from Antigua, he was targeting U.S. customers, and thus U.S. law applied. The Wire Act covered transmissions that crossed borders.
Significance:
This case established that cross-border location does not exempt operators from prosecution if they solicit bets from within the United States.
⚖️ 2. United States v. Scheinberg et al. (2011) – “Black Friday” Poker Case
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Facts:
Executives of major online poker sites (PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker) were indicted for violating UIGEA (2006), Wire Act (1961), and bank fraud statutes. The operators were based offshore but catered to U.S. players using disguised transactions.
Issue:
Whether processing payments for illegal online gambling constitutes money laundering or bank fraud.
Held:
Yes. The DOJ alleged that the companies misled U.S. banks to process gambling transactions. Several executives pleaded guilty and paid multimillion-dollar settlements.
Significance:
This case marked a major crackdown on cross-border online gambling and emphasized that financial intermediaries (like payment processors) are also liable.
⚖️ 3. Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International Ltd v. Departamento de Jogos (2009)
Court: European Court of Justice (ECJ)
Citation: Case C-42/07
Facts:
Bwin, an online gambling company based in Gibraltar, sponsored a Portuguese football league and offered online betting in Portugal. The Portuguese government prosecuted Bwin, claiming only its state monopoly (Santa Casa) could offer gambling services.
Issue:
Whether Portugal’s restriction violated the EU principle of free movement of services.
Held:
The ECJ upheld Portugal’s restriction. It ruled that member states may restrict online gambling to protect consumers and prevent fraud, even if it limits the free movement of services.
Significance:
This case confirmed that EU countries can regulate or prohibit cross-border online gambling to protect public order or prevent addiction, provided the restriction is proportionate.
⚖️ 4. R. v. Starnet Communications International Inc. (Canada, 2001)
Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia
Facts:
Starnet Communications, based in Vancouver, operated internet gambling sites licensed in Antigua. Canadian authorities charged the company for illegally operating gaming activities under Canadian law.
Issue:
Can Canada prosecute a company licensed abroad if it hosts gambling servers or business operations domestically?
Held:
Yes. The court held that since the company’s operations were physically located in Canada, it violated Canadian Criminal Code §202(1), which prohibits unlicensed gambling.
Significance:
Demonstrates that location of servers and corporate operations determines jurisdiction—even if the gambling itself is “hosted” abroad.
⚖️ 5. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Chen Man Yuen (Hong Kong, 2003)
Court: Court of Appeal, Hong Kong
Facts:
The accused operated a website offering sports betting services hosted overseas but accessible to Hong Kong residents. He was charged under the Gambling Ordinance (Cap. 148).
Issue:
Whether offering gambling online from outside Hong Kong but accessible within it constitutes an offence.
Held:
The court held that soliciting bets from Hong Kong residents made the operation illegal, even if the website’s servers were abroad.
Significance:
Confirms the "effects doctrine"—a country may assert jurisdiction if the illegal activity has substantial effects within its territory.
🔹 IV. Common Legal Principles from These Cases
Territoriality vs. Effects Doctrine:
Courts often assert jurisdiction if the harmful effects (e.g., betting, losses, consumer impact) occur within their territory.
Targeting Test:
If an operator targets customers in a jurisdiction (through ads, currency, or language), that jurisdiction’s laws apply.
Licensing Is Not a Shield:
A license in one country does not protect an operator from prosecution elsewhere.
Financial Transaction Liability:
Payment processors and banks can also face liability for enabling illegal gambling.
Public Policy Justification:
Governments justify restrictions to prevent fraud, money laundering, and gambling addiction.
🔹 V. Conclusion
The prosecution of cross-border online gambling illustrates the clash between digital globalization and national sovereignty.
Courts worldwide consistently emphasize that territorial restrictions still apply online, especially where gambling targets citizens of a jurisdiction where it is restricted.
While regulatory harmonization remains limited, these cases show a trend toward extraterritorial enforcement and joint international cooperation in tackling online gambling crimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments