It's not because they operate in any fundamentally different way. Almost all online gambling sites work the same. Would-be wagerers open an account with a credit card, although some sites also accept cash and cashier's checks. The minimum amount to begin an account varies. Casino games are available on a site or via downloadable software. They almost always include slots, blackjack and video poker, but many sites carry more exotic games, from baccarat to pai gow. Bets generally range from $1 to as much as $300.

Although it uses a CryptoLogic template similar to several other online casinos, Kennyrogerscasino.com may be unique in letting bettors wager as little as a penny at a time. "We get daily reports, and you'll see these people who spend a couple of hours gambling, and the total amount they bet is like $1.81," says Thomas Holmes, Inland's head of technology.

Intriguingly, though, all the bets that make up the U.S. attorney's case involved the casinos' sportsbooks. FBI agents placed bets on games – uniformly National Football League matches, although many other options are available – and followed up, whether they won or lost.

The prosecutors' focus on sports bets appears to stem from legal precedent in the law they relied on. Their case is based on the 1961 Wire Act. Passed during the term of crime-fighter Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the law was intended to outlaw betting over telephone lines. Like the Communications Act passed in the 1930s, technology has now leapfrogged the law. The Wire Act obviously has no mention of wagering over the Internet.

Nonetheless, some experts think the case could be made to stick. "The telephone is being used to facilitate these wagers and I believe the government has a solid case," explains Tony Cabot, a Las Vegas-based gaming lawyer and author of a book on Internet gaming. "And it is possible that records could be subpoenaed of various banks where these companies maintain accounts."

The office of U.S. Attorney White has proceeded slowly and quietly. White's hesitancy suggests that the law may not be as solid as she thought when she indicted. Her higher-ups in the Justice Department appear to agree. The Standard obtained a Department of Justice analysis of the bill S. 474, introduced into the Senate by Arizona's John Kyl in 1997 as the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Justice believes that any legislation addressing criminal misuse of computers or computer systems (including the Internet) should have three vital characteristics.

First, legislation should treat physical activity and cyberactivity in the same way. If an activity is prohibited in the physical world but not on the Internet, the Internet becomes a safe haven for that criminal activity. If, on the other hand, an activity is in the physical world – betting on horses, or casino betting with Indian tribes – it becomes subject to federal criminal sanction when it occurs in cyberspace.

Second, legislation should be technology-neutral. Legislation tied to a particular technology may quickly become obsolete and require further amendment.

Finally, the DoJ believes that any federal law must recognize that the Internet is different from other communications media: It's a multifaceted communications medium that allows for both point-to-point transmission between two parties (like the telephone), as well as the widespread dissemination of information to a vast audience (like a newspaper). Failure to account for that specificity in legislation could stifle the Internet's growth or chill its use as a communications tool.

The original version of Kyl's bill failed most of these tests. Kyl introduced a revised version earlier this year, removing some of the more onerous and hard-to-enforce provisions. According to an analysis by Sue Schieder of Rolling Good Times, the online gambling magazine, the new legislation would not punish the casual bettor. Nor would it prohibit online fantasy sports leagues, online lotteries in states where they are legal, or online betting on any live horse race where it would otherwise be lawful to wager. Legislators have considered enlisting Internet service providers to patrol for undesirable sites, although Internet gambling insiders consider that proposal dead on arrival.

But even if Congress comes up with the best-crafted legislation in history, there are significant factors beyond its control. "Federal legislation will make it difficult but not impossible for Internet gamblers in the U.S. to gain access to offshore sites," says Sebastian Sinclair of Christiansen/Cummings. "Ultimately, Internet gambling operators are selling a product.  The vast majority of customers will satisfy their demand for commercial gambling through less onerous and risky alternatives, such as lotteries, bingo, pari-mutuels and casinos."

But a hard-core base will continue to turn to Internet betting for its clear advantages. For one thing, gambling from one's home allows for a variety of techniques that would get one tossed out of a regular casino. Blackjack players can very easily count cards, or even consult odds charts; the Kennyrogerscasino.com site actually has a printable chart showing the best strategy for every possible hand of blackjack. And for sports bettors – who make up a majority of online gamblers, according to industry insiders – the ease of using cyberbookies can't be beat. "I use the service because it's convenient and I have access to it when I want," says one online gambler. "I wager on football games and usually bet in the neighborhood of $1,000 every weekend. I've not had problems being paid."

If such gamblers are not satisfied by options available to U.S. citizens, it will be increasingly tempting for them to turn to locations abroad. One Australian state, Queensland, is already awarding licenses for online gambling, and others may follow soon. That makes for an Internet gambling environment too porous for U.S. law enforcement to plug.

All the sites indicted by the U.S. attorney's office theoretically operate out of the Caribbean. (However, an HBO sports program attempted to locate one of these ventures in Aruba, and ultimately found that the genuine server was in a residential neighborhood in Bethlehem, Pa.) And the Caribbean nations would like to keep their haven status. Aruba, for one, is refusing to extradite any indicted individuals to the U.S., and thus far the U.S. has had little cooperation from any other nation.

Does the seeming invincibility of online gambling make it an enticing business? Jason Ader of Bear Stearns, urges caution. "Since there are no controls at present regarding Internet wagering, I would urge investors to shun these firms at present," he says. Even the firms that have enjoyed some stock-price popularity – such as Youbet.com – have shaky fundamentals. But as more and more traditional firms become involved, the consumer will look for the brand name. Says Sinclair of Christiansen/Cummings: "You are going to feel more comfortable wagering with a Hilton than you will with Joe's Casino."

top |next

home | about us | articles | tests | cyberwidows | virtual clinic | resources
books | send page