Re: US vs $1.3 million in US Currency

["Allen Smith" <easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu>]

On Apr 27, 12:24am, Ang Peng Hwa (Assoc Prof) wrote:
> David Goldstein sent this case recently:
> 
> Courts OKs Seizure Of Net Gambling Cash Destined For U.K. (Newsbytes) A
> federal appeals court has upheld what the U.S. government says is its
> right to seize revenue that was on its way to an online gambling outfit
> in the U.K. where the betting was entirely legal.
> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/176123.html
> 
> The full title of the case is "United States v. $734,578.82 in United
> States Currency (and) $589,578.82 in United States Currency". The facts
> and decision are in the summary above.
> The last two paragraphs of the Newsbytes report says:
> On the issue of Bowman's businesses being legal outside the U.S., the
> court wrote: "(Bowman's) essential claim is that the district court had
> no jurisdiction to apply United States gambling law to a British citizen
> and British companies operating legal gambling businesses on English
> soil."
> However, the court said, U.S. gambling laws "reflect the 'strong public
> policies' of the United States government, and the government is not
> required to tolerate activity that it defines as illegal merely because
> it affects someone who may live in a country where the activity is
> legal."
> In plainer English, the court is saying: It's illegal in the USA. It's
> legal overseas? So what? Too bad.
> Replace the word "USA" with France and you have an identical rationale
> for the Yahoo vs France case.

I agree that this is completely ridiculous extraterritorial action (as are,
for instance, attempts to invoke EU privacy regulations - or Japanese, or
Australian ones - to regulate what can be required for WHOIS records), and
also nonsensical on a number of other grounds (ranging from the belief that
the stock market et al are not gambling to the idea that property is
properly subject to lawsuits (the same thing, to a large degree, behind the
atrocity of civil forfeiture)).

However, the Yahoo vs France case did involve something that the US
government is bound by its constitution to uphold, namely freedom of
speech/press. Moreover, it was a question of "can US courts be required to
enforce decisions that violate said freedom" - note that in the above case
it was _before_ said money left the US that it was seized. Moreover, I see
no reason that British courts could not, say, inform the US government that
it owed said British company the entire sum of money involved, and seize US
governmental assets in the UK to enforce that decision. Indeed, I would
support them if they chose to do so.

	-Allen

-- 
Allen Smith			http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/
September 11, 2001		A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
* APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net *