Deck 11: Globalization, Trade, and Corruption

Question 1

Was Jay Cohen's conviction justified?

Answer 1

Cohen and his companions, which are all U.S. citizens, started a phone and virtual gambling enterprise called the WSE in country AB. The central market for this industry was the gamblers from the U.S, in which bettors created their accounts in the WSE site via credit card repayments, wiring cash, or transfer bank checks, and passwords were used for accessing their accounts through phone or online and bet on various sports such as football, basketball, soccer, etc. WSE was an authorized company with a government license and openly manage their business. Nevertheless, as litigants against online gambling surged in the U.S. and major leagues alleged that WSE and other foreign operatives eradicate team titles and associates authorized leagues with web series pushed the FBI to launch a sting operation. With this operation, it classified foreign wagering sites as unlawful usage of telephonic lines for placing wagers. Cohen's enterprise was among the sites that were indicted as illegitimate, thereby compelling him to arrive in the United Sates to take up legal action upon the country U.S. government.
Cohen went to the U.S. for a legal dispute since he erroneously believed that the U.S. laws could not be applicable to his business in country AB. The FBI arrested him on his entrance from the airport on the grounds that he had infringed an act WA, which declared any telephone lines wager as illicit except when it occurs at both ends, i.e. origin of bets and destination of bets, then it is deemed as legitimate. In addition, he was accused of a supplementing count of totaling and abetting breaches of the WA since his company continued to operate and get remuneration even after his detention. He underwent endless unfruitful legal battles with the federal government, which eventually directed to his imprisonment for twenty months as he was pronounced guilty.
Cohen's sentence was unwarranted and unjust as his company was operating in foreign soil and domestic rules do not apply to offshore businesses. This statement could be supported by the incompetency of the U.S. government to obstruct the operation of his company and his associates could not be arrested since they are working in a foreign country. Additionally, the act WA should not apply to his online betting business since the Internet had not existed when the law was drafted.

Question 2

Do you concur with the decisions of the World Trade Organization in the dispute between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States?

Answer 2

The WSE, founded by Americans in country AB, was a legitimate enterprise hat managed its business openly, however, the FBI identified 14 foreign wagering sites as illegal, which compelled Cohen, the founder of WSE Company, to enter into fruitless legal disputes with the U.S. government. He was captured on his arrival at the airport and was convicted for twenty months. This directed Cohen to take up the matter to a higher authority. He discovered that the action of the U.S. government was unjust as it transgressed the WTO trade rules. This knowledge directed him to persuade Antigua and Barbuda to take up his cause in the WTO. This incident marked a futile conflict among a tiny nation and the superpower. The principal purpose of the WTO is to arbitrate trade disagreements among various countries.
The country AB inquired WTO to establish a conflict settlement board since the disputes remained unsolvable. It alleged that the U.S. government's actions of identifying betting sites in foreign soil as illegal infringed the U.S. laws. It also claimed that the U.S. approved a range of federal and state stratagems and actions to check businesses in AB from providing gambling services to U.S. citizens and such acts violated the commitment of the GATS, approved by the WTO members in 1995. GATS sanctions any nation to remove its boundaries in various trade services including recreational activities, which Antigua contended that gambling came under the recreational service. The U.S. countered by asserting that AB operants infringed its domestic laws which outlawed the usage of telephonic cables for putting bets and also maintained that federal enactments declared it unlawful to accept wagers made in foreign soil. Here, the U.S. government named three different statutes to support their case.
The adjudication board established by the WTO, after evaluating both facets of the case, arrived at a verdict that favored the case of AB. It apprised that the steps of the U.S. government were incongruous to the market entrance agreement inscribed by the U.S under the GATS and also recognized AB's assertion that the so-called recreational ventures should constitute gambling and wagering services.
The decision of the WTO is justified and impartial as the U.S. violated the free market access arrangement which it committed under the GATS act. The actions of the U.S were unreasonable, arbitrary, and indefensible discrimination, which were nothing but a masked constraint on trade. The national betting constraints placed by domestic laws were unethical as they placed trade restrictions to international or offshore businesses.

Question 3

Should the United States comply with the WTO's decision? If so, what should it do?

Answer 3

The WSE, established by Americans in country AB, was a legitimate enterprise that operated its business openly, nevertheless, the FBI classified fourteen foreign wagering sites as unlawful, which enforced Cohen, the patron of WSE Company, to enter into futile legal disputes with the U.S. government. He was apprehended on his arrival at the airport and was convicted for twenty months. This steered Cohen to take up the matter to a more formidable authority. He discovered that the action of the U.S. was unjust as it transgressed the WTO's trade laws. This knowledge directed him to convince country AB to take up his cause in the WTO. 
The adjudication board established by the WTO, after evaluating both facets of the case, arrived at a verdict that favored the case of AB. It apprised that the steps of the U.S. government were incongruous to the market entrance agreement inscribed by the U.S under the GATS and also recognized AB's assertion that the so-called recreational ventures should constitute gambling and wagering services.
The U.S. should comply with the rulings declared by the WTO since it is part of the organization and also gets benefited for being a member that ratified the GATS, where it sanctions any nation to remove its boundaries in various trade services including recreational activities. The U.S., being a superpower, should not be intimidated by AB's earnings from gambling sites. It should be a bigger person and support the resolutions arrived by the WTO or request for a middle ground to protect the interest of the domestic betting businesses. To adhere to the WTO board's decision, the U.S. should amend its laws to license cross-border wagering with offshore betting businesses or a transforms its laws that called for banning of all domestic betting over telephone lines or via Internet.

Question 4

Should Antigua and Barbuda be allowed to retaliate against the United States by exporting copyrighted entertainment material equal to the damages it has suffered?

Question 5

Do you support the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006? Was Congress justified in passing this law after the WTO's rulings about illegal trade barriers?

Question 6

To what extent should the U.S. regulate gambling? Should gambling be banned?