CROSS-BORDER JURISDICTION
states have multiple options for taking further action against the offending party. Recognizing the nature of the alleged crimes and the general lack of in-state assets, as part of the criminal enforcement process, state law enforcement agencies would likely have undertaken a forfeiture proceeding. Nearly every state has a mechanism to obtain property or assets used either to commit a crime or obtained through criminal means. 8 Additionally, some states also have gambling-specific forfeiture provisions. 9 Furthermore, at the federal level the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of International Affairs of the Criminal Division provides assistance to federal prosecutors seeking to forfeit property located in a foreign country pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1355, and encourages prosecutors to give priority to pursuing forfeitable assets beyond the borders of the U.S. 10 Finally, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act 11 can be used against foreign entities acting in the United States when the alleged conduct falls within the scope of the Act. 12 Given the nature of online gambling and the often untaxed or otherwise unregulated financial transactions associated with such conduct, many cases brought against black market gaming companies could likely include a colorable RICO claim. Moreover, once a criminal conviction is obtained in state or federal court, U.S. regulators can begin to take additional action. Ultimately, the conviction will allow for the swift imposition of related administrative action by the regulatory body in the jurisdiction where the underlying conviction occurred. Most jurisdictions have mandatory penalties or disqualifications associated with both felony convictions and convictions related to gambling. 13 Furthermore, actions taken by one regulatory body are often shared with all jurisdictions
that have reciprocity in licensing and enforcement matters, thereby triggering a domino effect where the offending entity and its officers, directors, or other managing persons will put any legitimate license in jeopardy and risk being locked out of the regulated industry across the country. Also, these convictions and administrative actions could potentially form the basis for discipline in European markets where the overseas operators may hold lucrative licenses. 14 One item to be aware of is that in the United States, although the language is somewhat ambiguous in most gaming statutes, precedent appears to require underlying convictions used to justify further administrative action take place within the United States. 15 This is consistent with the lack of comity for criminal judgments generally. Civil Judgments Unlike their criminal counterparts, civil judgments obtained within a U.S. jurisdiction are generally enforced by other jurisdictions across the U.S through the Full Faith and Credit clause. State law generally sets the procedure for filing, recording, and effectuating the foreign state’s judgment, and the are generally uniform and based on the Revised Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 16 As such, domesticating a civil judgment from state-to- state in order to levy against assets is a procedural matter rather than a judicial exercise. Domesticating judgments by foreign nation states within American jurisdictions, however, presents additional hurdles 17 .
8 https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/asset-forfeiture-laws-by-state.html, last accessed Aug. 25, 2024 9 §849.36, Fla. Stat.; Ala. Code §13A-12-30 10 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-111000-forfeitureseizure#9-111.700, last visited Aug. 25, 2024. See also Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual 2023, available at https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-afmls/file/839521/dl 11 18 U.S.C. §§1961-68 12 See RJE Nabisco Inc., v. European Cmty. , 579 U.S. 325 (2016), holding that Congress intended the RICO prohibitions to apply extraterritorially in tandem with the underlying predicates, without regard to the locus of the enterprise when the conduct at issue engages or significantly effects commerce involving the U.S. 13 See Cal. Bus. & Pro. Code §19914; CO ST §44-40-107; KY Stat. §238.525; MN ST §349.16, as examples 14 See §109(3), Gambling Act of 2005 (Great Britain), which reaches to relevant offenses inside and outside of the country 15 See Small v. United States , 544 U.S. 385 (2005), holding that the term “convicted in any court” as used in federal statutory language does not include courts of foreign countries 16 Available at https://www.uniformlaws.org/home. See also §§55.501-.509, Fla. Stat, “Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act”. 17 Many countries have treaties with other nation-states that address judgment reciprocity. The U.S. is not a participant in any such treaty, al- though it does participate in certain Hague conventions related to service, evidence, and other procedural matters
PAGE 8
IMGL MAGAZINE | DECEMBER 2024
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker