Four Wall Street Firms Subpoenaed in Online Gaming Probe

[Suff]

The Justice Department has issued subpoenas to at least four Wall Street investment banks as part of a widening investigation into the multibillion-dollar online gambling industry, according to people briefed on the investigation.

The subpoenas were issued to firms that had underwritten the initial public offerings of some of the most popular online gambling sites that operate abroad. The banks involved in the inquiry includeHSBC (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=HBC), Credit Suisse (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=CSR), Deutsche Bank (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=DB) and Dresdner Kleinwort, these people said.

While online gaming sites like PartyGaming and 888 Holdings operate from Gibraltar and their initial public offerings were held on the London Stock Exchange (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/london_stock_exchange/index.html?inline=nyt-org), companies that do business with them and have large bases in United States have come under scrutiny by regulators in Washington.

None of the biggest United States banks like Goldman Sachs (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=GS) or Citigroup (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=C) underwrote the initial public offerings in London, in part because of the legal ambiguity of the sites; they are illegal in the United States, but still accessible to residents.

The subpoenas, earlier reported by The Sunday Times of London, appeared to be part of an indirect but aggressive and far-reaching attack by federal prosecutors on the Internet gambling industry just two weeks before one of its biggest days of the year, the Super Bowl.



NY TIMES. No Reg.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/business/22gaming.html?hp&ex=1169442000&en=6a7177385bf27904&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Robert Fischer]

they want that money.

[skate]

Unable to go directly after the casinos, which are based overseas, they have sought to prosecute the operations’ American partners, marketing arms and now, possibly, investors.


boy, talk about the long arm of the law...


seems like they (feds) want the banks to be seen as partners... in anything.

[PlanB]

It's sad really, what with London becoming larger than NY's Wall St as the financial kingpin; and Rome doing big numbers, that 43 gave the go ahead to these moronic prosecutors to make fools of themselves. This will unravel, I hope.

[skate]

It's sad really, what with London becoming larger than NY's Wall St as the financial kingpin; and Rome doing big numbers, that 43 gave the go ahead to these moronic prosecutors to make fools of themselves. This will unravel, I hope.

oh gees, here we go.
look, this is not a 43.

it is a sarbans- oakley thing, or oaxleyt, whatever, you know what im saying.

oh yeh london is increasing, but becoming larger you say? by how much, excuse me.?

[PlanB]

Skate, it was funny before but now it's annoying me: STOP THE ON PURPOSE misspellings. Now, yes, Sarbanes-Oxley hurts business; but WHOSE watch did this occur under? In fact, both S & O are just has beens, and the rules are unsuited to business today; banking today is NOT like in the days when those guys mattered. BUT it was 43 who signed it into LAW.

[skate]

and, since we use initials, it was c, who signed into the law books the ruling that big oil does not pay a tax, when oil is over $35 a b.


too-shaa

[PlanB]

YES IT WAS the B I G MAN himself, Mr C, but under duress & false info. Or did you just have a memory lapse. But we digress from 2002 when Bush couldn't wait to give pens away after his S-O signing; in spite of the 2/3 accountants' societies that said, NO, NO, it's too restrictive & stupid.

[skate]

YES IT WAS the B I G MAN himself, Mr C, but under duress & false info. Or did you just have a memory lapse. But we digress from 2002 when Bush couldn't wait to give pens away after his S-O signing; in spite of the 2/3 accountants' societies that said, NO, NO, it's too restrictive & stupid.

under what ..dress was that?

[skate]

YES IT WAS the B I G MAN himself, Mr C, but under duress & false info. Or did you just have a memory lapse. But we digress from 2002 when Bush couldn't wait to give pens away after his S-O signing; in spite of the 2/3 accountants' societies that said, NO, NO, it's too restrictive & stupid.

always, somebody is gonna say "too this, too that" always always always...

that would be called upon on Monday Morning, always.

nobody said stupid.

hey, take a look at the whole situation. start with "big time corruption", come on.

this sort of thinking comes with the freight, i understand, but it is xactly why ends will not meet.

who has all day to look into a financial disaster, its like a bowl of twin, so, you take action. i do not have to agree with the action, but... take it.

a better business mind than chainsaws is not available.