BestCraps.com

Washington State Supreme Court Closes Down Gambling Site Anew

Posted on September 4th, 2010

News Sponsored by Online Vegas Casino

Rated 5 Stars by BestCraps.com

Read Review

Visit Casino

Download Software

————————————————

The highest court of the state of Washington has put the final nail to the coffin of a website that is supposed to be a platform of person-to-person betting that should have linked people to bet on different things. The Supreme Court of Washington state ruled towards the end of the week that Betcha is an internet gambling service which the court equated to being a bookmarking operation and is therefore illegal. The operator of the site made an attempt to skirt around the prohibition of the state against gambling that is unlicensed by adding an operational amendment that a refusal to pay by losers will not equate to any physical or civil liability. The site is supposed to give losers an option to not pay the winner of the bet. The winner may only opt to but a low mark on the non-paying loser’s “honor rating” on the website. This rating will be more of a warning for other people that will enable them to see a person’s track record of making good on a bet. The creators of the site argued that since losers are not in any obligation to pay, the activities on the site cannot be constituted as gambling.

Washington’s Supreme Court disagreed on this argument by Betcha unanimously and unequivocally disagreed, countering that the activities in the site would still be considered gambling. Betcha’s online wagering service was supposed to allow players to put wagers on from political races, sporting events to even trivial matters. Participants will be asked to set up accounts, determine the wagers they want to place and the website will put the amounts wagered in a frozen account up until 72 hours later the outcome of whatever the players are betting on. Of course, the site is supposed to charge fees for the use of the site. The court further argues that what the site does is still considered bookmaking, which is defined by the gambling act of the state as “accepting bets, upon the outcome of future contingent events, as a business or in which the bettor is charged a fee or ‘vigorish’ for the opportunity to place a bet.” Justin Tom Chambers, in the court’s decision, wrote that the business model of the site is still anchored on charging fees for those who want place bets on t the web site. He adds, “Users meeting specific criteria were allowed to send bets to Betcha, which would post them on its web site for a fee. Betcha charged fees ‘for the opportunity to place a bet.’” Thus, the actions of the site are, without a doubt, included in what the gambling act considers and defines as ‘bookmaking.’

The decision further states that it does not matter whether the users of the site are engaged in what is considered as gambling activity, because the fact that they already placed a bet is already under the definition of bookmaking. In bookmaking, bets are bets, whether they are ‘gambling bets’ or just ‘bets.’ Furthermore, the fact that the site does not compel a bettor to honor his bet is immaterial, as the bet has already been placed, and thus is already under the state’s gambling act. Washington authorities have also conducted a raid on the offices of the site in 2007 as per request of the state of Louisiana, causing Betcha to shut down.

The company then filed a complaint, wanting a court to rule that the operations that it conducts are not in violation of gambling statutes. In the trial court hearings, the company lost with a Thurston County Superior Court decision. It appealed the decision and scored a victory, as a majority of judges in the Court of Appeals decided that the users of the site had not performed gambling, since they did not have an understanding that something of value will be won for sure – it will only happen if the loser decides to honor his bet. The case then dragged on to the state high court. The site‘s founder, Nicholas Jenkins during that time, seemed to know that there is more in store for the upcoming trials. In fact, in the oral arguments, he described the event as an “unmitigated disaster,” leading speculators to think that he knew his company was in the losing end.