Why Was Jay Cohen's Conviction Justified?
After reading the David and Goliath at the WTO story on page 427 of course text, "was Jay Cohen's conviction justified?"
After reading the David and Goliath at the WTO story, I felt Jay Cohen’s conviction was not justified. Jay Cohen was a citizen of the United States and was being charged with U.S. laws. However, he was operating the business in Antigua and Barbuda and followed all the rules and regulations to do so. He paid $100,000 for a business license, which was all a gambling entrepreneur needed. The Wire Wage Act of 1961 prohibited the use of, “’…a wire communication facility for the transmissions in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest,
or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers…” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012, p. 428). However, this act conflicted with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). “Under this agreement, the United States had promised to open its borders to trade in a wide range of services, including online gambling” (Steiner et al., 2012, p. 429). that If this agreement were not to unintentionally omit online gambling and betting services, then they would have been justified in Cohen’s conviction. The U.S. negotiators did exclude “sporting services” from the schedule of commitments, but not the “other recreational services.” This meant that the United States was formally obligated to accept the imports of gambling services. The treaty was drafted in 1995, and had failed to clarify that the market access provisions did not extend to the “gambling and betting services.”
After reading the David and Goliath at the WTO story, I felt Jay Cohen’s conviction was not justified. Jay Cohen was a citizen of the United States and was being charged with U.S. laws. However, he was operating the business in Antigua and Barbuda and followed all the rules and regulations to do so. He paid $100,000 for a business license, which was all a gambling entrepreneur needed. The Wire Wage Act of 1961 prohibited the use of, “’…a wire communication facility for the transmissions in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest,
or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers…” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012, p. 428). However, this act conflicted with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). “Under this agreement, the United States had promised to open its borders to trade in a wide range of services, including online gambling” (Steiner et al., 2012, p. 429). that If this agreement were not to unintentionally omit online gambling and betting services, then they would have been justified in Cohen’s conviction. The U.S. negotiators did exclude “sporting services” from the schedule of commitments, but not the “other recreational services.” This meant that the United States was formally obligated to accept the imports of gambling services. The treaty was drafted in 1995, and had failed to clarify that the market access provisions did not extend to the “gambling and betting services.”