Nova Southeastern University
Wayne Huizenga Graduate School
Of Business & Entrepreneurship

Assignment for Course: – Legal, Ethical and Social Value of Business

Submitted to: Professor

Submitted by: Muzna Ali

Date of Submission: March 2012

Title of Assignment: Term paper

CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORSHIP: I certify that I am the author of this paper and that any assistance I received in its preparation is fully acknowledge and disclosed in the paper. I have also cited any sources from which I used data, ideas of words, whether quoted directly or paraphrased. I also certify that this paper was prepared specifically by us for this course.

*************************************************************
Instructor’s Grade on Assignment:

Instructor’s Comments:

Integrating Values - The Legality, Morality, and Social Responsibility of Bodog Online Gambling- Legal and Moral Issues

Table of Contents

Abstract- Muzna Ali………………………………….………………………………………...…4

Introduction- Muzna Ali………………..………………………………...……………………….5

Introduction to Legal Section- Byron Creech……………………..…….………………..……….6
Utilitarian Ethical Analysis – Wendy Burrion……………….…………………………….…….11
Kantian and Additional Ethical Theory- Princess McIntosh……………………………………13

Social Responsibility- Aja Watkins…………………………………………………………...…17
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….…………………22

References……………………………………………………………………..…………………24

Abstract –Muzna Ali

The Bodog Online gambling company established by Arye seems to have legal, moral and social issues. Legally it is center of debate in U.S. Courts, while morally it is deemed immoral according to Utilitarian and Kantian ethics. The theory of individualism has more in common with Ayre’s concept of Bodog Company. The Company totally fails to involve itself in any social responsibility tasks and thus fails to be accepted in our society.

Introduction- Muzna Ali Online gambling also known as Internet gambling or online is gambling using the internet. The U.S. Justice Department has declared that online gambling is illegal under the Federal Wire Act of 1961. In this paper we analyze the online gambling company ‘Bodog” for legal and moral issues. This is an analytical paper concentrating on the three values of analysis which constitutes law, ethics and social responsibility. We have chosen this topic because it’s very current,
Controversial and involves business directly. The U.S. casino industry claims that Internet gambling is inevitable and rejects the Justice Department’s contention that the online gambling industry is permeated with fraud. The Justice Department is clearly pursuing online gambling and is targeting companies that do business with such sites. According to the Justice Department online gambling encourages fraud, money laundering and underage wagering. Many people in U.S. view online gambling as a moral issue of concern and condemn it as a vice.
Thus this topic is of utmost significance as there is no explicit law against online gambling and there could be a formulation of law in near future.
Background Information Regarding Bodog Online Gambling Company Bodog is an online entertainment brand launched by a Canadian national Calvin Ayre in 1994. The Bodog brand largely focuses on the online gaming industry. Its various brand licensees all operate outside U.S.A and include Bodog Asia, Bodog Poker Network and Morris Mohawk Gaming Group.

A. Introduction to Legal Section- Byron Creech
The evolution of gambling law in the United States began many centuries ago, but the history behind the nation’s legal posture ultimately contributed to Bodog’s current legal dilemma. The business of Internet gambling essentially initi+ated the fourth phase of gambling in United States history when the first online casino opened in August 1996 (Schoen, Hughes, Lewis, & Marmon, 2007). In the beginning, the first phase of gambling developed in the colonial days when domestic lotteries appeared in the 1740s in order to support community projects in the colonies (Moffett & Peck, 2001). However, this phase did not last long and it was not until after the Civil War that America entered its second phase in the evolution of gambling. Lotteries were again used by states to simulate economies especially in the south and west regions of the country (Moffett & Peck, 2001). The next phase in the evolution of legal gambling occurred in 1964 when the first state lottery ticket was purchased in seven decades, which later evolved to some states legalizing casino gambling (Cantwell, 1964). Now the United States is faced with the issue of Internet gambling. Although legal gambling still exists in most states, the federal government most recently passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) into law, which attempts to limit online gambling. As a result, the UIGEA and other associated laws now impede Bodog’s ability to legally conduct business in the United States.
B. Statement of Relevant Legal Principles and Rules of Law The current phases in the evolution of gambling in the United States is filled with attempts at federal regulation. While states are delegated the authority to regulate gambling, the federal government still imposed a series of federal racketeering laws aimed at controlling organized crime and interstate commerce (Shaker, 2007). First the Wire Act of 1961 was instituted to make it a crime to use wire communication for the business of betting (Shaker, 2007). Interestingly, the law did not make the act of gambling illegal, but only the business of gambling illegal. Next, the Travel Act criminalized the use of a “facility in interstate or foreign commerce” that promotes or manages any business organization involved in gambling (Schoen et al, 2007). In addition, the Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act also criminalizes carrying or sending any device used or intended to be used in gambling activities (Schoen et al, 2007). Finally, the Illegal Gambling Business Act was established to prohibit “conducting, financing, managing, supervising, directing, or owning an illegal gambling business” (Schoen et al, 2007). Although the federal racketeering laws were passed long before the invention of the Internet, case law was used to prove the law applies to Internet gambling. For example, in United States versus Cohen, the U.S. Court of Appeals used the Wire Act to prosecute Jay Cohen for running gambling website. Cohen established World Sports Exchange (WSE) overseas in Antigua and accepted sporting bets via his website. However, the court convicted Cohen since some gambling transactions initiated with customers in the United States. As a result, the WSE violated the Wire Act’s provision because the Internet was considered “wire communication” in this case (Schoen et al 2007). In addition to fighting racketeering legislation, organizations associated with Internet gambling claimed their First Amendment rights were violated while the Department of Justice attempted to deter Internet gambling in 2004. Specifically, Casino City Inc, sued the Department of Justice and claimed their right to engage in commercial speech was impeded by threats to remove advertisement for online gambling from the Casino City’s website (Schoen et al 2007). Commercial speech includes business and marketing activities and is protected by the First Amendment since the public has a right to know information that could affect their economic decisions (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2008). However, the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed Casino City’s case since commercial speech only applies to the advertising and marketing of legal activities (Schoen et al 2007). Although the acts adopted as part the federal racketeering laws were utilized to restrict illegal Internet gambling, online poker was able to make an exception and exist legally based on case law. The determination on the legality of online poker was established during the case of Re MasterCard in 2002. During the court case, poker was not considered a sport or a contest, therefore the court ruled online poker was not illegal pursuant to the Wire Act (Alexander, 2008). This ruling allowed Internet gambling organizations like Bodog to continue online poker sites legally in the United States until 2006. In an effort to enforce more strict illegal gambling standards, the U.S. federal government passed the UIGEA of 2006 as part of the Safe Port Act. The UIGEA originated over concern for uncollectable debts, increased fraud, rampant money laundering, and undetected pathological and underage gambling associated with Internet gambling (Conan, 2009). However, the UIGEA takes an indirect path to prevent Internet gambling by making it illegal for money transfers to occur between American financial institutions and gambling websites (Shaker, 2007). As a result, financial institutions bear the responsibility of the law and will be punished instead of individual Internet gamblers, who are not held criminally liable for the act of Internet gambling. This means the Federal Trade Commission and financial institution regulators will enforce UIGEA by ensuring financial institutions have the appropriate framework and supervision to detect illegal transactions. However, due some unscrupulous money handling online poker sites like Bodog were able to continue business in the U.S. for several more years. Unfortunately for Bodog’s business, on February 28, 2012 the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in the state of Maryland seize Bodog’s website. After investigators received monetary checks from Bodog in the mail, they issued a warrant pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 981 and 1955 for operating an illegal gambling organization and money laundering and shut the website down. Four executives for Bodog were indicted and could receive up to 25 years in prison and $500,000 in fines (Lelbowitz, 2012).
A. Application of Law to Topic and Legal Analysis While a combination of the federal racketeering laws and the UIGEA were utilized to shutdown Bodog in the United States, the law should still be analyzed for validity. Regulation of Internet gambling needs to assess individual state powers versus the federal powers, the exceptions provided by the UIGEA, and loopholes around regulations. Firstly, gambling has traditionally been state regulated and the fact that the federal government intervenes restricts states rights. However, the federal government is responsible for interstate commerce, which includes instruments such as railroads and trucks (Conan, 2009). Since the Internet similarly spans across states, the federal government remains responsible for regulating commerce in the case of Internet gambling. When Congress passed the UIGEA in 2006, it included a few exceptions to the definition of illegal Internet gambling. For example, the act allows financial institutions to facilitate “securities trading, fantasy sports. intrastate wagers, intratribal wagers, and activities related to the Interstate Horseracing Act” (Shaker, 2007). The lack of universality in online gambling regulation is not legally consistent and may be grounds for legal challenges in the future. In addition to legal inconsistencies, the UIGEA also has loopholes that make the current process for enforcing the act difficult. For example, since financial institutions are charged with detecting Internet gambling use, online gambling companies have switched their payment methods to become more elusive. Specifically, companies will use e-wallets and make payments in checks since financial institutions cannot track e-wallets and are exempt from monitoring checks (Shaker, 2007). However, these loopholes are not foolproof since authorities intercepted checks from Bodog and used them as evidence for a UIGEA violation.
B. Legal Conclusion (and transition to Ethics Section) Although Bodog is due in court in the near future, gambling and especially Internet gambling will continue to be at the center of debate in the United States for some time. The nation’s long history of back and forth and weighing the good effects against the bad effects will undoubtedly continue into the future. However, the recent laws that impose restrictions on Internet gambling need to be revised for more consistency and universality. The laws do not follow a strong moral direction and need clarification for the citizens of the United States to follow. Additionally if the status of Internet gambling ever changes, then the government needs to approve strict restrictions in order to protect citizens. The hazards of Internet gambling should not be taken lightly and the government needs to structure the law more effectively. Unfortunately the business sense of Internet gambling will always be weighed against the moral sense but hopefully the most effective and comprehensive legal action will exist in the future.

Utilitarian Ethical Analysis – Wendy Burrion
Ethics as a branch of philosophy Ethics determines the actions of being moral or immoral that which affects others. Ethics is considered a philosophy in terms of critically analyzing the reality, conduct, and thought (Cavico and Mujtaba, 2009, p. 4). Therefore, ethics as a branch of philosophy has divisions that can be further explained as metaphysical, the political and ethical, and the philosophy of knowledge (2009). First, metaphysical encourages people to understand the importance of the environment that affects the world. Metaphysical is known as the macro, which shows the bigger picture for humans to focus in the environment that surrounds us. The political and ethical helps humans understand the relationship between nature and the world. For this reason, the political and ethical is known as the micro because of the relations it has with nature. Finally, the philosophy of knowledge is determined by the foundation of wisdom and process of information. A philosopher is able to discover more wisdom within them and create change. Thus, Ethics of philosophy has metaphysical, the political and ethical, and the philosophy of knowledge that surrounds us. Introduction to the Utilitarian Theory According to Cavico and Mujtaba (2009) refers to “Utilitarian determine morality by focusing on the consequences of actions. If the good consequences outweigh the bad, the action is moral; if the bad outweigh the good, the action is immoral” (p. 100). Utilitarian focuses on everyone’s happiness and treats everyone as equals. Thus, there is an importance on the happiness of everyone. Therefore, there should not be inequality among people. Furthermore, a utilitarian views the greater good of the people and provides justice for the people.
The Utilitarian Ethical Model
Stakeholders
The utilitarian model is evaluated in the Bodog online gambling. The approach is taken in the perspective that Bodog online gambling is immoral, which the bad outweighs the good. Online gambling is illegal in the United States and Canadian, which is only allowed with a government license. Furthermore, the stakeholders of Bodog online gambling are the businesses offshore, society, and company. A utilitarian considers Bodog online gambling as immoral because the company revenues $200 million yearly and is based on self-interest. The community as a whole dose not benefit from online gambling. Instead, people invest their own money and time for another to benefit the immoral profits. Thus, the only happiness is momentarily for the online user, which is lost as a means of self-value and the society. Bodog invests marketing material to use people for profit. A company that bribes people to use their service is unethical. Bodog for example, advertised free thongs to the public as a marketing strategy. In addition, offshore countries, such as North America that allow Bodog online gambling are viewed as a source of millions to Ayer (owner of Bodog). A long term consequence arises only for the people that use Bodog online as a form of recreation. A utilitarian would not allow inequality that to occur if this does not benefit everyone’s happiness. People lose themselves with Bodog’s online gambling and become addicts to an unrealistic world.

Foreseeing Consequences The consequence is the money that it is involved with Bodog online gambling. A utilitarian’s perspective of money should benefit everyone, but Bodog does not necessary complete the happiness for everyone. The consequence for Bodog online gambling is that there isn’t a consequence for the company. Bodog wins in terms of not having a history of failure. The Value of Morality- The Utilitarian Approach
|Stakeholder |Good (Pleasure) |Bad (Pain) |
|Society/community | |+5 |
|Bodog |-5 | |
|Offshore countries |-5 | |
|Total |-10 |+5 |

Figure 1
Scale (-5, -4, -3,-2, -1, 0, +1, +2,+3, +4,+5)

As a result figure 1 shows that it produces more bad than good according to the utilitarian theory. Bodog and the offshore countries are receiving all the pleasure in terms of a gaining the profit. Society and the community receive the bad consequences because people lose themselves when they should not be. The pleasure is gain by the online gambling, which results as being immoral overall.
Kantian and Additional Ethical Theory- Princess McIntosh

“A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.” (Albert Camus). Calvin Ayre the CEO of Bodog Entertainment Group isn’t what we would consider to be a very ethical human being. If Ayre would have possibly developed his company based upon Kantian ethics the world would be a better place for him. Online gambling, whether it is located off shore or not it is considered to be illegal when it comes to the United States and its citizens.” According to a Justice Department official. Bodog online gambling is the fastest growing form of direct marketing for business such as casinos, social media, and television. The first step for Bodog Entertainment was to conduct an attractive website online. It is important that the website is creative enough for the consumers to come back to the website. There are many different types of website for a company to create. For example corporate or brand websites are the two basic websites there is. Another way that Ayre promoted his business is by posting stories about a business partner who doesn’t exist. It would have been a very good idea to follow the concept of Kanthic’s ethic theory. Kant’s endeavor is base on person judgment and that it should be moral. Kant managed to create a three part categorical imperative test that helps morally good people. The first part of the test is the test of morality under categorical imperative universality. The first action of the rule is to remain consistent with universal. If everyone will follow that action all people would follow the rules which causes for their action to be moral. Furthermore, if the action isn’t consistent within universal then it becomes immoral. For example, according to the textbook lying is immoral. A rational person doesn’t lie because lying causes for no one to ever believe what they are saying or even to rely on them. The universal law doesn’t permit lying. Ayre can become much more successful if wouldn’t steal and be misleading. For example 95% of his sales came from the United States and Ayre didn’t pay a single dime on personal or corporate income tax. Even though Ayre is not considered to be an US citizens he also has obligations a foreigner has to pay taxes in the US. How moral is that? A moral person consistently shows rational acts. In a most interesting way Kant’s universal “law” is to have reason and make decisions and that is the good will. The second test of Kant’s Categorical Imperative is considered to be a check against residual immorality something that the first test fails to display. One of the focuses of the second test is to make sure that all human beings are treated with respect and dignity. In addition to that the second test identifies that worth of human beings. The second test also take a closer look with one person to another and there interaction together. “The second test believe that human must be considered, and treated, as rational and free agents who possess the capability, freedom, and their right to set their goals, make their own decisions, and govern their actions by reason.” (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009) Kant’s Categorical Imperative that within the second test at this point people will be able to know and understand the moral reasoning by action and that they will follow the moral “law” which will help to be treated as ends Kant’s kingdom of ends (each person much treated one another with dignity respect and value the worthwhile entity). Lying is also stated in the second test as being listed as being immoral. Lying to others in two is called “mean” a mean is a person who manipulate another to accomplish a goal. Ethical egoism and utilitarianism violate the second test because it undermines the word dignity. Ayre is a great example of a person that is very immoral that manipulate people by lying to people to achieve a certain purpose or goal. For example Ayre develop a fictitious name “Cole Turner” for the face of public viewers. The idea behind that was to be marketing tool for promoting Web gambling business he convince the tabloid to post stories and pictures on internet gambling. One thing about Kant’s ethic he do realize that employing other people to get the job done is necessary, but it’s how you use those tools. It’s also has to be moral and have good reason behind it. The third test is another way to express Categorical Imperative it undermines the autonomy of human beings. The third test makes rules for Kant’s “Kingdom ends”. Within this it is for the purpose of the human being to know moral law understand the moral law and act according to the moral law. According to the third test when a human being gets ready to make a decision he or she will based their decision on the law rules and regulation. “The third test harmonizes with the second test’s treatment of people as “ends.” A rational person acts as an “end” when he or she prescribes universal moral law the autonomy of the will; and treats others as “ends “when he or she subject himself or herself to such law”(Cavico & Mujtaba, 2009) Bodog entertainment undermines any moral law there is. I do feel as if Ayre would have developed some of Kant’s Categorical Imperative test that the company would be illegal and morally fit for the global business environment. Instead I also believe that the company is not going to be around for decades to come. What goes on in the dark will soon come to the light. Ayre approach to Bodog has more in common with individualist theories. In addition to that it almost can compare with Utilitarian theory that seeks the maximum benefit to maximum amount of people. Individualism is a theory that on individual should think and judge individually respecting the minds of others isn’t a goal for individualism. “The foundation of individualism lies in one’s moral right to pursue one own happiness this pursue requires a large amount of independence and self- responsibility.” (Klein, 2009). Although Ayre has help with the development and strategies of Bodog entertainment I do believe that one of his main focuses is to satisfy himself first even if what he does is morally unethical. The individualist theory is a great description of the greed of one man which identifies the individualist theory. I don’t believe that online gambling will be relevant in future decades especially Bodog Entertainment eventually the U.S Justice Department will soon catch Ayra and his fraudulent acts of reasoning respect of others and the dignity of one self. “True character arises from a deeper well than religion. It is the internalization of moral principles of a society, augmented by those tenets personally chosen by the individual, strong enough to endure through trials of solitude and adversity. The principles are fitted together into what we call integrity, literally the integrated self, wherein personal decisions feel good and true. Character is in turn the enduring source of virtue. It stands by itself and excites admiration in others.” (Wilson, n.d)
Being a rational person is a choice hoping that all people will make the right choices when making decision, not all people do so it’s our job to lead show and follow the moral “law”.
Bodog and Social Responsibility-Aja Watkins The concept of social responsibility is a relatively new one in the business world. As business changes, it has to adapt to the changing needs of the society. The idea of social responsibility, itself, has morphed over the last several years. Today, the concept is indicative of “that the public expects of the business community” (Carrol, 1999, 294). As the business expectations change with the passage of time and the changes in business, so do the “business responsibilities to our stakeholder society, particularly at the global level” (Carrol, 1999, 294). In essence, social responsibility means for a business to act in the ethical manner that is expected from the surrounding community, along with its stakeholders. As business becomes more and more global, it brings more issues that did not exist before, when business was confined to its home country, and there was very little interaction with foreign countries and entities did not have many international branches or presence. There are many examples of social responsibility within the international context, but one of the most prominent has been the case of Bodog. A company that outright ignored this concept is Bodog, which is a Canadian business that engaged in illegal online gambling and money laundering, while its principle mode of operation should have entertainment and licensing of its brand. While the concept of social responsibility seems simple, it can be rather complex and something businesses easily find arguments against. There is an argument that “corporate welfare makes good sense [only] if it makes good economic sense” (Levitt, 1958, 41). This means that businesses should be allowed to act in whatever way maximizes their financial profits, without giving any consideration to the possible consequences that the surrounding community and society may bear as a result of these actions. The belief that “management will be able to move ahead in whatever way that seems consistent with its money-making goals” (Levitt, 1958, 41) is corrosive and is the very anti-thesis of what corporate responsibility stands for and what its goals are. Bodog was started by Calvin Ayre, who became so successful, that he was at one point “profiled in a cover story in Forbes magazine [...] and named of People magazine's hottest bachelors” (Quan, 2012). His entertainment network ventured out into such fields as online sports gambling, martial arts fighting, and poker. The company has grown at such a great rate, that it even “signed a three-year sponsorship deal with the Canadian Football League” (Geist, 2012). As it grew, it “expanded from online gambling into music and televised fighting” (Castaldo, 2007, 7). The company also expanded into the video game industry with the aim of “online promotion and [various] contests” (Business Briefs, 2006) centered around newly releasing video games.
Recently, however, the company encountered some serious problems. Its website was seized by the United States government and its owner has been accused of money laundering and illegal gambling. The basis for the seizure was SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, which grants the United States the right to deem any foreign corporation as “domestic for U.S. law purposes” (Geist, 2012) if it maintains a domain name that is registered in the United States. On the outside, this case has become controversial mainly because it shows that the United States can overstep the normally accepted business boundaries and charge any foreign corporation, and essentially force it to comply with social responsibility expectations of another country, in this case the United States. However, a closer look at this case, reveals other issues. Part of the lawsuit against Bodog concerns a patent dispute surrounding a “method of transmitting data over a network that was patented in 1996” (Castaldo, 2007, 7) by the plaintiff, Scott Lewis, or 1st Technology, LLC. In June 2011, after Bodog failed to respond to these allegations, 1st Technology, along with the U.S. government, shut down the company's website. The U.S. also alleges that the company “sent at least $100 million by wire and check from 2005 and 2012” (Associated Press, 2012). Allegedly, the company had multiple international bank accounts in several countries, and moved funds between these accounts in order to pay gambling winners. In response to these allegations, Ayre released the following statement:
“I see this as abuse of the US criminal justice system for the commercial gain of large US corporations. It is clear that the online gaming industry is legal under international law and in the case of these documents it is also clear that the rule of law was not allowed to slow down a rush to try to win the war of public opinion.” (Associated Press, 2012) Ayre argues the conflict between foreign and American domestic corporations and seems to imply that the United States government will do anything and everything in its power in order to ensure that the companies housed within the United States will prevail over foreign entities. In response to this, the United States government argues that “sports betting is illegal in Maryland [where the company registered its domain,] and federal law prohibits bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located outside the country” (Associated Press, 2012). This means that foreign entities have to take into account American laws if they plan of conducting business on American soil even if its primary area of operation is another country. Clearly, this case is complex, but it also highlight the concept of social responsibility. Social responsibility should force companies to think about all of the societies that it affects through its operations, and not just what is immediately around them. Ayre seems to believe that just because his company is located in Canada, it should not have to adhere to American laws and regulations, even if its domain is registered within the United States. However, he fails to consider that he was doing significant amount of business in the United States due to the fact that many individuals were participating in online gambling through the company's American housed internet domain. This, coupled with the patent dispute and the alleged money laundering caused the government of the United States to have good reason to block the company's website. In the case of Bodog, the recommendations surrounding social responsibility are quite simple. Bodog should respect American laws when conducting business because it is the ethical thing to do. While online gambling may be legal in Canada, it is not considered to be legal in the United States, and particularly in the state of Maryland. By engaging in illegal online gambling in the United States, the company is allowing American civilians to engage in the action and in the process transferring money into the United States in order to pay for illegal gambling winnings. Bodog's actions definitely affected the United States and its people. The company completely disregarded American laws in order to make profit, and in the process made millions of dollars in profit. What was so unethical about its actions was that it made profit trough essentially exploiting Americans and luring them into an illegal action. Even if online gambling is legal and accepted in Canada, it is against the law in the United States. Because Bodog registered its website domain in the United States, it should be fully expected to comply with the American law. In this statement, Ayre claims that online gambling is legal in the international realm, regardless of its legality in the United States, and therefore it can be inferred from this statement that international law should take precedence above American laws when it is deemed convenient. In this regard, the government of the United States was fully within its right when it blocked Bodog's domain. The willful and conscious disregard of American law should not go unpunished, especially if a foreign entity is profiting from the illegal actions. Social responsibility should not be confined to one country, but rather it should encompass every single regional domain and community where the entity does business and financial transactions. Based on the amount of money that the company is alleged as paying out in illegal winnings and money laundering, it was conducting a massive amount of business in the Unites States, and was therefore under American jurisdiction. Finally, if the company knew that what it was doing was socially responsible and acceptable, it would not resort to money laundering and endlessly transferring money between multiple bank accounts in order to hide the money trail. It is only because Bodog knew that it was breaking American law that it attempted to hide its activities through the action of money laundering. This only further points to its culpability. In conclusion, Bodog is a remarkable example of how far the concept of social responsibility can extend and what it can affect. Bodog overreached its assumed powers and acted in a way that appeared to be above the law, and its made the company appear as if it was invincible and above the law. The fact that Bodog is a Canadian company and primarily housed in Canada does not exempt the company from adhering to foreign regulations if it conducts business on American soil. The concept of social responsibility requires that every company, no matter where they do their business, follow the laws that govern the country where any of its activities take place. To disregard this fact is to act in a blatantly unethical manner.

Conclusion- Muzna Ali Online gambling is illegal in U.S. under the Federal Wire Act of 1961. The Justice Department is pursuing the online gamblers in every way possible. In July 2006, U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that seeks to make the $12 billion online gambling industry illegal. Analyzing online gambling through Utilitarian Ethics constitutes it to be immoral as more harm will inflict on the society rather than any benefit. It is immoral according to Kantian Ethics also as it does not pass the test of categorical imperative. The Individualistic theory applies very aptly to Bodog online company as Ayre only thinks about himself and his company and according to that theory this online gambling might be moral to him. Online gambling is not involved in any kind of social responsibility. The Bogdog company owner, Ayre, if convicted will face 5 years maximum in prison for conducting the gambling business and 20 years in prison for money laundering conspiracy.

References

Alexander, G. (2008) The U.S. on Tilt: Why the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is

a Bad Bet. Duke Law and Technology Review. (0006). Retrieved from

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2008DLTR0006.html on March 3, 2012

Associated Press. (2012). Feds seize gambling site Bodog, indict founder. Fox News. Accessed

on 3/4/2012 at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/28/feds-seize-gambling-site-bodog-

indict-founder

Business Briefs. (2006). The World Is Yours with Bodog. The Licensing Journal.

November/December 2006.

Carroll, Archie B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional

Construct. Business Society. Volume 38. Pp. 268-295.

Cantwell, R. (1964). Gambling for the Yankee Dollar. Retrieved from

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075797/3/index.htm on

March 3, 2012.

Castaldo, J. (2007). Biting Back. Canadian Business. Volume 80:19. Pp. 7-8.

Cavico, F. & Mujtaba, B., (2009). Business Ethics: The Moral Foundation of Effective

Leadership, Management, and Entrepreneurship. Pearson Custom Publications. U.S.A.

ISBN: 0-555-03606-5.

Cavico, F. and Mujtaba, B. G. (2008). Legal Challenges for the Global Manager and

Entrepreneur. Kendal Hunt Publishing; United States.

Conan, Jonathan (2009). Aces and Eights: Why the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement

Act Resides in “Dead Man’s” Land in Attempting to Further Curb Online Gambling and

Why Expanded Criminalization is Preferable to Legalization. Journal of Criminal Law

and Criminology. 99(4). p.1157. Retrieved from questia.com on March 3, 2012.

Gary, J. (2005) The Dealer. Candian Business, 78(21), 44-56.

Geist, Michael. (3 March 2012). Bodog.com case sends warnings to all Canadian websites:

Geist. The Star. Accessed on 3/4/12 at http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1140589--

bodog-com-case-sends-warning-to-all-canadian-websites

Lelbowitz, B. (2012). Bodog Gambling Website Seized by Feds, Founder Calvin Ayre Indicted.

Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57388025-504083/bodog-

gambling-website-seized-by-feds-founder-calvin-ayre-indicted/ on March 3, 2012.

Levitt, Theodore. (1958). The Dangers of Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review.

Volume 36:5. Pp. 41-50.

Moffett, T. & Peck, D.L. (2001). When Casino Gambling Comes to Your Hometown: the Biloxi

Experience. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 70(1). p. 12. Retrieved from questia.com on

March 3, 2012.

Quan, Douglas. (29 February 2012). Canadian Bodog backers indicted in U.S. Financial

Post.Accessed on 3/4/12 at http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/29/canadian-

bodog-backers-indicted-in-u-s
Schoen, E.J., Hughes, D., Lewis, P.A., Marmon, R. (2007). Casino City, Inc. V U.S. Department

of Justice Campus Access to Internet Gambling and the First Amendment. Journal of the

International Academy for Case Studies. 13(1). p.71. Retrieved from questia.com on

March 3, 2012.

Shaker, Peterpaul (2007). How the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 Will

Hurt the House. Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law. 12(6) p. 1183.

Retrieved from questia.com on March 3, 2012

Shawn, K. (2009, Janurary). Retrieved Feburary 6, 2012,

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=338&h=54