From: paul@poboy.b17c.ingr.com (Paul Robichaux)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 94 05:48:13 PDT
To: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Side question on money laundering...
In-Reply-To: <199404192231.AA17439@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
Message-ID: <199404201249.AA09593@poboy.b17c.ingr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Given that even I, in my isolated little backwater of South Louisiana,
> find myself withing 20 miles of a casino, is it possible that the
> market is saturating to the point where an internet casino would not
> neccesarily be a good idea?

Remember that Louisiana is one of the few states that allows casino
gambling, and that even there it's limited to gambling boats. There's
probably still a market for a net.casio, provided it offers the following
benefits:
	a) ease of access from remote physical locations (so I can
	   play poker from Alabama or Utah),
	b) easy conversion between casio digicash and a desired
	   government currency,

> If there is real anonymous untraceable digital cash for money
> laundering with, will "real" casinos see their profits decline
> as digital money sucks away that part of their business?

Tim May & others seem to think that money laundering is a small part
of casino business and I tend to agree. Anonymous digicash will
definitely make money laundering easier for small-scale users.

- -Paul

- -- 
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG      | Out the 10Base-T port, through the router, 
perobich@ingr.com           | over the leased line, off the bridge, past
Intergraph Federal Systems  | the firewall... nothing but net.
	       Of course I don't speak for Intergraph.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLbUknyA78To+806NAQEaXgQA0MFWn5miro8Ijs4fntgu9FaCrYCelLbf
718ZhYkoIyrivo7UWonqL9E+YsKOeRsTtpMI6S0Lx+PKvtjgmW+daDHG3G3pdA/S
3sM+1uCgGXYo0J/tKTL3QESCWW2TXqQLae7bmtEmd4nIVlbuBFE+n+2uXiriTTLS
xVsq3yqFXfE=
=yrbG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----