Minesota V. Granite Gate Resorts: Case Study

706 Words3 Pages

The case of Minesota v Granite Gate Resorts etc. also deserves to be mentioned in the context of extending extra-territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Cyber Crime. In this case the defendant had deliberately misrepresented its services on internet stating that it will provide sports fans with all legal ways to bet on sporting events from anywhere in the world holding it lawful on the website. He was booked for an offence of online gambling service based on Law Vegas, Nevada and convicted for an offence of offline gambling service based on Las Vegas, Nevada and convicted for an offence by the Minnesota Court. He challenged the validity of his conviction on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case because his website …show more content…

In order to nab the defendants he applied for the membership of the AACBBS by sending an application using assumed name along with the requisite fee. The defendants acknowledged the Dirmeyer’s application and authorized him to log on with his personal computer. Thereafter, Dirmeyer dialed AACBBs telephone and downloaded some GIF files which depicted images of beastility, oral sex, incest, obscene sex scenes etc. Dirmeyer then ordered six sexually explicit video-tapes from the defendants which he received via United Parcel Service. He also had several e-mail and chat mode conversations with defendants Thomas. In a complaint by Dirmeyer, a search warrant was issued by the Magistrate of Northern District of California and location of AACBBS was searched and defendants computer system was seized on December 10, 1994. Charges on 12 counts were framed by the Federal Grand Jury against the defendants (Robert Thomas and his wife Carleen) for violating US law of obscenity and knowingly carrying on inter-state trade of offences and the Court ordered the forfeiture. They were found guility of the offences and the Court ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s computer system and sentenced Robert Thoamas to 37 months imprisonment and his wife Carleen to 30 months imprisonment.
The defendants appealed against their conviction on the ground that the Tennessee Court has no Jurisdiction to try their case because the alleged offence related to intangible object like computer GIF files committed in California, to which the provisions of Section 1465 of 18 USC did not apply, and that the section did not expressly prohibit or regulate the computer transactions involved in the instant