Be Happy You Aren't Being Prosecuted

Benny Mulligan · #1 02-09-2007, 03:30 PM

The DOJ could prosecute individual gamblers if they chose to do so. They have maintained all along that online gambling is illegal. Though the principal would be the online casino itself, the DOJ could prosecute individual gamblers through principles of aiding & abetting. The sheer number of online gamblers makes it prohibitive and highly unlikely (unless they find a tasty newsworthy target that happens to also be an online gambler), but it will all be irrelevant as I'm sure the congressional buffoons will manage to put their bickering aside long enough to strip yet another liberty from the citizens. For now, just be glad they don't have the dough to pursue individual gamblers.

vinyard · #2 02-09-2007, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ could prosecute individual gamblers if they chose to do so. They have maintained all along that online gambling is illegal. Though the principal would be the online casino itself, the DOJ could prosecute individual gamblers through principles of aiding & abetting. The sheer number of online gamblers makes it prohibitive and highly unlikely (unless they find a tasty newsworthy target that happens to also be an online gambler), but it will all be irrelevant as I'm sure the congressional buffoons will manage to put their bickering aside long enough to strip yet another liberty from the citizens. For now, just be glad they don't have the dough to pursue individual gamblers.

[/ QUOTE ] O RLY?

KotOD · #3 02-09-2007, 03:36 PM

Considering that the US government has been caught altering Wiki pages, is it a stretch to believe that some of the bleating posters are government employees?

Skallagrim · #4 02-09-2007, 03:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ could prosecute individual gamblers if they chose to do so. They have maintained all along that online gambling is illegal. Though the principal would be the online casino itself, the DOJ could prosecute individual gamblers through principles of aiding & abetting. The sheer number of online gamblers makes it prohibitive and highly unlikely (unless they find a tasty newsworthy target that happens to also be an online gambler), but it will all be irrelevant as I'm sure the congressional buffoons will manage to put their bickering aside long enough to strip yet another liberty from the citizens. For now, just be glad they don't have the dough to pursue individual gamblers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where the laws are very clear that only BEING IN THE BUSINESS OF ACCEPTING BETS is illegal, there is virtually no chance of prosecution for the PLAYER, the person placing the bets. And that only applies to sportsbetting (at the federal level). I do hope you paid your taxes though, audits for big-time winners is a real possibility.

Benny Mulligan · #5 02-09-2007, 03:50 PM

I agree, there is a better chance of snow at the equator than any individual gambler being prosecuted because there are probably more online gamblers than illegal aliens. Just a hyper-technical look at aiding & abetting.

adanthar · #6 02-09-2007, 03:51 PM

No, they can't, UNLESS you are 'in the business of placing wagers [on sports]', meaning that you are a winning sports bettor doing it as more than a hobby. All other 'placing of bets' activities are not covered by the Wire Act.

You cannot be prosecuted for aiding and abetting (an illegal gambling business) by playing poker, any more than you could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a drug dealer through the sole act of buying drugs. You can be prosecuted for possessing drugs because statutes prohibit possessing drugs. Federal statutes, however, do not prohibit playing online poker.

Rigel · #7 02-09-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ could prosecute individual gamblers if they chose to do so. They have maintained all along that online gambling is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're referring to poker (as opposed to sports betting), then the only Federal Appeals Court (Fifth Circuit) to have considered the issue disagrees with the DOJ on this matter. And the federal courts get to say what the law is, not the DOJ.

Benny Mulligan · #8 02-09-2007, 04:18 PM

That is what Nelson Rose says about aiding & abetting, but that is Rose's opinion. Fortunately, it has not been put to the test. What makes you so sure that a drug purchaser couldn't be prosecuted for aiding & abetting a drug dealer if they didn't have statutes making posession a felony?

adanthar · #9 02-09-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you so sure that a drug purchaser couldn't be prosecuted for aiding & abetting a drug dealer if they didn't have statutes making posession a felony?

[/ QUOTE ]

~50-70 years of caselaw and the reading of statutes.

Benny Mulligan · #10 02-09-2007, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you're referring to poker (as opposed to sports betting), then the only Federal Appeals Court (Fifth Circuit) to have considered the issue disagrees with the DOJ on this matter. And the federal courts get to say what the law is, not the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DOJ decides who they will prosecute. I'm not talking guilty verdicts, only that I'm glad the DOJ didn't actually start trying to prosecute individuals. Gawd I can just see them declaring a half baked "War on Gambling". Anyway, like I said, it's just theory. The reality is they don't have the resources, and it's not very sexy headline-wise to start hauling everyone's neighbor into federal court for playing poker.