| |
BGonline.org Forums
Bye-Bye Poker or FBI Has Nothing to Do (OT)
Posted By: Steve Mellen In Response To: Bye-Bye Poker or FBI Has Nothing to Do (OT) (Stanley E. Richards)
Date: Saturday, 16 April 2011, at 12:45 p.m.
The indictment has been posted at this link.
I note this language at the bottom of page 24: "unlawful internet gambling, to wit, gambling in violation of New York Penal Law Sections 225.00 and 225.05 and the laws of other states where the gambling businesses operated...." In other words, the UIGEA counts appear to be premised on state law, not the Wire Act.
Counts 5 through 7 allege violations of 18 USC 1955, which essentially federalizes the operation of a gambling business which is illegal under state law.
Count 8 alleges bank fraud. The essence is that the defendants lied to various banks by telling them their transactions were unrelated to gambling. This count doesn't actually allege that the gambling in question was illegal, and I think they are claiming they can prosecute the defendants for lying to the banks whether or not the gambling was illegal.
Count 9 alleges a money laundering conspiracy, which is premised on the same federal law violation addressed in counts 5 through 7.
I don't see anywhere that the government relies on the Wire Act. I don't know if the omission tells us anything. In formal terms, the Mastercard decision is only binding in the Fifth Circuit (which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). The DOJ is free to try prosecuting people for Wire Act violations in other parts of the country, if they think they can persuade those courts to rule differently from the Fifth Circuit. Maybe they don't think they would win that fight, or maybe they just figure these other legal theories are good enough so they don't need to stretch for a Wire Act conviction.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.