They don't need to pass a law specifically banning "internet gambling". If that state's constitution states that any gambling not authorized by law is illegal then that's all they need.
Wasn't the prosecution of Jay Cohen legally justified by the authorities because he accepted wagers from New York state residents, where there is a similar constitutional ban on "unauthorized" gambling, thereby giving the US government jurisdiction even though he was operating in a country where it is legal to operate a gambling site?
The 1961 Wire Act specifically applies to telephone calls across state lines, in order to accept wagers on sporting events from a State in which it is illegal to do so under State law.
The Act has never been successfully applied to Internet communications, nor to Casino wagering, nor to any foreign company not under U.S. jurisdiction. Jay Cohen was prosecuted only on the basis that he, as a U.S. citizen, could not escape U.S. law by operating outside the U.S., and for accepting interstate telephone wagers. PayPal was prosecuted as a New York company in violation of New York state laws.
So whether you are making a local call to your ISP or a cable modem connection makes no difference what-so-ever.
The Act has never been successfully applied to Internet communications, nor to Casino wagering, nor to any foreign company not under U.S. jurisdiction. Jay Cohen was prosecuted only on the basis that he, as a U.S. citizen, could not escape U.S. law by operating outside the U.S., and for accepting interstate telephone wagers. PayPal was prosecuted as a New York company in violation of New York state laws.
So whether you are making a local call to your ISP or a cable modem connection makes no difference what-so-ever.
Last edited:
Also, Antigua filed a formal complaint with the WTO that the U.S. attempting to restrict or criminalize the activity of foreign companies accepting wagers from U.S. citizens is illegal under WTO rules of fair trade.
The WTO has already rules against the U.S. in favor of Antigua. The U.S. is currently appealing the ruling; but is likely to lose the appeal.
The WTO has already rules against the U.S. in favor of Antigua. The U.S. is currently appealing the ruling; but is likely to lose the appeal.
1084 is poorly written...anyone that gets a 1084 to stick really pissed off the wrong people.
Section 1084. Transmission of wagering information; penalties
(a) Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal. (c) Nothing contained in this section shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any laws of any State. (d) When any common carrier, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, is notified in writing by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, acting within its jurisdiction, that any facility furnished by it is being used or will be used for the purpose of transmitting or receiving gambling information in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of Federal, State or local law, it shall discontinue or refuse, the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of such facility, after reasonable notice to the subscriber, but no damages, penalty or forfeiture, civil or criminal, shall be found against any common carrier for any act done in compliance with any notice received from a law enforcement agency. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prejudice the right of any person affected thereby to secure an appropriate determination, as otherwise provided by law, in a Federal court or in a State or local tribunal or agency, that such facility should not be discontinued or removed, or should be restored. (e) As used in this section, the term ''State'' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States.</PRE>
Section 1084. Transmission of wagering information; penalties
(a) Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal. (c) Nothing contained in this section shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any laws of any State. (d) When any common carrier, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, is notified in writing by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, acting within its jurisdiction, that any facility furnished by it is being used or will be used for the purpose of transmitting or receiving gambling information in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of Federal, State or local law, it shall discontinue or refuse, the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of such facility, after reasonable notice to the subscriber, but no damages, penalty or forfeiture, civil or criminal, shall be found against any common carrier for any act done in compliance with any notice received from a law enforcement agency. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prejudice the right of any person affected thereby to secure an appropriate determination, as otherwise provided by law, in a Federal court or in a State or local tribunal or agency, that such facility should not be discontinued or removed, or should be restored. (e) As used in this section, the term ''State'' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States.</PRE>
Besides this is the most important part of the Fed's Wire Act law:
"[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute.
sb
"[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute.
sb
Who has been convicted in a federal court Johnny for the mere placing of a wager? I don't think you can find one. People get busted for taking them and for being business involved in betting, but the laws are intentionally written not to punish the mere participant in most states and in federal laws. In many states it is completely legal to wager on any outcome as long as no juice is being charged, those are irrefutable facts.
Amazing what people believe instead of just reading the law and understanding how it is applied. JJ yes you are right about Jersey. They are one of the states that has the laws on the books and rather strictly enforces them. All playing into my continuing assertion that the laws are written and enforced to block competition to what is legally allowed. But outside Jersey the landscape is much different and the blaket statement that it is absolutely illegal is absolutely false. It just depends on where you are.
I know another thread updated the laws state by state.
Amazing what people believe instead of just reading the law and understanding how it is applied. JJ yes you are right about Jersey. They are one of the states that has the laws on the books and rather strictly enforces them. All playing into my continuing assertion that the laws are written and enforced to block competition to what is legally allowed. But outside Jersey the landscape is much different and the blaket statement that it is absolutely illegal is absolutely false. It just depends on where you are.
I know another thread updated the laws state by state.
WildBill said:
Johnny why do you think Kyl is so militant about his bill? He knows as well as anyone else that there is no way they can get the charges to stick to the casual bettor placing wagers over the net because there are too many grey areas. You of all people should know that.
The only jurisdiction that really has any serious power over casual bettors are the states and they are not doing as good a job as they could be. NJ is protecting its own (Atlantic City) but they are the minority not the majority. It's explicitly worded in the Pennsylvania law that placing a wager isn't illegal but TAKING a wager is.
Bill's point about the states is correct btw.
sb
Back to the original question...cable modems are still regulated under the FCC, that said this is still a non-issue and nothing to worry about.
JJ as far as you, I had know idea you could type more than six words in one post, I'm impressed. Not with your comments, just your new typing prowess.
JJ as far as you, I had know idea you could type more than six words in one post, I'm impressed. Not with your comments, just your new typing prowess.
WB- I agree with you that is very highly unlikely that the Govt. would ever use 1084 against a bettor. The thing that should scare people is that they can use this a leverage and also a way to get the foot in the door and look at other things.
Sportsbet-I agree with you also, that the govt. would only use 1084 as a means to an end. Such as the Tout case where everyone pled guilty to 1084 was for acouple of different reason. The Feds did not start to investigate them for violating 1084, they were initially thinking that they were taking kickbacks from casinos and also for fraud. Once the kickbacks were disproved and the fraud case ws tenious they resorted to 1084. Thus also allowing the Govt. to keep all the seized funds and property, because had they been charged with fraud, then the assets go into a fund for those who defrauded.
Sportsbet-I agree with you also, that the govt. would only use 1084 as a means to an end. Such as the Tout case where everyone pled guilty to 1084 was for acouple of different reason. The Feds did not start to investigate them for violating 1084, they were initially thinking that they were taking kickbacks from casinos and also for fraud. Once the kickbacks were disproved and the fraud case ws tenious they resorted to 1084. Thus also allowing the Govt. to keep all the seized funds and property, because had they been charged with fraud, then the assets go into a fund for those who defrauded.
Travel Act of 1961
Something I have never seen mentioned on any of these gambling forums is the Travel Act. I'll leave it to you to determine where this could end up leading to.
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/travel-act.htm
Something I have never seen mentioned on any of these gambling forums is the Travel Act. I'll leave it to you to determine where this could end up leading to.
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/travel-act.htm
A few comments at this hour:
Tø answer the original question about a cabe modem, it does not make a difference. The law says, "wire communication facility" and unless you can show that a signal goes directly from your computer, up to a satellite and down to an offshore, it applies because somewhere along the line the signal passes through a "wire communication facility" even if it is on its way to a satellite.
My case involved both internet as well as telephone bets. Two of the counts against me were merely phone calls where players (agents) just set up accounts on the phone and did not actually make any bets. Each of those two calls was considered a substantive violation of 1084.
As far as jurisdiction is concerned, the DOJ's position is they don't care whether you are American or French, they can prosecute you if you violate their laws as they see it. While this has not happened yet offshore, that is their position and if they can get physical custody of you, being a foreigner will not help you.
Finally, there are no federal laws against placing a bet. There is no law in NY state agsinst placing a bet. In my case we were claiming to fall undder the exemption 1084 (b). The application of (b) hinged on whether or not it was "legal" to place a bet in NY. The judge ruled incorrectly that it was not.
There is nothing in the NY criminal code that prohibits placing a bet. The government based their argument on the general prohibition on wagering in the NY Constitution. We presented a NY state Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) case from the 1930's where they tried to prosecute a casual bettor under the language in the NY Constitution. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not apply the the players but only to people in the business of betting. In my case the 2nd Circuit conveniently ignored that decision and made no reference to it in their opinion, as if it we never even brought it up.
Tø answer the original question about a cabe modem, it does not make a difference. The law says, "wire communication facility" and unless you can show that a signal goes directly from your computer, up to a satellite and down to an offshore, it applies because somewhere along the line the signal passes through a "wire communication facility" even if it is on its way to a satellite.
My case involved both internet as well as telephone bets. Two of the counts against me were merely phone calls where players (agents) just set up accounts on the phone and did not actually make any bets. Each of those two calls was considered a substantive violation of 1084.
As far as jurisdiction is concerned, the DOJ's position is they don't care whether you are American or French, they can prosecute you if you violate their laws as they see it. While this has not happened yet offshore, that is their position and if they can get physical custody of you, being a foreigner will not help you.
Finally, there are no federal laws against placing a bet. There is no law in NY state agsinst placing a bet. In my case we were claiming to fall undder the exemption 1084 (b). The application of (b) hinged on whether or not it was "legal" to place a bet in NY. The judge ruled incorrectly that it was not.
There is nothing in the NY criminal code that prohibits placing a bet. The government based their argument on the general prohibition on wagering in the NY Constitution. We presented a NY state Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) case from the 1930's where they tried to prosecute a casual bettor under the language in the NY Constitution. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not apply the the players but only to people in the business of betting. In my case the 2nd Circuit conveniently ignored that decision and made no reference to it in their opinion, as if it we never even brought it up.
