Gambling

United States v. Bala, 489 F.3d 334 (8th Cir. 2007)

In order to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955, the government must prove that the defendant violated a state gambling criminal law. Proving that the defendant violated a state administrative regulation is not sufficient. The evidence was insufficient in this case.

United States v. Iacaboni, 363 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004)

Payments of gambling winnings to the bettors constituted a money laundering financial transaction and the amount of these payments could be forfeited. However, the court erred in forfeiting additional money that may have been a financial transaction that concealed the money, because the money laundering charge only alleged “promotion prong” money laundering and therefore, a financial transaction that concealed the nature, source, or ownership of the money could not be forfeited. This would improperly amend the indictment.

United States v. Truesdale, 152 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 1998)

The defendant’s gambling conviction was based on the alleged violation of Texas bookmaking laws. However, the evidence established that the bets were all received off-shore and thus there could have been no violation of Texas state law.

United States v. Murray, 928 F.2d 1242 (1st Cir. 1991)

In order to prove that the gambling enterprise involved five or more persons for a period in excess of thirty days, the government does not have to prove that the same five persons were involved for thirty days – there must be proof, however, that five persons were involved at all times during the thirty day period. In this case, persons who took bets on one or two occasions over a fifty-six day period were not “participants.” The evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. A conspiracy conviction was also reversed because the government failed to establish that the defendant conspired to have five or more persons involved for more than thirty days.

United States v. Montford, 27 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1994)

The defendants sought to avoid the reach of Mississippi gambling statutes by gambling on a boat which traveled outside the three-mile limit. They were prosecuted under the Travel Act for traveling in foreign commerce to accomplish the gambling. They were also prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §1084. The cruise ship, however, did not travel in foreign commerce because it never traveled to another country, or into another country’s waters.

United States v. King, 834 F.2d 109 (6th Cir. 1987)

Under 18 U.S.C. §1955(b)(ii), the gambling operation must involve at least five persons. The Sixth Circuit holds that one incidental contact with a bookmaker does not include that person within the group of five. Rather, “regular contacts” among the five individuals are required to establish the offense.

United States v. Gilley, 836 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1988)

This gambling indictment required the jury to find that five people engaged in a gambling operation which lasted at least thirty days. The trial judge failed to instruct the jury that they hadto agree unanimously on the thirty-day durational element of the crime. This failure constituted reversible error.