Gambling as a Federal Crime: Businesses, Boats, and Wire Transmissions

Image related with this article: Gambling as a Federal Crime: Businesses, Boats, and Wire Transmissions
The United States Code addresses gambling as a federal crime in two primary contexts: racketeering and gambling ships. The first context, racketeering, encompasses illegal gambling activities in their colloquially understood form. Gambling ship offenses, in contrast, involve the use of a “gambling ship,” defined as any watercraft or aircraft used principally for the operation of gambling establishments.

The United States Code addresses gambling as a federal crime in two primary contexts: racketeering and gambling ships. The first context, racketeering, encompasses illegal gambling activities in their colloquially understood form. Gambling ship offenses, in contrast, involve the use of a “gambling ship,” defined as any watercraft or aircraft used principally for the operation of gambling establishments.

18 U.S.C. §1955 prohibits illegal gambling businesses in the racketeering context. Under the statute, anyone who conducts, finances, manages, directs, owns, or supervises an illegal gambling business faces up to five years in prison, as well as fines under the title. Although federal law prohibits illegal gambling businesses, the legality of any such businesses rests on the laws of the State or political subdivision in which the business operates. Additionally, for such enterprises to violate federal law, there must be five or more persons involved in the conduct, and the business must either operate continuously for more than thirty (30) days or receive more than $2,000 in revenue in a single day. The statute also provides a definition of “gambling,” encompassing, but not limited to, pool-selling, bookmaking, slot machines, dice tables, lotteries, bolita or numbers of games, and selling chances.

Federal law also prohibits gambling activities separate from direct participation in the operation of a gambling enterprise. 18 U.S.C. §1084 outlaws the transmission of wagering information. Under the statute, it is unlawful to knowingly use a wire communication facility to transmit, in interstate or foreign commerce, bets, wagers, or other information assisting in the placing of a bet, or any transmission entitling the recipient to money as the result of a bet or wager. Such offenses are punishable by up to two years imprisonment. Notably, §1084 does not prevent the further prosecution of offenders under any State laws.

18 U.S.C §1082, in contrast, addresses the illegal operations of gambling ships. The section defines the prohibitions of the chapter, making it unlawful for any United States citizen or resident to set up, operate, own, or hold any interest in a gambling ship. Further, individuals cannot conduct any gambling activities in the pursuance of operating a gambling establishment on a gambling ship. Offenders face up to two years imprisonment and fines under the title and can additionally be required to forfeit the vessel to the United States.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a gambling conviction under §1955 in United States v. Masino, No. 18-15019, 2021 WL 3235301 (11th Cir. July 30, 2021). In Masino, the defendants were the majority owners of a bingo parlor. The case arose from Florida, where local law does not categorically prohibit the operation of bingo parlors, but instead subjects them to certain conditions. Failure to comply with Florida’s conditions creates liability under §1955. Noncharitable organizations, such as the parlor run by the defendants, are not allowed to generate profits and must return all profits to players as prizes, whereas charitable organizations may generate profits for use towards charitable purposes. The defendants’ parlor leased space to charitable organizations to operate their own bingo sessions, but provided paid employees, and the defendants averaged a 17% net income on the bingo revenue—marginally less than the portion of the income allocated to the charities themselves. Over a ten-year period, the defendants received distributions exceeding $5,000,000 in bingo proceeds. The Court found that the defendants themselves were not part of a charitable organization, and were therefore violating Florida law, and §1955 by extension, by conducting bingo for profit.

These three statutes, through their direction towards different facets of gambling, provide a comprehensive federal statutory scheme to address illegal gambling activities. The statutes defer to State law, operating in tandem with existing State statutory schemes. In Alabama, this deference is particularly notable, as the state is notoriously strict regarding gambling.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle District of Alabama, Southern District of Alabama, or any federal jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit, including Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at (205) 303-1753. Get Relief * Get Results.

articles

latest news & insights

1 / 9
David Eugene Files and the Interplay of Ethics and Jurisdiction

David Eugene Files and the Interplay of Ethics and Jurisdiction

In a case that made its way to the highest level of the state court system, the Alabama Supreme Court recently presided over an appeal beginning in Walker County. This case, Ex parte David Eugene Files, centers around a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. Files’ petition was dismissed by the Walker circuit court, with the dismissal being affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

read articles
Sufficiency of Evidence: Reviewing the Admissibility and Application of Evidence Through US v. Mapson

Sufficiency of Evidence: Reviewing the Admissibility and Application of Evidence Through US v. Mapson

In a decision that affirms the admissibility and sufficiency of several distinct types of evidence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently presided over an appeal that found its roots in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

read articles
Are Courts Always Free to Divide Property in a Divorce?

Are Courts Always Free to Divide Property in a Divorce?

How courts divide real property in a divorce. Learn more from Ingram Law, LLC.

read articles
Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Property Division on Behalf of an Estate

Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Property Division on Behalf of an Estate

In a case that demonstrates the limits of alimony awards, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently heard the case of Larry Shearry v. Christy Spivey, as personal representative of the Estate of Charlotte Shearry.

read articles
Fultondale Alabama Municipal Courts: Charges, Penalties, and Why You Should Seek an Attorney

Fultondale Alabama Municipal Courts: Charges, Penalties, and Why You Should Seek an Attorney

You are driving home late between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. You get pulled over because the police officer states you are driving over the line, driving too slow, have a head light out or you have a taillight out.

read articles
latest-news

The Crime of Stalking in Alabama

Another category of criminal offense in Alabama is stalking. Covered by Article 5, stalking includes offenses for stalking in the first and second degree, aggravated stalking in the first and second degree, and electronic stalking in the first and second degree.

read articles
Navigating the Division of Marital Property: Lessons from Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown

Navigating the Division of Marital Property: Lessons from Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown

In a case that demonstrates the intricacies of equitable division of marital property, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently presided over an appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court in Jefferson County. The case of Barbara Brown v. Ernest Brown illustrates the importance of maintaining a clear record on appeal and emphasizes the necessity of full disclosure when dividing marital assets.

read articles
Navigating Legal Challenges; Brett Yeiter’s Fight Against a Death Sentence

Navigating Legal Challenges; Brett Yeiter’s Fight Against a Death Sentence

In a case illustrating the tumultuous and complicated proceedings for challenging a death sentence, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently heard the appeal of Brett Richard Yeiter v. State of Alabama, stemming from Escambia County. Yeiter’s case underscores the critical need to adhere to procedural requirements, especially in cases involving severe sentences.

read articles
latest-news

Trademark Infringement: Causes of Action Under the Lanham Act

Federal trademark law is primarily governed by the Lanham Trademark Act, also referred to as the Trademark Act of 1946. The Lanham Act, codified in 15 U.S.C. §§1051 to 1127, covers a wide range of trademark issues including registration, maintenance, protection, and the creation of a federal cause of action for trademark infringement.

read articles

schedule a consultation

Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo
Ingram Law Logo

Your path to get the right compensation starts here.