• About Us / Contact
  • Responsible Gambling
This site contains commercial content
SportsHandle
  • US Sports Betting
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Mississippi
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • Ohio
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Tennessee
    • Virginia
    • West Virginia
    • Wyoming
  • Pending States
    • California
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Missouri
    • North Carolina
  • Canada
    • Ontario
    • British Columbia
    • Alberta
  • Sportsbook Apps
    • FanDuel
    • BetMGM
    • Caesars
    • PointsBet
    • BetRivers
  • Tools
    • Sportsbook Bonuses Explained
    • Sports Betting Revenue Tracker
    • Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Partnership Tracker
    • Expected Value
    • Sports Scores And Odds Apps
    • Sports Betting Twitter
  • News
No Result
View All Result
SportsHandle
  • US Sports Betting
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Mississippi
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • Ohio
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Tennessee
    • Virginia
    • West Virginia
    • Wyoming
  • Pending States
    • California
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Missouri
    • North Carolina
  • Canada
    • Ontario
    • British Columbia
    • Alberta
  • Sportsbook Apps
    • FanDuel
    • BetMGM
    • Caesars
    • PointsBet
    • BetRivers
  • Tools
    • Sportsbook Bonuses Explained
    • Sports Betting Revenue Tracker
    • Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Partnership Tracker
    • Expected Value
    • Sports Scores And Odds Apps
    • Sports Betting Twitter
  • News
No Result
View All Result
SportsHandle
No Result
View All Result

Mailbag Mythbusting: The ‘Kitchen Sink’ Statutes

Brett Smiley by Brett Smiley
June 25, 2018
in Regulation
handcuffs
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

This is the seventh and final installment in a series of stories for Sports Handle discussing various federal statutes that in one way or another remain relevant to the expansion of legalized sports betting after the fall of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). The first two parts on the Wire Act are available here and here. The next two on UIGEA are here and here and you can read about IGRA here and IGBA here. This information is provided for information and entertainment purposes only. Nothing contained in this series constitutes legal advice.

In this final part of the series, we try to answer questions about a variety of other statutes that could come into play as legalized sports betting sweeps the country.


Earl Sinclair from Pangaea asks:Β I have heard that the Feds have what is effectively a super statute that they can use to prosecute virtually anybody, is that true?

Answer:

This is false. While the Federal government has at least two very broad and powerful statutes that can be applied in a wide range of circumstances, they cannot be used to prosecute just anyone for anything. The Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341) statute and the Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343) statute – these are different than the Wire Act discussed in part I and part IIΒ – are powerful tools, but the power contained within each of them is not unlimited. Wire Fraud (and mail fraud, which I will use interchangeably here) involves five elements for an act to trigger the statute:

  1. The Use of Wire Communications to advance;
  2. A scheme to defraud;
  3. Involves a material deception;
  4. Intent to deprive another of;
  5. Property or Honest Services.

This statute is potentially important to maintaining the integrity of both the sporting events themselves and the betting markets. For instance, this statute could conceivably be applied against manipulators with knowledge of a fix. Assuming a mobile bet was placed that would almost certainly satisfy element one of the statute, a scheme to manipulate a sporting event would likely satisfy as an effort to defraud; the key question is how many people would be deprived of property or honest services? The sportsbook and potentially, even other bettors would have an interest in recovering their lost money, which is property.

The honest services fraud concept is a legal argument that effectively states an employee who committed fraud on their job deprived their employer of β€œhonest services” or the wages that they paid to the employee to do their job properly. This argument was raised in the case of former NBA referee Tim Donaghy, though claims for restitution under this legal theory have been pushed back since a 2010 Supreme Court decision. Despite this ruling, it remains a possible theory of recovery for leagues or sportsbooks against employees who have defrauded them through nefarious betting activities.


Thaddeus in McClain, Texas asks:Β I read your article on the Wire Act, but didn’t Robert F. Kennedy push for other laws to break up interstate crime rings as well?

Answer:

Yes. This is a great question. The Kennedy administration, at the urging of his brother Robert’s Department of Justice, pushed for elaborate criminal justice reform in the early part of Jack’s administration. In 1961, no fewer than seven different bills were debated that targeted organized crime. These included: what would become the Travel Act, which effectively meant that the transportation of the proceeds of certain organized criminal activities across state lines was a violation of Federal law, as determined by the state law in which the proceeds were generated, (No. 1 on the list of enumerated activities is gambling).

The Wire Act Travel Act RFK federal laws attorney general JFK
Robert F. Kennedy

In addition to the Wire Act, Travel Act, and various bills involving fugitives and granting of immunity for testimony, the Senate also debated what would become the Wagering Paraphernalia Act 18 U.S.C. Β§ 1953. What the Federal government sought to do there was to stop gambling by stopping the interstate sale of mechanisms that facilitated gambling by the importation of β€œany record, paraphernalia, ticket, certificate, bills, slip, token, paper, writing, or other device used, or to be used, or adapted, devised, or designed for use in (a) bookmaking; or (b) wagering pools with respect to a sporting event; or (c) in a numbers, policy, bolita, or similar game….”

As the plain text indicates, the Wagering Paraphernalia Act remains relevant especially as we begin to see distinctions in state laws. Consider, for instance, the case of United States v. Mendelsohn. Mendelsohn and a co-defendant who mailed a floppy disk to Michael Felix who was a California resident. The computer disk from Nevada contained software that would facilitate bookmaking (something that is illegal in California).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that found the bookmaking software contained on a disk constituted a β€œdevice” within the context of the statute and the defendants were sentenced to three years probation which was upheld. While statutes like the Wagering Paraphernalia Act and the Travel Act may appear dated, and utilize antiquated language, they remain relevant to the challenges of intrastate gaming taking place in an interconnected country.


Justify from Versailles, Ken. asks:Β I have heard that the Interstate Horse Racing Act might serve as a model for interstate sports betting. Is that true?

Answer:

Wow. You sure have an excellent grasp of the English language for a horse. Also, where do you find time to ask these questions? Shouldn’t you be propagating? But yes, that has been suggested. The Interstate Horseracing Act is a piece of federal legislation that was passed in 1978 (15 U.S.C. Β§Β§ 3001-3007). The statute contains three primary findings: two of which are routinely cheered by states’ rights advocates, with the third serving to support the first two.

horse racing act sports gambling model
Belmont Park in Elmont, New York.

Congress found:

(1) the states should have the primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders;

(2) the federal government should prevent interference by one state with the gambling policies of another and should act to protect identifiable national interests; and

(3) in the limited area of interstate off-track wagering on horse races, there is a need for federal action to ensure states will continue to cooperate with one another in the acceptance of legal interstate wagers.

The system could serve as a happy medium of sorts for the federal government (and some of those who desire federal intervention), and more like the traditional supporting role that the federal government has played in gaming. The statute has a few key components: 1) the host of the race must consent to interstate wagering; 2) tracks within a 60-mile radius of off-track betting locations must approve of interstate wagering; and 3) (which is reproduced in its entirety because it is a mouthful) β€œNo pari-mutuel off-track betting system may employ a takeout for an interstate wager which is greater than the takeout for corresponding wagering pools of off-track wagers on races run within the off-track State except where such greater takeout is authorized by State law in the off-track State.”

Is the Interstate Horseracing Act a perfect model for sports betting? No, it isn’t. There are, however, components that could be adapted, certainly many would support a federal bill that facilitates interstate wagering in a manner similar to the Interstate Horseracing Act, but intellectual property jurisprudence surrounding ownership of human sporting event results makes a consent-based system untenable by creating a property right in what is essentially information that exists in the public domain. Additionally, it is not entirely clear how a sports betting exclusion zone would be feasible, especially if casinos were placed in charge. There are potential antitrust issues, as well as a looming First Amendment question, that may garner a different analysis under legalized sports betting than it did under the prohibition.


Brett from New Jersey asks:Β If you were to pick one statute that will be the most discussed, important Federal gaming statute over the next decade what would it be?

Answer:

For entertainment purposes only, I will set the odds as follows:

  • Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: – 210
  • Wire Act: -110
  • Wire / Mail Fraud +120
  • Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act: +185
  • Interstate Horseracing Act: +210
  • Illegal Gambling Businesses Act: +300
  • Travel Act: +450
  • Wagering Paraphernalia Act: +750
  • Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act II: +5,000

John T. Holden J.D. / Ph.D. is an Academic. His research focuses on policy issues surrounding sports corruption. John is on twitter @johnsportslaw.

ShareTweetShare
Brett Smiley

Brett Smiley

Brett Smiley is editor-in-chief and co-founder of Sports Handle, which joined forces with the US Bets team in November 2018. He focuses on the sports betting industry and legislation. He's a recreational sports bettor and DFS player himself, focusing on the NFL. In a past life, Smiley practiced commercial litigation in New York City and previously wrote for FOX Sports and SI.com. He lives in New Jersey with his family.

Related Posts

chris christie sports betting new jersey
Regulation

What Is PASPA, The Federal Ban on Sports Betting?

July 1, 2020
(Shutterstock)
Regulation

Report: Romney To Carry Federal Sports Betting Bill Torch With New York’s Schumer

September 6, 2019
Load More

Top Stories

taylor mathis

Taylor Mathis Got Sacrificed At The Altar Of Responsible Gambling

March 20, 2023
fanduel baseball wall

Premade Same Game Parlays Are Sucker Bets

March 13, 2023
maginfier-over-small-print

Read The Fine Print: A Proposed Federal Rule Could Change Everything For Indian Gaming

March 6, 2023
roman reigns wwe

Colorado Denies Report Stating That It’s Considering WWE Wagering

March 8, 2023

State Sports Betting Guides

Ohio (U.S. state) flag waving against clear blue sky, close up, isolated with clipping path mask alpha channel transparency, perfect for film, news, composition

Ohio Sports Betting – Where To Play, Bonus Offers And Promo Codes

by Brian Pempus
March 30, 2023

Downtown Detroit at twilight (Shutterstock)

Michigan Sports Betting – Where To Play, Online Sportsbooks, And FAQ

by Brett Smiley
March 27, 2023

VA captial

Virginia Sports Betting – Where To Play, Online Sportsbooks And Bonus Offers

by Brett Smiley
January 17, 2023

nj flag

New Jersey Sports Betting — Where To Play, Online Sportsbooks, And FAQ

by Brett Smiley
March 22, 2023

pa online sportsbooks

Pennsylvania Sports Betting – Where To Play, Online Sportsbooks And Bonuses

by Brett Smiley
October 6, 2022

Canada Sports Betting Guides

Canada Sports Betting – Best Sportsbook Apps & Bonus Offers

British Columbia Sports Betting – Legal Update, Available Sportsbooks, and FAQ

Ontario Sports Betting – Legal Status And Where To Play

SportsHandle

  • Analysis
  • Casino
  • Features
  • Horse Racing
  • Industry
  • Legal
  • Legislation
  • Opinion
  • Podcasts
  • Poker
  • Politics
  • Promotions
  • Regulation
  • Sports
  • Uncategorized

Better Collective

This website is owned and operated by Better Collective USA. Trademarks and copyrights referenced on this website are and shall remain the exclusive property of their respective owners and/or licensors. Please be sure to visit the operator’s website(s) to review their terms & conditions. We advise you to read these carefully as they contain important information. Copyright Β© 2023 USBets.com | Better Collective USA
21 Play Responsibly
Gamble Aware West Virginia
Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-Gambler.
GameSense

Search Sports Handle

No Result
View All Result
  • About Us / Contact
  • Responsible Gambling

No Result
View All Result
  • US Sports Betting
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Mississippi
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • Ohio
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Tennessee
    • Virginia
    • West Virginia
    • Wyoming
  • Pending States
    • California
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Missouri
    • North Carolina
  • Canada
    • Ontario
    • British Columbia
    • Alberta
  • Sportsbook Apps
    • FanDuel
    • BetMGM
    • Caesars
    • PointsBet
    • BetRivers
  • Tools
    • Sportsbook Bonuses Explained
    • Sports Betting Revenue Tracker
    • Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Partnership Tracker
    • Expected Value
    • Sports Scores And Odds Apps
    • Sports Betting Twitter
  • News

loading

Please wait while you are redirected to the right page...