MANHATTAN D.A. SUGGESTS HOME POKER GAMES LEGAL
MANHATTAN D.A. SUGGESTS HOME POKER GAMES LEGAL
Apparently the ritzy gambling lounge, which sits above an Off-Track Betting shop in the W. 70s and accommodates about 100 players, is well-known to local wealthy business types.
But that doesn’t necessarily make it legal: Because the owners take a percentage of every table’s “rake,” it likely constitutes a felony.
“The law says that if there is a house, someone making a profit, that is not the same as four or five people getting together and playing a friendly game,” explained Manhattan district attorney spokeswoman Barbara Thompson. “Promoting gambling in the first degree is when you engage in bookmaking and receive bets totaling $5,000 or more. That’s an E felony, which is up to four years in prison.”
As always, this does not constitute legal advice, it’s just an article from the Daily News.
Of course, it leads me to wonder about the legality of Party Poker.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Party poker is based on an Indian reservation in Canada though…
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:43 pm
but when you play in new york, the company is raking from a game played in new york.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:12 am
i guess that’s why they have the small print on their tv ads something to the “void where prohibited” effect.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:37 am
i suspect they have a plausible argument that (1) they’re raking from canada and (2) only the fed government has the right to regulate it…
February 23rd, 2005 at 3:21 am
Party Poker is - no doubt about it - illegal. The reason that you can’t use your credit cards to load up your account is that the credit card companies know that they can’t sue you to recover the funds when you don’t pay. They found out the hard way.
Federal authorities have gone to great pains to try and prosecute and seize the assets of the operators of gambling sites for using interstate telephone lines.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:45 pm
i think there may be more subtlety in its legality than ugarte implies - wouldn’t the networks refuse to air ads for it if it were per se illegal? (Even if the ads are for .net instead of .com…)
February 23rd, 2005 at 3:35 pm
ohhhh, that’s why they do that .net stuff. Clever, clever. I thought the credit card companies stopped allowing it because AG’s - like Spitzer sued them for “promoting gambling.” And they had to pay millions in fines.
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
1. Party Poker does not advertise for its online poker room when you see an ad on TV. It’s an ad for their “online poker school”. The reason they do this is because Justice started getting really uptight about cracking down on “aiding and abetting” violations and went after the entities it knew it could hurt: the networks, radio stations, print magazines etc. that used to carry the ads for Party Poker’s online poker room.
2. The topic of gambling in New York is a pretty murky one. Gambling is “not allowed” according to the NY constitution, but New York criminal statutes don’t criminalize gambling, only the promotion of gambling and the possession of gambling records and/or devices.
3. This leads us to the question “Is a computer a ‘gambling device’”? It probably doesn’t matter, because NY policy is that the prohibition against the promotion of gambling is directed at gambling operators (Party Poker) and not fish players like Dawn.
4. I thought credi
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:57 pm
4. I thought credit card companies stopped accepting online gambling transactions because players who lost thousands sued them?
February 23rd, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Heeeeeey, how do you know I’m a fish? Do you have a little note written on my handle that says “saw my flush to the river with a pair of 7s?”
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:08 pm
By advertising the .net “free” sites, Party Poker and the networks avoid advertising a gambling site, Alceste. As anonymous said, they are advertising a place to learn the game and play free versions of the game. Networks used to air commercials for the .com sites but they were threatened with prosecution and FCC sanctions.
asphnxma sent me this link for a guide to NY’s gambling laws.
As for who sued who first, anonymous, it is possible that the cardholder sued the company, but it would be for the same thing: to get out of paying for the charges to the poker site.