I don't know how we would know about it. First I thought the Rx server or ownership or whatever the correct term is located in Canada. Even if it was in the US, I don't think they(US Gov.) has to announce anything. But again what do I know about anything.WorldRunner said:
Oh as for teasers--I rarely play them but played 3 teasers yesterday and lost 2 of 3.
Worry More about Player (or his heirs) coming for a refund
Although this is a stupid way to make some money, it is probably not going to lead to jail time. I would be more worried about the gambler seeking a refund under modern incarnations of the Statute of Anne (old English law that made gambling debts uncollectable). The modern versions often turn the old Statute on its head and invite gamblers to sue for refunds of lost bets. (The original Statute of Anne was at least consistent that no action involving gambling debts or payments could be entertained by any English Court.)
A down on this luck gambler may be able to sue for a refund. I assume proofs would be a problem but perjury IS a felony -- making book, especially for one customer, is usually a misdemeanor. The suit may not even be controlled by the gambler: his heirs could sue if he dies, his soon to be ex-wife could easily get an Order from the Divorce Court that she has standing to sue for a refund of lost marital assets and many of these modern statutes vest "any person" who knows of the paid losing bet to sue (wife, girlfriend, mother, brother, sister, on and on). Many of these statutes provide for double damages or attorney's fees or both.
To check your potential liability on this issue, go to any site that has a searchable database of the CT statutes. Look for "gambling" and "debt" in the same sentence or paragraph. You may also want to use the words "collectable" or "uncollectable." If you can find a database of CT legal cases, you can seach for the statute number you found, the same words as above or "Statute of Anne" (judges will usually mention this 300 year old law in gambling debt cases to show how smart they are) to see how much trouble other people got into making book (if there are no cases, your impression you are not seriously at risk would be more likely correct -- but be sure to check the criminal statute for making book too).
Whatever you do, do not take bets from this guy over the phone. If you take bets by phone, you are in a whole different ball park involving the "Wire Act" and many other very nasty Federal Statutes -- including RICO.
Bottom line: clearly not worth the potential trouble.
Although this is a stupid way to make some money, it is probably not going to lead to jail time. I would be more worried about the gambler seeking a refund under modern incarnations of the Statute of Anne (old English law that made gambling debts uncollectable). The modern versions often turn the old Statute on its head and invite gamblers to sue for refunds of lost bets. (The original Statute of Anne was at least consistent that no action involving gambling debts or payments could be entertained by any English Court.)
A down on this luck gambler may be able to sue for a refund. I assume proofs would be a problem but perjury IS a felony -- making book, especially for one customer, is usually a misdemeanor. The suit may not even be controlled by the gambler: his heirs could sue if he dies, his soon to be ex-wife could easily get an Order from the Divorce Court that she has standing to sue for a refund of lost marital assets and many of these modern statutes vest "any person" who knows of the paid losing bet to sue (wife, girlfriend, mother, brother, sister, on and on). Many of these statutes provide for double damages or attorney's fees or both.
To check your potential liability on this issue, go to any site that has a searchable database of the CT statutes. Look for "gambling" and "debt" in the same sentence or paragraph. You may also want to use the words "collectable" or "uncollectable." If you can find a database of CT legal cases, you can seach for the statute number you found, the same words as above or "Statute of Anne" (judges will usually mention this 300 year old law in gambling debt cases to show how smart they are) to see how much trouble other people got into making book (if there are no cases, your impression you are not seriously at risk would be more likely correct -- but be sure to check the criminal statute for making book too).
Whatever you do, do not take bets from this guy over the phone. If you take bets by phone, you are in a whole different ball park involving the "Wire Act" and many other very nasty Federal Statutes -- including RICO.
Bottom line: clearly not worth the potential trouble.
