"The Wire Act" (they keep talking about?)

Whoson1st · Jul 11, 2006

Can someone that REALLY knows explain if I am correct on this. They (Members of the House of Reps.) keep saying this only updates the wire act which was enacted in the 60's. Then a little later they say that it increases the penalty from 2 years in prision to 5 years in prison, as part of the new legislation introduced today.

QUESTION: In the past it has been pretty well interpreted that "wire act" from earlier legislation only went after those persons "IN THE BUSINESS OF". I have understood this as others have also to mean this language meant the "bookies" (those taking the bets). Are they saying that the language from the original wire act....."whoever being in the business of" INCLUDES the players?
I'm not talking about any state law here. Only the originial "wire act" as it pertains to betting on sports for a player.

Whoson1st · Jul 13, 2006

Asking this differently:
Has any bettor (not a bookie) ever been convicted of violating the "wire act"?

Again, not talking about taxes and not talking about a state law. Only referring to what they call "the wire act".

Thanks

JayC · Jul 13, 2006

Yes, the Wire Act is only supposed to go against people "in the business of" wagering. This bill also prohibits money transfers to gaming operations etc.

That being said, I have seen them go after large players and treat them like they are bookmakers. That has happened. I did time with a guy who ran a little betting operation. When they came after him they said he was booking. He said we're betting not booking. The Feds didn't care, they locked him up under their bookmaking statute.

Whoson1st · Jul 13, 2006

Jay C said:
Yes, the Wire Act is only supposed to go against people "in the business of" wagering. This bill also prohibits money transfers to gaming operations etc.

That being said, I have seen them go after large players and treat them like they are bookmakers. That has happened. I did time with a guy who ran a little betting operation. When they came after him they said he was booking. He said we're betting not booking. The Feds didn't care, they locked him up under their bookmaking statute.

Thanks very much Jay. Am guessing that the Feds went after him because he was involved with at least one other player. I was talking to a fellow horse player last week and he said the words "business of" could mean anyone even players. I disagreed because if that were the case then why even say "in the business of".

JayC · Jul 13, 2006

Whoson1st said:
Thanks very much Jay. Am guessing that the Feds went after him because he was involved with at least one other player. I was talking to a fellow horse player last week and he said the words "business of" could mean anyone even players. I disagreed because if that were the case then why even say "in the business of".

Nope, he was a mover for a couple of syndicates. He knew the difference between bookmaking and betting and had gone out of his way to make sure he was a bettor to avoid trouble.

Whoson1st · Jul 13, 2006

This gives it new meaning.... I think the feds "gave him the business" to use an old saying.
Guess I'm going to have to find Webster's dictionary to look up the word "business". Is Webster still the leader in dictionarys? LOL!

Fishhead · Jul 13, 2006

Jay C said:
Yes, the Wire Act is only supposed to go against people "in the business of" wagering. This bill also prohibits money transfers to gaming operations etc.

That being said, I have seen them go after large players and treat them like they are bookmakers. That has happened. I did time with a guy who ran a little betting operation. When they came after him they said he was booking. He said we're betting not booking. The Feds didn't care, they locked him up under their bookmaking statute.

SAD SAD SAD

Seems if they want ANYBODY, then can.

SCARY

JC- Sorry if I have missed it before, but what is your feeling on this proposed ban passing the Senate?

Thanks

Whoson1st · Jul 13, 2006

I think the Feds used the argument that since he was "moving money for syndicates/others; he was "in the business of". They figured he was NOT doing this for nothing/free. Even though he very well may have been. That's why I would never bet for anyone else, no matter how innocent. Just my opinion.

bigbet1234 · Jul 13, 2006

Jay, so what do you consider a big player? How were charges brought against him? What tipped the fed's off?

BB

Jay C said:
Nope, he was a mover for a couple of syndicates. He knew the difference between bookmaking and betting and had gone out of his way to make sure he was a bettor to avoid trouble.

vanzack · Jul 13, 2006

Jay C said:
Yes, the Wire Act is only supposed to go against people "in the business of" wagering. This bill also prohibits money transfers to gaming operations etc.

That being said, I have seen them go after large players and treat them like they are bookmakers. That has happened. I did time with a guy who ran a little betting operation. When they came after him they said he was booking. He said we're betting not booking. The Feds didn't care, they locked him up under their bookmaking statute.

Whoa whoa wait a minute Jay. There has not been an attempt to prosecute a single BETTOR under the Federal Wire Act since Baborian in 1981.

This guy you know must have been charged under something other than the Wire Act. Most gamblers think the Wire Act applies, but in the USA vs Baborian the US District Court in 1981 clearly states that the Wire Act was created for TAKING bets not PLACING them.

If you google the USA vs Baborian - in 1981 there was a court case against this guy Baborian who "used sophistacated methods and bet large sums" as a professional bettor. The conslusion of the court was that "the wire act was congress intention to apply to the business of gambling to mean bookmaking; ie the taking and laying off of bets, and not the mere betting. Congress never intended to include a social bettor within the prohibition of the statute and that congress did not contemplate prohibiting the activities of mere bettors, even where, as with Mr Barborian, they bet large sums of money with a great deal of sophistication."

It is plain as day in black and white, and there has not been one single prosecution of a bettor under the wire act since. There are many cases of money laundering, tax evasion etc - but nothing about the act of betting on sports is illegal at the federal level.

So to answer the original question of this thread - the Federal Wire Act only applies to bookmaking. There is a ton of misconceptions about this - but talk to any gambling legal scholar and they will all tell you the same thing - USA vs Baborian is the legal precedent for declaring the individual bettor immune from the Federal Wire Act.

aceduecetrey · Jul 13, 2006

vanzack said:
Whoa whoa wait a minute Jay. There has not been an attempt to prosecute a single BETTOR under the Federal Wire Act since Baborian in 1981.

This guy you know must have been charged under something other than the Wire Act. Most gamblers think the Wire Act applies, but in the USA vs Baborian the US District Court in 1981 clearly states that the Wire Act was created for TAKING bets not PLACING them.

If you google the USA vs Baborian - in 1981 there was a court case against this guy Baborian who "used sophistacated methods and bet large sums" as a professional bettor. The conslusion of the court was that "the wire act was congress intention to apply to the business of gambling to mean bookmaking; ie the taking and laying off of bets, and not the mere betting. Congress never intended to include a social bettor within the prohibition of the statute and that congress did not contemplate prohibiting the activities of mere bettors, even where, as with Mr Barborian, they bet large sums of money with a great deal of sophistication."

It is plain as day in black and white, and there has not been one single prosecution of a bettor under the wire act since. There are many cases of money laundering, tax evasion etc - but nothing about the act of betting on sports is illegal at the federal level.

So to answer the original question of this thread - the Federal Wire Act only applies to bookmaking. There is a ton of misconceptions about this - but talk to any gambling legal scholar and they will all tell you the same thing - USA vs Baborian is the legal precedent for declaring the individual bettor immune from the Federal Wire Act.