New York - Domsafgørelse: Poker er ikke gambling

For dem som måtte have interesse i den slags:

En ny afgørelse i en poker-sag fra New York, siger at Texas Hold'em er et skill game der ikke bør være dækket af US Gambling Act.

www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202568326058&thepage=1&slreturn=20120724024804

Artiklen kræver log-in (free), hvorfor jeg har pasted indledningen nedenfor.

Her findes detaljerne/begrundelsen for afgørelsen (120 sider), hvori dommeren tager stilling til ekspertudsagn, bl.a. en økonom der fremlagde sin holdning til at poker var et held spil (begrundet ved at en dårlig spiller, som måtte forventes at tabe, rent faktisk kunne komme fra en session med gevinst):

www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/082212weinstein.pdf

Mvh.
Hooks

--------------------------

Poker Found a Game of Skill Not Covered by U.S. Gambling Act
By Mark Hamblett
New York Law Journal
August 22, 2012

Poker is a game of skill that is not covered under the federal Illegal Gambling Business Act, Eastern District Judge Jack Weinstein ruled yesterday.

Weinstein (See Profile) reversed the jury conviction of Lawrence Dicristina and found that, as a matter of law, Congress did not clearly intend to criminalize poker when it passed the act. Part of the judge's reasoning was that poker games, in this case Texas Hold'em, are not purely games of chance.

"Bluffing, raising and folding require honed skills to maximize the value of the cards dealt by Lady Luck," Weinstein said in United States v. Dicristina, 11-CR-414.

In a 120-page decision, Weinstein noted that New York courts have long considered that poker contains a sufficient element of chance to constitute gambling under state laws, N.Y. Penal Law §225.00(2). But the federal law is ambiguous as to whether it federalizes state gambling offenses, he said.

"It is unclear from the text and legislative history of the Illegal Gambling Business Act, whether every state gambling offense would permit a federal conviction," Weinstein said. "It is equally uncertain whether, in enacting the statute, Congress foresaw that poker businesses would be prosecutable under it."

Therefore, the judge said he was applying the rule of lenity, which holds that ambiguous criminal laws are to be interpreted in favor of the defendant subjected to them.

Weinstein rejected the interpretation of the government that the federal act's definition of gambling should be as inclusive as possible because the law was intended as a weapon against organized crime, for which illegal gambling is a principle source of revenue.

Dicristina and two others allegedly ran a poker game out of a New York warehouse on Mondays and Thursdays. Players were given free food and drink by waitresses and a 5 percent "rake" for the house was collected by the dealers from each pot. Other than the games, the judge said, there was no allegation of other illegality or any connection with organized crime.

...