John Campos, is charged with accepting cash in exchange for facilitating online transactions at his Utah bank, and Chad Elie, is charge with deceptive payment processing for online poker sites. Both filed separate motions to dismiss all counts filed against them in federal court in Manhattan.
Their most substantive claim is that poker is a game of significant skill which excludes it from the other gambling definitions used for prosecution in regards to the UIGEA. The Department of Justice has argued for years without ever testing it in court. Poker charges a fee, known as a rake, for facilitating poker betting on their web sites and don't benefit additionally while players competed against each other, not the house.
One of the filings states "“PokerStars and Full Tilt are not ‘illegal gambling businesses’ under IGBA because they are not ‘gambling businesses’ at all, To be ‘engaged in the business of betting or wagering’ requires that the business has a stake in the outcome of gambling contests, and the Indictment here fails to allege that the poker companies had any such stake.”
Additionally, they assert that the UIGEA lists nine activities regarded as gambling, none of them include poker or any other card game. Poker doesn't have much in common with other suggested illegal activities such as lottery or house-banked games in which the bettor has no role in the outcome like bookmaking, roulette or slot machines.“Online poker is a game in which the outcome depends to at least some degree on skill.”
Even the U.S. government position is muddled as evidenced by the March testimony of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder who admitted that he didn't know whether poker is a game of chance or not.Two additional points are suggested in additional filings that call into question the government case.
1. Jurisdiction is challenged because the poker sites conducted financial and server business offshore, only accepting bets from New York citizens, not enough to claim New York law applies to the money laundering and conspiracy charges.
2. Bank fraud charges are faulty because no party was harmed in the process. The bank, processors and customers all benefited.
Campos and Elie are the first, but clearly not the last who will challenge the foundation of the U.S. government's case in an effort to mitigate their charges.
