Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Poker Collusion

Myself and 2 other partners have developed a collusion scheme to be utilized within an online gambling facility. The company that provides the virtual poker room is located offshore in the South Pacific.

If we were to get caught by the Poker company themself, what are the maximum penalties they could envoke against us, other than shutting down our accounts? Are we bound by the laws of California or the laws of the country of where the online casino exists?

If we were in a state where gambling was legal (e.g. Nevada), and the casino thought that we were partaking in a collusion scheme (hand signals, etc), could they prosecute?

Any insight is appreciated.


Asked on 11/11/03, 3:00 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

Robert Miller Robert L. Miller & Associates, A Law Corporation

Re: Poker Collusion

Thanks for your inquiry.

As you've suggested, the answers to your questions depend on the jurisdiction involved. Most websites, under their "terms of use" agreement, resolve disputes under a particular jurisdiction.

Even in a state like Nevada, where gambling is legal, statutes prevent cheating. The following cases, which you can research on your own, may help advise you on that aspect of your question:

Clark County v. Lyons, 96 Nev. 298, 607 P.2d 590 (1980)

This case held that evidence that the defendant was seen inserting a device used for cheating into a slot machine sufficiently established probable cause so as to warrant binding the defendant over for trial on a charge of possession of a cheating device.

Laney v. State of Nevada, 86 Nev. 173, 466 P.2d 666 (1970)

This case held that forged keys that the defendant used to open a slot machine were cheating devices within N.R.S. 465.080, www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/CH_465.html, prohibiting use of any cheating or thieving device to facilitate removing from any slot machine any part of the content thereof.

Childs v. State of Nevada, 109 Nev.1050, 864 P.2d 277 (1993)

This case held that the statute that criminalizes varying the pull of a slot machine handle with the knowledge that manipulation effects the outcome of the game, N.R.S. 465.070, www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/CH_465.html, was unconstitutionally vague under the due process clause. The statute did not define the crime in terms sufficiently clear to impart notice and understanding of the proscribed conduct to persons of ordinary intelligence.

I hope that this information helps, but if you want more information, have further questions, or feel that you need legal representation, please feel free to email me directly at [email protected]. It's my pleasure to assist you in any way that I can.

Read more
Answered on 11/11/03, 5:24 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California