- Weinstein to dismiss the indictment against Lawrence DiCristina for violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA) by running an illegal poker game.
- The appellate court decision centered on the fact that DiCristina’s actions were illegal under New York state law, a point undisputed by DiCristina.
- Straub emphasized that the IGBA outlined the criteria of an illegal gambling business and not the definition of gambling.
Following oral arguments heard in June, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision of Jack B. Weinstein to dismiss the indictment against Lawrence DiCristina for violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA) by running an illegal poker game, and set aside the jury’s guilty verdict on Tuesday.
The appellate court decision centered on the fact that DiCristina’s actions were illegal under New York state law, a point undisputed by DiCristina, and therefore the argument that poker is a game predominated by skill is immaterial.
“What the court did was conclude that the IGBA does not set forth an independent federal definition of gambling, but instead only incorporates state law,” said John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), in a press statement issued following the ruling.
Though Weinstein found that poker is a game predominated by skill and therefore not gambling, Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub emphasized that the IGBA outlined the criteria of an illegal gambling business and not the definition of gambling.
DiCristina was arrested in 2011 for operating an illegal gambling business in New York. A jury found him guilty, but after a post-trial hearing to determine whether poker was considered gambling, Judge Weinstein ruled that the game of poker is “predominated by skill” and does not constitute gambling under the law.
The District Court is to reinstate the guilty verdict and proceed with sentencing under federal guidelines.
“The PPA stands ready to support Mr. DiCristina should he choose to appeal this decision, and we are committed to working through the judicial and legislative processes to establish a clear definition of gambling based on the predominance test,” Pappas added.
Any further appeal would go in front of the US Supreme Court should they decide to hear the case.
