US v. Elie et. al.

Motion to Dismiss Indictment Counts 1 thru 4


Chad Elie stands indicted along with ten other individuals in a nine count Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”). The Indictment contains five charges: (1) conspiracy to violate the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”) under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One); (2) violation of UIGEA, under 31 U.S.C. § 5363 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts Two-Four); (3) operation of an illegal gambling business under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1955 and 2 (Counts Five-Seven); (4) conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count Eight); and (5)money laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count Nine). The charges relate to Internet poker and involve the operations of three different online poker companies: PokerStars, Full Tilt, and Absolute Poker. Each of these companies maintained a website through which poker players could play against each other at virtual poker tables. The poker games hosted by these companies were not house-banked games in which players competed against a casino or bookmaker. Rather, the poker games at issue were peer-to-peer games. The poker companies did not participate in the games, and had no risk or stake in the outcome of the games. Instead, the companies provided virtual facilities for the games, and collected, in exchange, a fee, called the “rake.” Ind. ¶ 3. Although all of the poker companies were based outside of the United States, and, in fact, had no corporate presence in the United States at all times relevant to the Indictment, the government alleges that their Internet operations violated federal gambling laws because the sites permitted United States customers to participate in real-money poker games over the Internet. Ind. ¶¶ 4-6, 15. The eleven defendants charged in the case fall into four categories: individuals employed with/operating Internet poker sites (Scheinberg, Bitar, Tom, Beckley, Burtnick, and Tate), intermediaries between poker companies and payment processors (Lang and Franzen), payment processors (Rubin and Elie), and a banker (Campos). Mr. Elie is alleged to have been a “third party payment processor[].” Ind. ¶ 2. The payment processors are alleged to have arranged with

banks to process payments for the poker companies and poker players. Ind. ¶¶ 9-12.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Legal Memoranda: Motion Addressed to Pleadings | Federal, 2nd Circuit, New York | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ian Imrich, Law Offices of Ian J. Imrich, APC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.