If today’s news in the Financial Times about one of the Party Poker founders, Anurag Dikshit, is to be believed, it seems there's been a significant development for the Department of Justice. The media outlet reports that he turned himself in to the New York office of the US attorney, offered to pay US$300M and had no plea bargain in place regarding the length of sentence for his offense. It further states that he’s pleading guilty to an offense of the Wire Act and could serve up to two years time.
As FT also states, Mr. Dikshit is a chess player and implies that he’s clearly no gambler, turning himself in on the eve of a new administration in the White House. One would wonder about his timing given the circumstances. Apparently, the DoJ was successful in convincing him that he’d get more leniency in sentencing if he turned himself in now.
Given the machinations in the BetOnSports case, the fact that the Wire Act violation was chosen is significant for a number of reasons. First of all, it’s been clear (including in a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling) that the Wire Act applies to no activity other than sports betting.Since Party offered primarily poker with a little casino gaming thrown in, this is a significant legal development. Plus, the Wire Act does have a relatively short sentence (2 years) while the charges issued in the BoS case carried much longer sentences. The original charges of racketeering in that case carried as much as a 20 year sentence.
With the new BoS superseding indictments which were more fraud-oriented, it’s unclear how much time a guilty verdict could carry. As most folks know, when plea-bargaining discussions are initiated early on, one can even negotiate what the charges are and which laws are pertinent. That seems to be the case here. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out with Anurag Dikshit as it relates to the US justice system.
And was this the right gamble on Dikshit's part? Will a new administration, with a poker-playing President who clearly has more serious problems to tackle, put i-gaming prosecutions on the back-burner? And what if the land-based gaming industry is successful in getting regulatory measures passed in Congress or in a statehouse? Does that create complications or at least a different milieu for these prosecutions?
There’s no doubt that 2009 will offer some very interesting news for those of us who are veteran observers on the i-gaming industry.