Accepting, receiving or allowing another to accept or receive wager from person physically present in this state prohibited under certain circumstances; penalty.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 465.094, a person, alone or with others, shall not knowingly, within or outside of this state:
(a) Accept or receive, directly or indirectly, through any medium of communication a wager from another person who is physically present within this state; or
(b) Allow a lessee, agent or employee to accept or receive, directly or indirectly, through any medium of communication a wager from another person who is physically present within this state.
2. If a person engages in conduct in violation of subsection 1 and the person is outside of this state at the time of the offense:
(a) The offense shall be deemed to commence outside of this state;
(b) The offense shall be deemed to be consummated within this state; and
(c) The person may be prosecuted within this state pursuant to the provisions of NRS 171.015.
3. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
If a friend, from outside of Nevada, texted me to put a $100 wager on the Lions to win the SB (die-hard fan who thinks 60/1 odds is a steal) would me placing that wager potentially violate this law?
*Edit clarification and spelling
To me, it seems 1a and 1b refer to the casino. They can't accept a bet from someone who is not inside the state of NV.
1a reads: To accept a wager from a person not in this state.
1b is the same thing EXCEPT 1a refers to "the casino" while 1b is like "the casino can't allow an employee to [accept a wager...]"
You are not accepting a bet from your friend.
2a, 2b, 2c seem to be talking about the person outside of NV trying to put in a bet. 2a is saying "the crime started outside of NV" and 2b is saying "the crime ended inside NV". 2c says the person (the one outside of NV trying to put in a bet) can be prosecuted in NV.
3 says it's a misdemeanor and seems to be talking about both the person putting in the wager AND the casino (or maybe just the employee who put in the bet?).
My opinion is this part of the regulations is talking about it's illegal for the casino to book a bet with your friend, but doesn't say anything about you making a bet on behalf of your friend.
EDIT: I don't know what it means to "receive" a bet/wager. O_O
Also, I don't think placing the wager itself would violate the law - only when money actually changed hands.
Edit: it appears that it may violate Title 18, Section 1084(a) of the United States Code:
Quote: 18 USC 1084(a)
Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Annoying slightly longer answer below...
- That activity is exactly what that law is about, yes that violates it, as well as a host of other laws and administrative rules with the force of law relevant to the matter. Some of them are Federal rather than State, including some felonies rather than just misdemeanors, and violating some of them began with the text message about it, even if no bet is made. There are people in jail right now from doing (a lot of) that. And I personally know some individuals who have been there for doing (a lot more of) that.
If you like, you can find recent press reports on arrests and convictions for doing that (on a lot larger scale) one of them being a high profile bust of an operation by a crew set up in someone's hotel suite at Caesars Palace.
In actual routine day to day informally accepted practice, generally nobody cares very much if at all about #1 above, and under normal circumstances (like what you described) there won't be anyone interested in going out of their way to know about it, IF it is BOTH:
A) relatively small (a single green portrait of Benjamin Franklin at stake definitely qualifies in anyone's informal definition of small for this sort of thing); and is also,
B) reasonably discrete (meaning it is not so obvious and/or frequent that someone can't help but notice and a responsible person in the business would have a hard time choosing to be unaware of it or saying they were).
With the important exception of things involving numeric calculation and probability analysis and the like, on the forum side of things, this is a terrible place to rely upon for sound information about things that could truly matter with some real potential consequences. A very bad idea if someone then foolishly acts with this discussion forum as their primary or sole source, Anyone reading this should be sceptical of replies (including this one) on that kind of question and seek sound advice from other sources in other places.
Unlike lurkers mostly quietly looking for information, or folks occasionally contributing on something they have special expertise about, some others become prominently active in the web forum "community" for a wide variety of reasons, some not even really about the declared topics. And will often make up stuff in an instant that feels truth-ey and fits comfortably into their world and justifies what they want to "see" from shreds of something that they think they might remember about a lot of things they don't know or understand very well, if at all. And truly believe every bit of it with apparently genuine certainty about what they "know" from the first moment it springs from their imagination. And provide a sincere "answer" that's confident, authoritative, and quite false. A lot.
So with some money and even potentially one's freedom possibly at stake, it would be wise to get more answers from a variety of places that don't look at all like this.