darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 247
  • Posts: 7793
August 22nd, 2019 at 5:09:57 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

.


§ 5:12-113. Swindling and cheating; penalties

a. A person is guilty of swindling and cheating if the person purposely or knowingly by any trick or sleight of hand performance or by a fraud or fraudulent scheme, cards, dice or device, for himself or herself or for another, wins or attempts to win money or property or a representative of either or reduces a losing wager or attempts to reduce a losing wager in connection to casino gaming.

b. Consolidation of offenses. Conduct denominated swindling and cheating in this section constitutes a single offense, but each episode or transaction may be the subject of a separate prosecution and conviction. A charge of swindling and cheating may be supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner that would be swindling and cheating under this section, notwithstanding the specification of a different manner in the indictment or accusation, subject only to the power of the court to ensure a fair trial by granting a bill of particulars, discovery, continuance, or other appropriate relief when the conduct of the defense would be prejudiced by a lack of fair notice or by surprise.

c. Grading of swindling and cheating offenses.
(1) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the second degree if the amount involved is $75,000 or more.

(2) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the third degree if the amount involved exceeds $500.

(3) Swindling and cheating constitutes a crime of the fourth degree if the amount involved is at least $200 but not more than $500.

(4) Swindling and cheating constitutes a disorderly persons offense if the amount involved is less than $200.

(5) The amount involved in swindling and cheating shall be determined by the trier of fact. Amounts involved in acts of swindling and cheating committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.


§ 5:12-113. Swindling and cheating; penalties, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-113 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-051Y-00000-00&context=1516831.



Gandler

I think you might be mistaking the language of the word "trick"

Tricking the dealer isnt what they mean

Specifically the wording is "by any trick or sleight of hand performance"

This would mean the person guitly would have to do the sleight of hand or trick "performance (physical act). I.e. manipulation of the card thru a physical trick performed by the violator. Which would require him to touch the cards

Again, it doesn't mean tricking the casino into doing your bidding

Under this law Ivey is not guilty of swindling
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 1491
August 22nd, 2019 at 5:23:59 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Gandler

I think you might be mistaking the language of the word "trick"

Tricking the dealer isnt what they mean

Specifically the wording is "by any trick or sleight of hand performance"

This would mean the person guitly would have to do the sleight of hand or trick "performance (physical act). I.e. manipulation of the card thru a physical trick performed by the violator. Which would require him to touch the cards

Again, it doesn't mean tricking the casino into doing your bidding

Under this law Ivey is not guilty of swindling



Well, it appears courts would disagree.

NJ has a lot of vague terminology which allows for broad interpretation of cheating, swindling, etc....

t is not the act of ‘marking’ a card that violates the [Casino Control Act], but rather the ‘use’ or ‘possession’ of the marked card that violates the CCA,” the attorneys write. “Thus, the statute prohibits using cards that were marked by others. It does not matter that Ivey and Sun hoodwinked an unwitting accomplice, rather than an active conspirator. Even an innocent aide can create liability for principals like Ivey and Sun.”


Some more recent sources on the ongoing dispute:
https://www.usbets.com/borgata-attorneys-blunt-baccarat-statement-against-ivey/
https://www.highstakesdb.com/9769-borgata-attempt-to-seize-phil-iveys-wsop-winnings.aspx




This is the other section they cited as him violating:

§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty

a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or

(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.

b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices.

c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.

§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-115 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-0522-00000-00&context=1516831.




Summary:

HOLDINGS: [1]-A casino's claims that professional gamblers breached a contract to abide by the rules of lawful gambling by a deceptive scheme to manipulate the odds of a card game in the gamblers' favor required further development, since the claims were predicated on violations of state gaming laws, there was no private right of action for such violations, and it remained for the state rather than the court to determine whether the gamblers violated the laws; [2]-The casino sufficiently alleged that the gamblers engaged in fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy based on allegations that the gamblers misrepresented that they were superstitious to gain the casino's compliance with seemingly innocuous requests for accommodations which in fact allowed the gamblers to perpetrate their scheme and win large sums which were deposited in a foreign bank.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 19136
August 22nd, 2019 at 5:34:46 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

All I can say is, for 6 years I had Borgata listed in my profile here under "favorite casino". No longer. What a cheesy move.

If you're owed money I think you have the right to collect it. I'm not sure why that's cheesy, I think it was pretty damn smart of them. This could end his poker tournament playing. I'm wondering if they could even go after his cash in cash games?

If I was the Borgata I will go after him as well.

I don't blame the Borgata I don't blame him.

It's the judges and gaming who got this wrong IMO.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 247
  • Posts: 7793
August 22nd, 2019 at 5:48:38 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Well, it appears courts would disagree.

NJ has a lot of vague terminology which allows for broad interpretation of cheating, swindling, etc....

t is not the act of ‘marking’ a card that violates the [Casino Control Act], but rather the ‘use’ or ‘possession’ of the marked card that violates the CCA,” the attorneys write. “Thus, the statute prohibits using cards that were marked by others. It does not matter that Ivey and Sun hoodwinked an unwitting accomplice, rather than an active conspirator. Even an innocent aide can create liability for principals like Ivey and Sun.”


Some more recent sources on the ongoing dispute:
https://www.usbets.com/borgata-attorneys-blunt-baccarat-statement-against-ivey/
https://www.highstakesdb.com/9769-borgata-attempt-to-seize-phil-iveys-wsop-winnings.aspx




This is the other section they cited as him violating:

§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty

a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or

(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.

b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices.

c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.

§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-115 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-0522-00000-00&context=1516831.




Summary:

HOLDINGS: [1]-A casino's claims that professional gamblers breached a contract to abide by the rules of lawful gambling by a deceptive scheme to manipulate the odds of a card game in the gamblers' favor required further development, since the claims were predicated on violations of state gaming laws, there was no private right of action for such violations, and it remained for the state rather than the court to determine whether the gamblers violated the laws; [2]-The casino sufficiently alleged that the gamblers engaged in fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy based on allegations that the gamblers misrepresented that they were superstitious to gain the casino's compliance with seemingly innocuous requests for accommodations which in fact allowed the gamblers to perpetrate their scheme and win large sums which were deposited in a foreign bank.



Those are the Borgata attorney arguments so they are going to state that.

The current appeal is declaring that the trial judge completely misinterpreted that law as you point out above.

Part B says it is illegal to "use or possess". Apparently now a card never touched is being used and possessed?

By that definition all the players at a roulette table are using and possessing the ball and wheel.

In the end the ccc has been given statutory oversight and that is the basis for this appeal. For the CCC to determine its statutory definitions of these very wordings

So at best we should just agree its up in the air pending appeal
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 1491
August 22nd, 2019 at 5:56:05 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Well, it appears courts would disagree.

NJ has a lot of vague terminology which allows for broad interpretation of cheating, swindling, etc....

t is not the act of ‘marking’ a card that violates the [Casino Control Act], but rather the ‘use’ or ‘possession’ of the marked card that violates the CCA,” the attorneys write. “Thus, the statute prohibits using cards that were marked by others. It does not matter that Ivey and Sun hoodwinked an unwitting accomplice, rather than an active conspirator. Even an innocent aide can create liability for principals like Ivey and Sun.”


Some more recent sources on the ongoing dispute:
https://www.usbets.com/borgata-attorneys-blunt-baccarat-statement-against-ivey/
https://www.highstakesdb.com/9769-borgata-attempt-to-seize-phil-iveys-wsop-winnings.aspx




This is the other section they cited as him violating:

§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty

a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or

(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.

b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices.

c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.

§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-115 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-0522-00000-00&context=1516831.




Summary:

HOLDINGS: [1]-A casino's claims that professional gamblers breached a contract to abide by the rules of lawful gambling by a deceptive scheme to manipulate the odds of a card game in the gamblers' favor required further development, since the claims were predicated on violations of state gaming laws, there was no private right of action for such violations, and it remained for the state rather than the court to determine whether the gamblers violated the laws; [2]-The casino sufficiently alleged that the gamblers engaged in fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy based on allegations that the gamblers misrepresented that they were superstitious to gain the casino's compliance with seemingly innocuous requests for accommodations which in fact allowed the gamblers to perpetrate their scheme and win large sums which were deposited in a foreign bank.



Those are the Borgata attorney arguments so they are going to state that.

The current appeal is declaring that the trial judge completely misinterpreted that law as you point out above.

Part B says it is illegal to "use or possess". Apparently now a card never touched is being used and possessed?

By that definition all the players at a roulette table are using and possessing the ball and wheel.

In the end the ccc has been given statutory oversight and that is the basis for this appeal. For the CCC to determine its statutory definitions of these very wordings

So at best we should just agree its up in the air pending appeal



I think the or is key there "use OR possess". He was using marked cards, even if he or his partner did not handle or mark them himself.

I doubt that the appeal will be successful, but like you said we neve know.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 247
  • Posts: 7793
August 22nd, 2019 at 6:27:31 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Well, it appears courts would disagree.

NJ has a lot of vague terminology which allows for broad interpretation of cheating, swindling, etc....

t is not the act of ‘marking’ a card that violates the [Casino Control Act], but rather the ‘use’ or ‘possession’ of the marked card that violates the CCA,” the attorneys write. “Thus, the statute prohibits using cards that were marked by others. It does not matter that Ivey and Sun hoodwinked an unwitting accomplice, rather than an active conspirator. Even an innocent aide can create liability for principals like Ivey and Sun.”


Some more recent sources on the ongoing dispute:
https://www.usbets.com/borgata-attorneys-blunt-baccarat-statement-against-ivey/
https://www.highstakesdb.com/9769-borgata-attempt-to-seize-phil-iveys-wsop-winnings.aspx




This is the other section they cited as him violating:

§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty

a. It shall be unlawful:
(1) Knowingly to conduct, carry on, operate, deal or allow to be conducted, carried on, operated or dealt any cheating or thieving game or device; or

(2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.

b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices.

c. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and subject to the penalties therefor, except that the amount of a fine may be up to $50,000, and in the case of a person other than a natural person, the amount of a fine may be up to $200,000.

§ 5:12-115. Cheating games and devices in a licensed casino; penalty, N.J. Stat. § 5:12-115 ( This section is current through New Jersey 218th Second Annual Session, L. 2019, c. 194, and J.R. 18 ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5F0Y-BRN1-6F13-0522-00000-00&context=1516831.




Summary:

HOLDINGS: [1]-A casino's claims that professional gamblers breached a contract to abide by the rules of lawful gambling by a deceptive scheme to manipulate the odds of a card game in the gamblers' favor required further development, since the claims were predicated on violations of state gaming laws, there was no private right of action for such violations, and it remained for the state rather than the court to determine whether the gamblers violated the laws; [2]-The casino sufficiently alleged that the gamblers engaged in fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy based on allegations that the gamblers misrepresented that they were superstitious to gain the casino's compliance with seemingly innocuous requests for accommodations which in fact allowed the gamblers to perpetrate their scheme and win large sums which were deposited in a foreign bank.



Those are the Borgata attorney arguments so they are going to state that.

The current appeal is declaring that the trial judge completely misinterpreted that law as you point out above.

Part B says it is illegal to "use or possess". Apparently now a card never touched is being used and possessed?

By that definition all the players at a roulette table are using and possessing the ball and wheel.

In the end the ccc has been given statutory oversight and that is the basis for this appeal. For the CCC to determine its statutory definitions of these very wordings

So at best we should just agree its up in the air pending appeal



I think the or is key there "use OR possess". He was using marked cards, even if he or his partner did not handle or mark them himself.

I doubt that the appeal will be successful, but like you said we neve know.



Agreed.

And yet this whole case has been of s civil nature. Why no criminal charges for criminality?

I suspect there is enough vagueness to not be able to muster a conviction with a jury.

For example, you say he used marked cards? Where did the markings come from? Apparently from Gemaco.

Those same edge irregularities are on all card packs. So are all cards marked?

Can a jury be convinced that cards ALREADY POSSESSING the marks that sun and Ivey used be attributed to criminality on their part?

Any competent defense attorney would have a field day and thats probably why no charges were ever brought
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
NokTang
NokTang
Joined: Aug 15, 2011
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1314
Thanks for this post from:
beachbumbabs
August 22nd, 2019 at 8:52:35 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Someone will correct me if I'm misremembering this, but.



I don't see a reply to your post so will advise of a few corrections FYI only.....

The cards were somehow non-symmetrical on the backs, from side to side. Might have been how they were die-cut, might have been in the design.

TOP TO BOTTOM........THE LONG EDGES WERE NOT EQUAL/SYMMETRICAL....

They were shuffled but not turned. So all the backs lined up the same. 6 decks. A shoe has the leading side edge of the next card exposed about 1/4 inch, with a horseshoe-shaped thumb hole that's about 1"x1" in the middle of the side, so some of the design can be seen.

A CONTINIOUS SHUFFLER WAS USED IF I RECALL...AND THE SHOE EXPOSURE DIDN'T MATTER. A CONDITION WAS TO PLAY 'MACAU STYLE' WHERE ALL FOUR OF THE CARDS ARE DEALT OUT FACE DOWN SO THEY HAD ABILITY OF COURSE TO SEE BOTH BACK SIDES OF BOTH THE PLAYER AND BANKER HAND. NOT SURE IF SIX OR EIGHT DECKS, EIGHT IS COMMON IN BACCARAT.

Ivey and Sun made an agreement with Borgata before the game started that they would get to use the same decks through the entire weekend. That their shoe would be locked up when they weren't playing, and the decks would not be changed. This was a superstition of theirs.

The same cards were shuffled and replaced in the shoe each time. The shuffle was very specific, no washing, no spinning.

The first play through the deck, each time an 8 or 9 came up, they had the dealer spin the card for superstition before placing it in the discard rack. So, with them only cutting off 16 cards at the end (standard), by the time they played through the first shoe, the deck was rigged.

Once the 2nd and all subsequent shoes were loaded, they would always know when the first card off the deck was an 8 or 9 because they could see the side edge. You place your only bet in baccarat before the cards are dealt.

AS MENTIONED, MACAU STYLE ALLOWS ALL FOUR TO BE DEALT OUT FACE DOWN.

Assuming the first card goes to Player, they would bet huge on Player each time they saw an 8 or 9 coming. Since there are 4 good cards for a 9 and 5 good cards for an 8, and a couple more each that don't hurt much, they had an advantage. Bet low on non-8 or 9 first cards (or bet Banker), bet high on Player when an 8 or 9 is coming.

DITTO ETC. ON BANKER.

Everything else they might have done (other superstitions, comments, whatever) was distraction designed to mask the card-turning. Reportedly Sun was the one who could see the pattern difference. And she was the one who gave the dealer instructions on their superstitions at the table.

Part of the superstition was that only the dealer would touch the cards. Not touching the cards helped ensure both no bending of the cards (requiring fresh decks) and also gave Borgata a false sense of security in dealing to them.
100xOdds
100xOdds
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
  • Threads: 525
  • Posts: 3100
August 22nd, 2019 at 11:48:04 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

This whole battle is still ongoing in the courts in case u guys dont know.
https://www.uspoker.com/blog/ivey-appeal-borgata/26052/

Finally, the article states that in order to proceed with this appeal, IVEY PUT UP A 10.1 MILLION BOND.

in order to appeal, you have to put up the $ you owe first??
that normal?

also, what if Ivey doesnt have all that $ anymore?
ie: paid 33% is taxes so he's down to about $7M
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
MDawg
MDawg
Joined: Sep 27, 2018
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 2145
August 23rd, 2019 at 12:45:34 AM permalink
There were two lawsuits filed, one over winnings withheld (Crockfords), one over winnings paid out (Borgata). Ivey lost both. The judgment against Ivey is to repay what he did collect. I believe he does have to post a bond to stay execution of judgment pending appeal. The cost of a bond is substantial, but not ten million, probably more like 100 - 200K per year. The cost of these two lawsuits must be quite a lot too though, and at least in the Crockfords one Ivey is pretty much done there he is not going to collect and is not going to recoup those attorney's fees.

I am thinking that Ivey's Chinese friend who was the one who could read the cards must have been paid something too, maybe she already got her cut of the Borgata money leaving now Ivey alone to deal with the aftermath.

As far as why he wasn't prosecuted criminally the standard of proof is much higher in a criminal case than civil. Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil is "preponderance of evidence." Think, OJ and Robert Blake.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
100xOdds
100xOdds
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
  • Threads: 525
  • Posts: 3100
August 23rd, 2019 at 4:36:56 AM permalink
Quote: MDawg

There were two lawsuits filed, one over winnings withheld (Crockfords), one over winnings paid out (Borgata). Ivey lost both. The judgment against Ivey is to repay what he did collect. I believe he does have to post a bond to stay execution of judgment pending appeal. The cost of a bond is substantial, but not ten million, probably more like 100 - 200K per year. The cost of these two lawsuits must be quite a lot too though, and at least in the Crockfords one Ivey is pretty much done there he is not going to collect and is not going to recoup those attorney's fees.

I am thinking that Ivey's Chinese friend who was the one who could read the cards must have been paid something too, maybe she already got her cut of the Borgata money leaving now Ivey alone to deal with the aftermath.

As far as why he wasn't prosecuted criminally the standard of proof is much higher in a criminal case than civil. Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil is "preponderance of evidence." Think, OJ and Robert Blake.

if Ivey did file the appeal already before the wsop, then why was Borgata able to go after him for his $100k+ wsop winnings in event #58?

wouldnt the appeal stay any collections?
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)

  • Jump to: