Question for a lawyer

What is the difference between "Criminal Conduct" and "Unlawful Conduct"?

TIA

Quote: teliot

What is the difference between "Criminal Conduct" and "Unlawful Conduct"?

TIA

Would depend upon circumstances the phrases were used in.

Driving 60mph down an empty road with no traffic around might be "unlawful" but there is no criminal intent and it is not necessarily unsafe driving, anymore than the fact a drivers license left at home makes any of the conduct malicious.

The difference is whether something is evil in itself or wrong simply because it is proscribed by law.

It is usually unlawful to enter a public building from the left rather than the right hand door. That doesn't mean the law even sets forth any punishment for violators or that violators could be charged with a criminal offense.

States vary and situations vary. Don't rely on the Internet for legal advice unless the judge will allow you to bring the beer drinking dog at the other computer with you.

Quote: FleaStiff

Would depend upon circumstances the phrases were used in.

Say, in the case of Phil Ivey?

Quote: teliot

Say, in the case of Phil Ivey?

If he "cheated" then that is criminal conduct, I am sure.

No one yet knows what Phil Ivey did or did not do.

Remember, the casino held an internal investigation which turned up the results of "no cheating" so it is only this later allegation that the casino may have made concerning card orientation that we have and Phil Ivey has not been heard to respond to this allegation that came via the press, not necessarily via the casino.

Phil Ivey filed a lawsuit and has kept mum.

It is the casino that lied about a banking holiday and lied about a few other things but now claims that the companion sought mis-orientation of the cards. Somehow that assertion seems incompatible with the original internal investigation that is supposed to have revealed "no cheating".

I have questions for both Phil Ivey and the Casino.

I don't think that answers the OP's question though.

Alright...here goes...

If you refuse to hire a qualified applicant for a job because she is female... You have done something unlawful (legal nuances aside) ... But this act is not criminally wrong. Other examples abound. Many types of unlawful acts are not criminally unlawful acts.

Quote: midwestgb

If you refuse to hire a qualified applicant for a job because she is female... You have done something unlawful (legal nuances aside) ... But this act is not criminally wrong. Other examples abound. Many types of unlawful acts are not criminally unlawful acts.

There is "mis"-conduct, "unlawful"-conduct and "criminal"-conduct. These appear to have clear legal definitions that separate them.

Crockford clearly stated that they believe Ivey *cheated* -- that appears to be their argument. Crockford used the word "cheat." My question is, which type of "conduct" does cheating fall under? I cannot imagine cheating is anything less than criminal. In which case, it appears that Crockford is threatening Ivey with possible imprisonment.

Look at the title of this article, there are many others just like it:

UK casino accuses American poker star Phil Ivey of cheating

The spin of the media is not that Ivey is suing, it is that Ivey is being accused of cheating. Fox (and CBS and LVRJ) have it exactly backwards. But my question is, what kind of conduct is Ivey being accused of here and what are the possible consequences if that conduct is proven?

Keep in mind that the State is the party prosecuting all claims of criminal misconduct In all Western countries. There is no indication in the media that the State possesses any interest in prosecuting Ivey for criminally unlawful behavior, and I suspect that is because England has no criminal statute addressing this matter.

The issue here is one of contract law. Did the casino breach its underlying agreement to pay winning hands? Or, may it avoid payment on the theory Ivey acted in contravention of his supposed agreement to play the game fairly?

An interesting case.

From what I can gather, Ivey could tell the demonination of the cards being dealt due to a fault in the deck, plus his partner apparently communicated to the dealer in Mandarin in such a way that the dealer put 7s, 8s, and 9s back in the show differently which allowed them to be identified. Surveillance was able to find a high degree of correlation between bet size and the cards dealt.

He did nothing ILLEGAL, but he did take advantage of faults in the cards and due to a lack of protocols by the dealers. IMO, the casino owes Ivey the money. Depending on British Law, what he could have done was unlawful, but I think the casino would have a difficult case to prove. Likely Ivey will receive some of his money as a form of settlement, and his lawyer will likeyl see a large portion of that.

As an aside, in Great Britain the filing of a civil lawsuit for money damages is far more risky for the plaintiff than is true here in America.

The "English Rule" is that the winner of the suit pays the other side's attorneys fees. This means that if you file suit as a plaintiff and lose, you are penalized by having to pay the attorney's fees incurred by the defendant in defending the case. This is a prohibitive factor that keeps down the number of lawsuits there. Ivey started the litigation apparently, and he took a big financial risk in doing so. Then again, he is apparently owed far, far more than what the figure for attorney's fees shall be if he loses the suit.

The "American Rule" as to this issue is that neither side must pay the winner's attorneys fees, unless a statute specifically so requires. Generally, a prevailing plaintiff in an American lawsuit will be awarded attorney's fees in addition to his damages award from a jury in cases involving Antitrust, discrimination, and a few other statutory civil actions. If you file suit and lose, though, you generally run virtually no risk of having to pay the defendant's attorneys fees - unlike the situation under the English Rule.

It is still a civil action.

I have no idea what statute of limitation, if any, applies for criminal conduct, but so far no one appears likely to be facing prosecution.

Certainly the casino's initial determination of no cheating makes a prosecution rather difficult even if a criminal offense were to be established.

As I recall the first article on this, the "illustration" was supplied by the press based on assumptions made from the casino's statements.

Ivey seems to be facing a degree of criticism perhaps but that is about all. For the amount of money involved, he might as well let the judge decide the issue.

Quote: midwestgb

The "English Rule" is that the winner of the suit pays the other side's attorneys fees. This means that if you file suit as a plaintiff and lose, you are penalized by having to pay the attorney's fees incurred by the defendant in defending the case.

(Emphasis added.)

Is that word "winner" supposed to say "loser"? If not, how does the second sentence make any sense?

Quote: midwestgb

The "American Rule" as to this issue is that neither side must pay the winner's attorneys fees..

Huh?

So the attorney who successfully represents the winner does so without right or expectation of payment from anybody, including his client?

I think not.