Dipshit Dikshit; Wire Act covers Poker?

AdamSelene · Dec 17, 2008

Party Poker billionaire founder Anurag Dikshit voluntarily asked to be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice, and not only gives them $300 million in a pre-aranged deal, but pleads guilty of a single count of violating the Wire Act.

The Wire Act clearly covers only sports betting, but now Dikshit has given the DOJ a freebie legal precedent to apply the existing law to online poker.

While you can't blame him, he just wants to sell his Party Poker shares for a few more billion and be immune to enjoy his money; Dipshit Dikshit may have just fucked the entire online poker industry (sans Party Poker, which gets immunity in the deal).

Christmas comes early for the DOJ.

wolfie_cr · Dec 17, 2008

can it really be a precedent when someone voluntarily agrees to something that is wrong?

I mean, anyone can plead to whatever they want (including agreeing that the Earth is square) but since I don't know how the US law system works.....how can that possibly be binding to another person that doesn't agree with an interpretation that is wrong to start with?

AdamSelene · Dec 17, 2008

Eh? You're probably right, a guilty plea probably does not constitute case law (legal precedence under a common law system); although I'm not a lawyer.

It does avoid setting contrary legal precedence (allowing a court to decide Poker isn't a Wire Act violation). So you can be sure the DOJ will be hitting up all other Poker sites now, asking for a "contribution" (guilty plea and a few hundred million). No one risks going to trial anyway, so it might as well be a legal precedent.