Racketeering Law Does Not Cover Online Gambling Losses in Arizona

Submitted by Associated Press on

Written by :

Associated Press

Published on :

PHOENIX (Associated Press) — A state court decision says people who voluntarily engage in online gambling can't use Arizona's anti-racketeering law to sue websites' operators to recover gambling losses.

The state Court of Appeals decision issued Thursday upholds a Maricopa County Superior Court judge's ruling against a man who had sued several operators of gambling websites after he lost $800,000.

The man's lawsuit alleged that the websites were an enterprise engaged in civil racketeering.

But the court decision says there's nothing in the state racketeering law that indicates it would cover losses by a voluntary gambler who is not claiming that the games were rigged.

Related Content

PA Bans 11 Individuals From Gambling Including Woman Who Left 1-Year Old in Car for 3 Hours in 80 Degree Heat

Pennsylvania Bans 11 Individuals From Gambling Including Woman Who Left 1-Year Old in Car for 3 Hours in 80 Degree Heat

Another was banned for having 28 counterfeit $50 bills, some of which he used at table games.
Poker Dealer Accused of Sparking San Diego California Wildfire

Poker Dealer Accused of Sparking San Diego California Wildfire

The suspect has a lengthy criminal record and documented mental health issues, according to court records.
Fugitive Sports Betting Influencer Vegas Dave Could Be Extradited From Bora Bora

Fugitive Sports Betting Influencer Vegas Dave Could Be Extradited From Bora Bora

A flashy sports betting influencer — known for his Birkin bag collections and mansions — was slapped with an arrest warrant from Las Vegas judge Joe Hardy Thursday after he no-showed a civil court proceeding, according to court records.
North Carolina Professor Says Purchase of Losing Lottery Tickets on eBay to Offset Gambling Losses 'Clearly Tax Fraud'

North Carolina Professor Says Purchase of Losing Lottery Tickets on eBay to Offset Gambling Losses 'Clearly Tax Fraud'

The scheme actually dates back to the 1980s...and don't think for a second the IRS is unaware of it.