Quote Originally Posted by EZ Life Slot Jackpots View Post
Since someone decided to post an article picking apart my video (and they are here) and have even went as far as private messaging me today let's dive into this.

1. I believe this person or website runs its own virtual gambling pool which seems why they are so inclined to have incentive to think this is legal.

2. To accept money from people to gamble with and make profit is illegal. You can choose to pick apart my words and video as much as you'd like but that was the purpose of the video.

3. As in the articles posted by actual news outlets, this is the first case of it's kind, do you really think the end results will be: IT'S LEGAL?

4. Google is your friend:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder.../wire-act.htm/
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...-Wire-Act.htm/

I want to tell you that you do great videos, and in fact I used part of one of them during my D-Lucky segment on my (audio only) show. I have become a regular viewer of your channel because I think it's awesome.

I agree Mission was unnecessarily adversarial in his writeup, which JeffDime already pointed out. I don't think this was intentional, but that's how it came off.

I do think that the "illegality" of these slot pulls isn't the issue, and in fact it's questionable if it's actually illegal. Why? Here are the elements of violations of the internet wire act:

In order to prove a prima facie case, the government must establish that:

1. The person was "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" (compared with a casual bettor);
2. The person transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce: bets or wagers, information assisting in the placement of bets or wagers, or a communication that entitled the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of a bet or wager;
3. The person used a " wire communication facility;" and
4. The person knowingly used a wire communication facility to engage in one of the three prohibited forms of transmissions.
The test for #1 above might fail for violations of the wire act. Why? Because these slot pullers can claim they are just casual bettors pooling money together and designating one person (the channel owner) to do these slot pulls. If it cannot be shown that the money wired/transmitted is being used as part of a betting business, there is no wire gambling case.

Furthermore, even if the person is not a casual bettor, the government does not touch these cases if the recipient of the money is simply being funded for a bet with an unaffiliated casino, and does not derive direct benefit from the bets themselves. Otherwise, poker staking (where people send money to people to buy into poker events) would be illegal, but it is not.

The following would be considered wire act violations:
- Bookmaking sportsbets and receiving money transmitted electronically for those bets

- A casino employee receiving wired money from that customer, spinning slots at the casino for that customer, and then wiring him the resulting profit/loss

- Receiving money on behalf of an unregulated poker room, so the customer can play for real money on there


In all of these cases, these are bets being booked directly by the entity against the customer, or for an illegal betting environment. That's not what's happening on these slot pulls.


The real case could come from any fraud or deception taking place involving these slot pulls, such as misrepresenting the player's odds to win, not reporting results accurately, or pocketing some of the money and claiming it was "lost".

I'm not pointing this out to be nitpicky, but rather because I find it's best to stay away from legal technicalities when discussing shady actors online. It's better to just focus upon what they are doing wrong (which you did a great job communicating), and why everyone should stay away from them.