Written by :
Published on :
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit judge on Wednesday rejected Ira Rubin's claim that his indictment was faulty because the conduct he was charged with was not a crime under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).
Rubin was one of nearly a dozen individuals charged in 2011 with money laundering as part of a sweeping indictment against online poker room Full Tilt Poker. He was accused of funneling money into banks from Full Tilt Poker and other Web poker businesses under the guise of golf balls and dog food.
A panel of three judges ruled against Rubin and referred to his interpretation of the law as a “narrow” reading of United States vs. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, which holds that any defect in an indictment does not prevent a court of jurisdiction to hear a particular case.
The New York Law Journal noted that the Court did not have to reach the question of whether Rubin was, or was not, in the business of online gambling, as the defendant had waived the issue for appeal.
Rubin was sentenced in 2012 to three years.
- Jagajeet Chiba, Gambling911.com
