## Facts

- Lawrence DiCristina operated a for-profit Texas Hold’em poker club in the back room of a Staten Island warehouse where he also ran an electric-bicycle business.
- The club took a per-hand or per-game “rake” from players.
- The government charged that the operation qualified as an “illegal gambling business” because it (1) violated New York gambling law, (2) involved five or more persons, and (3) met the IGBA’s duration or revenue threshold.
- A jury convicted DiCristina of violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA), 18 U.S.C. § 1955, and conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371.
- Post-verdict, the district court granted a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal, concluding Texas Hold’em was not covered by the IGBA because poker is not a “game of chance” and is not expressly listed in § 1955(b)(2).
- The United States appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a poker business that satisfies the IGBA’s statutory elements falls within 18 U.S.C. § 1955 even if poker is argued to be predominantly a game of skill and is not expressly enumerated in § 1955(b)(2).
2. Whether § 1955 contains an implied federal limitation restricting “gambling” to games in which chance predominates, beyond the statute’s state-law violation requirement.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of acquittal and remanded.
- The court directed reinstatement of the jury verdict, entry of judgment of conviction on both counts, and sentencing.
- The court held the IGBA’s plain language covered DiCristina’s poker business because it was a gambling business illegal under state law and met the IGBA’s size and duration/revenue criteria.
- The court rejected the district court’s view that the IGBA is limited to “games of chance.”

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1955, an “illegal gambling business” is a gambling business that (1) violates state (or local) law where conducted, (2) involves five or more persons who conduct/finance/manage/supervise/direct/own it, and (3) operates for more than 30 days or earns at least $2,000 in a single day.
- Section 1955(b)(2)’s phrase “includes but is not limited to” makes its list of gambling examples illustrative rather than exhaustive.
- The IGBA does not supply a separate federal “predominance of chance” test; state gambling law supplies the baseline determination of illegality, and the IGBA adds federal business-scale thresholds.
- Courts should not import limiting requirements into § 1955 that are not stated in the statutory text.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that a for-profit poker operation can qualify as an “illegal gambling business” under the IGBA when it violates state gambling law and meets the statute’s personnel and duration/revenue thresholds, regardless of debates over whether poker is primarily skill-based or chance-based.


United States v. DiCristina, 726 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2013)