Poker-AI.org

I don't mean to challenge the rules of this forum by asking these questions, I'm just looking for hypothetical discussion regarding the law, preferably with somebody that knows more than me.

How is multi-accounting fraudulent? Assuming the accounts are owned by legitimate people who are using your AI, no fraud is occurring. Same question regarding collusion, it's not in and of itself fraudulent unless one of the accounts is fake. Unless it's the behavior itself that's fraudulent, in which case it's defined via the TOS (making it a contractual obligation, not a crime).

Further, I may be wrong about this (I'm not a lawyer) but given my understanding of criminal fraud, simply pretending to be somebody you're not isn't illegal until damages occur (unless we're talking about identifying yourself to the government or something). It may incur a breach of contract when signing a TOS agreement, but that's a civil matter (where if any action is to be taken, they still need to show damages as a result of the breach).

The legal FAQ on the old site:
http://poker-ai.org/archive/www.pokerai ... ?f=80&t=49

With regards to collusion, under UK law it's a criminal offence to improve your odds when gambling. Knowing somebody else's cards would achieve that.

Alright, that's something else other than fraud.

How does the law define criminally what fraud is? If I sit down at a poker table and say I'm tired or drunk when I'm really not, then win your money, is that illegal? What if I used a fake ID to get into the casino?

Note: I've never done these things nor do I plan to.

I don't think that you will go in prison if you make collusion, however it's better to be smart:
http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-ne ... den-21-02/

England & Wales fraud act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... 5253Dfraud It would appear to a lay person such as me to define poker itself as fraud, though precedent suggests it is not, since poker is played in licensed casinos. So, as lawyers like to tell you, shortly before they present you with a huge bill, "it would be up to a court to decide"

Using bots in not illegal under UK law, as long as there's no collusion going on. That's when it would become 'cheating'.

Precedent suggests otherwise, but what's to stop a prosecutor from setting one? I guess what I'm asking is, given how the law is written, how would you defend against it in court? How would you defend against any type of fraud in court? The law seems so general and broad that if you were to wear a toupee to work you could catch a charge.

(I am not a lawyer, this is all a layman speculating)

Not sure about UK law, but in my country an action is basically considered a fraud if you, by means of deception, managed to make someone do something against his best interest. This definition is very broad and could also be used against botting itself, even without multiaccounting (you've represented to be playing yourself, while it was the bot playing, which consequently incurred losses to the casino - damage to its gamplay quality, reputation etc.)

Also, according to that noble definition, it seems that a lot of everyday business activity is a fraud

[speculation]
- I think there is a principle in uk law that if something has been going on for long enough without being prosecuted it is deemed legal. In employment law this is called custom & practice.
- Also, if there is another law which implies that what you might be doing is legal, you can use that as a defence.
- Great post here from PeppaPig http://poker-ai.org/archive/www.pokerai ... 3149#p3149
[/speculation]

This all sounds a bit like defamation, which is very hard to prove quantifiable damages. I'm not sure the law accounts for 'maybes' in regard to criminal acts, at least not where I come from.

Can you show a similar case of fraud where the damages were of quality/reputation?

I don't work in law so I don't have any examples at hand (not sure if they exist either).

http://tinyurl.com/q5qjz6k

This is somewhat related to poker botting, but the guy stole IDs and went after bonuses. The bonuses he gained were quantifiable damages. It says he "opened bank accounts under fake names." It's not clear whether those were online wallets or actual banks located in the UK. Further, where was this online casino located? In what jurisdiction did this act of fraud occur? Surely had the case gone to trial the casino(s) would have to be represented. What if the casino was in another country? I wonder if he had signed agreements with the people whose IDs he used (without altering them) if it would have counted as fraud?

<speculation>
- I think he was found guilty of fraud for opening bank accounts using false (and stolen) id.
- I don't think the bonuses he gained actually mattered to the case
- Fraud is committed whether or not a gain is made, so quantifiable damages don't have to proved
</speculation>

I think botting and collusion is a fraud, but the poker room is not the aggrieved party. You are cheating your opponents. The poker room can help police in the investigation.

if you use the data other real people for play it's called gnoming.

Were they actual bank accounts or online wallets? I ask, because a lot of the online wallets out there, as with the casinos, are located in loosely regulated countries. And, most banks require you to open accounts in person.

In the UK I think you're right, they don't need to show damages. In other countries, however, they may need to (see #5):
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

That's why this is such an interesting topic, because nothing "happens" in one place and the laws are defined differently depending on where you and the casino are located.

Note: I don't condone stealing IDs or fraud.

just remember the story of the svenska bot ring.

@pokerfuse.com

if you killed a man in neutral waters, will you not a killer?

The casino repaid them, not necessarily because they were required to do so. And, just because the casino or the news labels them victims, doesn't necessarily make them the victims of an according-to-law crime. The alleged "colluders" haven't even gone to trial yet, have they? I can say I feel certain people were treated unfairly in my place of business and repay what I feel is owed to them, but what I feel or think doesn't necessarily make somebody else a criminal in the eyes of the law.

It might make me a killer, but it might not make me a criminal. There are plenty of people that think gambling itself is immoral/unethical and should be illegal (and it is in places like, I dunno, North Korea). If you gamble in neutral waters are you unethical? Don't you ever watch post-apocalyptic movies where societal law no longer exists and people are forced to make tough ethical choices? There's always conflict.


Note: I don't condone killing or collusion. Just trying to make a point about law.

some quotes:




Probably everyone knows that it's a scam, but no one can prove it.


however, when a ship is involved in certain criminal acts, such as piracy, any nation can exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction.
Universal jurisdiction or universality principle allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction

scroll down and read:

United Kingdom

An offence is generally only triable in the jurisdiction where the offence took place, unless a specific statute enables the UK to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is the case for:
Sexual offences against children (s. 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003)
Fraud and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1)
Terrorism (ss. 59, 62–63 of the Terrorism Act 2000)
Bribery (s. 109 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001)

See section: 1., (2) and (3) here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/36

You may need to click 'Open Whole Act' on the left to see everything.


By section 6, is it saying the jurisdictional law applies? i.e. In the case of fraud, siting the link I posted a few comments above, for the person to be guilty they would need to show damages in accordance with the relevant law 'where the act was intended to take place'?

Are there any cases where this has been applied to somebody outside of the UK?

i don't know. If the collusion is a crime in B&M casinos, then it's a crime in online too.

If you are cheating 7 people from 7 different country and you and your friend from the different country and you playing on the different room with different jurisdiction, what's country the crime was committed? It's all very complicated.