18 U.S.C. § 1084

Transmission of wagering information; penalties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal.(c) Nothing contained in this section shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any laws of any State.(d) When any common carrier, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, is notified in writing by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, acting within its jurisdiction, that any facility furnished by it is being used or will be used for the purpose of transmitting or receiving gambling information in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of Federal, State or local law, it shall discontinue or refuse, the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of such facility, after reasonable notice to the subscriber, but no damages, penalty or forfeiture, civil or criminal, shall be found against any common carrier for any act done in compliance with any notice received from a law enforcement agency. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prejudice the right of any person affected thereby to secure an appropriate determination, as otherwise provided by law, in a Federal court or in a State or local tribunal or agency, that such facility should not be discontinued or removed, or should be restored.(e) As used in this section, the term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 87–216, § 2, Sept. 13, 1961, 75 Stat. 491; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7024, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4397; Pub. L. 101–647, title XII, § 1205(g), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4831; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.

1990—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 101–647 inserted “commonwealth,” before “territory or possession of the United States”.

1988—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–690, § 7024(a), inserted “or foreign country” after “State” in two places.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–690, § 7024(b)(2), struck out “, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, territory, possession, or the District of Columbia” after “State”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 100–690, § 7024(b)(1), added subsec. (e).

Short Title

This section is popularly known as the “Wire Act”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 234 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983). · cites it 18× “§ 1955 and 18 U.S.C. § 1084 (a). There were also aiding and abetting charges, 18 U.”

United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 7× “After a wide-ranging investigation by federal and state law enforcement of SOS and its employees and agents, and a lengthy trial, a jury convicted both Lyons and Eremian on two counts under the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 , two counts under RICO, 18 U.”

Lesly Cohen v. United States, 378 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1967). · cites it 10× “Appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging knowing utilization of interstate telephone facilities for the transmission of wagers and wagering information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1084 (a) (1964). 1 The first count alleged that during the period September…”

In Re Mastercard Int'l Inc., Internet Gambling Litig., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468 (E.D. La. 2001). · cites it 7× “The Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 3. Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C.”

NH Lottery Comm'n v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2021). · cites it 5× “, Applicability of the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 , to Non-Sports Gambling (2019) ("January 2019 Memo").”

N.H. Lottery Comm'n v. Barr, 386 F. Supp. 3d 132 (D.N.H. 2019). · cites it 13× “18 U.S.C. § 1084 (a). Section 1084(a) consists of two clauses.”

United States v. George Atiyeh United States of Am. v. George Atiyeh, 402 F.3d 354 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 6× “§ 371 , 1 to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1084 2 by using wire communication facilities in foreign commerce to transmit information concerning bets and wagers on sporting events, and to violate 18 U.”

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] 18 U. S. C. § 1084 . That statute provides in pertinent part: "(a) Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information…”

United States v. Frank Scavo, 593 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1979). · cites it 5× “Frank Scavo appeals from his conviction of being engaged in the business of betting or wagering and knowingly using wire communication facilities for the transmission in interstate commerce of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §…”

Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018). “§1953 , which criminalizes the interstate transmission of wager ing paraphernalia, and 18 U. S. C. §1084 , which outlaws the interstate transmission of information that assists in the placing of a bet on a sporting event, apply only if the underlying gambling is illegal under…”

Wong v. PartyGaming Ltd., 589 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “[3] See 18 U.S.C. § 1084 (2000) (unlawful to "use a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate and foreign commerce of bets and wagers on sporting events and contests, and for the transmission of a wire communication which entitled the recipient to receive…”

Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of New Jersey, 730 F.3d 208 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “89 communications to or from a place where such bets are illegal, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 , and proscribed interstate transportation of means for carrying out sports lotteries, 18 U.”

Show all 234 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a) — 4 cases

United States v. Charles E. Sellers, Jr., 483 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1973).

United States v. Jeremiah J. Kelley, 395 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1968).

New Hampshire Lottery Comm'n, et al. Consol. Case No. v. William Barr, in his Off. capacity as Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., et al., 2019 DNH 091P (D.N.H. 2019).

Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2012).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1084(b) — 1 case

New Hampshire Lottery Comm'n, et al. Consol. Case No. v. William Barr, in his Off. capacity as Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., et al., 2019 DNH 091P (D.N.H. 2019).

— 18 U.S.C. § 1084(d) — 2 cases

Tel. News Sys., Inc. v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 210 F. Supp. 471 (N.D. Ill. 1962).

New Hampshire Lottery Comm'n, et al. Consol. Case No. v. William Barr, in his Off. capacity as Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., et al., 2019 DNH 091P (D.N.H. 2019).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.