31 U.S.C. § 5361

Congressional findings and purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Findings.—Congress finds the following:(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.(2) The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent such sites.(3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry.(4) New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or national borders.(b)Rule of Construction.—No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.(Added Pub. L. 109–347, title VIII, § 802(a), Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1952.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesInternet Gambling In or Through Foreign Jurisdictions

Pub. L. 109–347, title VIII, § 803, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1962, provided that:“(a)In General.—In deliberations between the United States Government and any foreign country on money laundering, corruption, and crime issues, the United States Government should—“(1) encourage cooperation by foreign governments and relevant international fora in identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering, corruption, or other crimes;“(2) advance policies that promote the cooperation of foreign governments, through information sharing or other measures, in the enforcement of this Act [probably means title VIII of Pub. L. 109–347, which enacted this subchapter, see Short Title of 2006 Amendment note set out under section 5301 of this title]; and“(3) encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, in its annual report on money laundering typologies, to study the extent to which Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering purposes.“(b)Report Required.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an annual report to the Congress on any deliberations between the United States and other countries on issues relating to Internet gambling.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59 (2d Cir. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59 (2d Cir. 2022). “As outlined in the FAC, MLB DFS, like other fantasy sports competitions offered by DraftKings, are defined as “games of skill,” which are exempt from federal prohibitions on illegal gambling, pursuant to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”), 31 U.S.C. § 5361…”

State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, 898 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “, permit an Indian tribe to offer online gaming to patrons located off Indian lands in jurisdictions where gambling is illegal? Because we conclude that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5361 , et seq., bars the activity at issue in this case, we affirm…”

Interactive Media Ent. & Gaming Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 580 F.3d 113 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Congress enacted the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, 31 U.S.C. § 5361 et seq. (the “Act”), because “traditional law enforcement mechanisms' are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the Internet, especially where such gambling…”

NH Lottery Comm'n v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2021). “The states pointed out that their proposals had been designed to comport with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ("UIGEA"), 31 U.S.C. §§ 5361 - 5367, and argued that the Wire Act did not bar their proposed systems because section 1084(a) was limited to sports-related…”

United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “31 U.S.C. § 5361 (b). . Lyons and Eremian claim that the directory was admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)(B) but in fact the district court’s references to United States v.”

Red Earth LLC v. United States, 728 F. Supp. 2d 238 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). “That statute incorporated federal, state and tribal laws relating to the legality of gambling, and made it a crime for any person to engage in the business of gambling with another person via the Internet where “such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State…”

Lawson v. Full Tilt Poker Ltd., 930 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “” See 31 U.S.C. § 5361 . In light of UIGEA, certain U.”

Steven Wodka v. Causeway Capital Mgmt., 433 F. App'x 563 (9th Cir. 2011). “Rather, Wodka’s losses were directly caused by a series of intervening actions undertaken by independent, third party actors during the summer and fall of 2006, including the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, 31 U.S.C. § 5361 et seq., several law…”

California Attorney Gen. Opinion 23-1001 (Cal. Att'y Gen. 2025). · cites it 3× “63 See 31 U.S.C. § 5361 et seq. 64 State of California v.”

Kalshiex LLC v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n (D.D.C. 2024). · cites it 2× “00 (2) (“A person engages in gambling when he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a 10 Enforcement Act (UIGEA), 31 U.S.C. § 5361 et seq., which defines the term “bet or wager” as “the staking or risking by any person of something of…”

NH Lottery Comm'n v. Rosen (1st Cir. 2021). “The states pointed out that their proposals had been designed to comport with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ("UIGEA"), 31 U.S.C. §§ 5361 - 5367, and argued that the Wire Act did not bar their proposed systems because section 1084(a) was limited to sports-related…”

United States v. Lyons (1st Cir. 2014). “31 U.S.C. § 5361 (b). -18- 3. Mens Rea and the Wire Act Lyons and Eremian also argue that the government did not prove they had the necessary mens rea to violate the Wire Act.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.