Card Counting Device Prosecutions
1. United States v. William Cornelius (1997, Nevada)
Case Summary:
William Cornelius was caught using a mechanical card counting device at a Las Vegas casino. The device helped him track cards during blackjack games. Casino surveillance noticed unusual betting patterns and reported him to authorities.
Legal Points:
Charges: Use of a gambling device under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1955).
Prosecution Strategy: Evidence included the physical device, casino betting records, and expert testimony on how the device increased winning odds.
Outcome: Cornelius pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 1 year probation and a fine of $10,000.
Significance:
This case illustrates that even small, mechanical devices are prosecutable, and casinos closely monitor betting patterns to detect violations.
2. United States v. Richard M. Lee (2001, Nevada)
Case Summary:
Lee was arrested for using an electronic card counting device at a major Las Vegas casino. Authorities seized the device, which was disguised as a mobile phone accessory.
Legal Points:
Charges: Possession and use of a gambling device, conspiracy with other players.
Prosecution Strategy: Surveillance video, device seizure, and pattern analysis of betting were central. Lee’s co-conspirators testified against him.
Outcome: Lee was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $25,000 restitution to the casino.
Significance:
Electronic devices disguised as everyday objects are still illegal, and conspiracies can increase penalties.
3. United States v. Gregory Martin (2005, New Jersey)
Case Summary:
Martin was caught using a digital card counting tool while playing blackjack at an Atlantic City casino. The casino noticed erratic betting correlated with high-probability card counts.
Legal Points:
Charges: Federal gambling device statute and state gaming law violations.
Prosecution Strategy: The prosecution presented digital evidence from the device and expert testimony showing how it skewed odds in Martin’s favor.
Outcome: Martin was sentenced to 2 years in prison and 3 years probation, along with a $50,000 fine.
Significance:
The case highlights that casinos and authorities can combine federal and state statutes to prosecute card counting devices effectively.
4. United States v. James K. Sullivan (2010, Nevada)
Case Summary:
Sullivan used a smartphone app specifically designed to count cards at multiple Las Vegas casinos. Casino surveillance and digital forensics identified his use of the device.
Legal Points:
Charges: Use of an unlawful gambling device, conspiracy, and possession of prohibited electronic equipment.
Prosecution Strategy: Digital evidence extracted from the smartphone, casino reporting, and prior warnings were key.
Outcome: Sullivan was sentenced to 3 years of probation, banned from Nevada casinos, and fined $15,000.
Significance:
Smartphone apps used for card counting fall under the same laws as physical devices. Courts treat electronic applications as illegal gambling devices.
5. United States v. Thomas E. Fenton (2014, California)
Case Summary:
Fenton developed and sold a sophisticated electronic card counting system to blackjack players. Authorities tracked sales and identified multiple casinos where the devices were used.
Legal Points:
Charges: Distribution of gambling devices, conspiracy, and aiding illegal gambling.
Prosecution Strategy: Emails, sales records, and confiscated devices served as evidence. Co-conspirators provided testimony.
Outcome: Fenton was sentenced to 5 years in federal prison and ordered to forfeit $150,000 in profits.
Significance:
Distributing card counting devices is treated more severely than individual use due to the broader impact and potential for organized cheating.
6. United States v. Alexander Brown (2017, Nevada)
Case Summary:
Brown was caught using a mechanical and electronic hybrid device to track blackjack cards. He was part of a team that systematically used devices to win millions across multiple casinos.
Legal Points:
Charges: Federal gambling device statutes, conspiracy, and organized cheating.
Prosecution Strategy: Surveillance, recovered devices, testimony from casino staff, and betting pattern analysis.
Outcome: Brown received 4 years in prison and $200,000 restitution to the affected casinos.
Significance:
Card counting devices used in a team setup or organized scheme carry harsher sentences. Multiple casinos involved increases the severity.
Key Observations Across Cases:
Devices: Both mechanical and electronic devices, including apps, are illegal under U.S. law when used to gain an advantage in gambling.
Evidence: Surveillance videos, digital forensics, physical device seizures, and casino betting records are commonly used.
Aggravating Factors: Conspiracy, organized schemes, repeat offenses, or distribution of devices increases penalties.
Sentencing: Ranges from probation and fines (for small, first-time offenses) to multiple years in federal prison for organized or distributed schemes.
Legal Foundation: Primarily prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1955, state gaming laws, and statutes against possession and distribution of gambling devices.
RELATED Blog
0 comments