Point Shaving Prosecutions Under Federal Law
1. ✅ What is Point Shaving?
Point shaving refers to the illegal manipulation of the final score in a sporting event — particularly in college basketball or football — without necessarily losing the game, but adjusting play to affect the point spread for gambling purposes.
This is often done by players conspiring with gamblers to intentionally perform poorly in certain moments to ensure the final score falls within a desired range that benefits the bettor.
2. ⚖️ Relevant Federal Laws for Prosecution
Point shaving is prosecuted under several federal statutes, including:
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1955 – Illegal Gambling Businesses
18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968 – RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Sports Bribery Act (18 U.S.C. § 224) – Directly criminalizes bribery in sports contests
3. 📚 Notable Federal Cases Involving Point Shaving
Case 1: United States v. Riegert, 1996 (Iowa State Basketball Case)
Facts:
A player from Iowa State University was bribed by gamblers to influence the point spread in multiple NCAA games. The gamblers placed large bets accordingly.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit sports bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 371
Sports Bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 224
Holding:
The player and gambler were convicted. The court emphasized that manipulating gameplay to affect betting outcomes constituted a federal crime even if the game outcome wasn’t changed.
Significance:
Demonstrated the application of § 224 to college sports and gambling conspiracies.
Case 2: United States v. Molinas, 1963 (CCNY Basketball Scandal)
Facts:
Jack Molinas, a former NBA player, orchestrated a widespread point-shaving scheme involving over 30 college basketball players across the country in the 1950s.
Charges:
Conspiracy
Wire fraud
Sports bribery
Holding:
Molinas was convicted and sentenced to federal prison.
Significance:
One of the earliest and most significant point-shaving cases; established federal jurisdiction in point-shaving matters where interstate betting or wire transfers were used.
Case 3: United States v. Burke, 1985 (Tulane University Basketball)
Facts:
Players at Tulane University were bribed to shave points in exchange for money and drugs. After exposure, the university shut down its basketball program temporarily.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit sports bribery
Drug-related offenses
Holding:
Several individuals, including players, were prosecuted. Some took plea deals while others were convicted.
Significance:
Highlighted the intersection between sports bribery and narcotics crimes, broadening the prosecutorial scope.
Case 4: United States v. Martinez, 1999 (Arizona State Basketball)
Facts:
Two Arizona State basketball players were bribed to shave points during the 1994 season. Gamblers made large profits by betting accordingly.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit sports bribery
Wire fraud
Illegal gambling
Holding:
Both players and gamblers were prosecuted and received prison sentences.
Significance:
Reinforced that betting networks across states created federal jurisdiction under wire fraud and gambling statutes.
Case 5: United States v. Joseph Nardone, Jr., 1961 (NYC College Basketball Scandal)
Facts:
Nardone was a key figure in a point-shaving ring involving multiple universities including NYU and Long Island University.
Charges:
Wire fraud
Conspiracy
Sports bribery
Holding:
Nardone was convicted, and the case brought public attention to the influence of organized crime in college sports.
Significance:
Helped justify future uses of RICO statutes in sports corruption prosecutions.
Case 6: United States v. Benny Silman, 1999 (Fixing Arizona State Games)
Facts:
Benny Silman, a student and gambler, paid Arizona State players to manipulate outcomes of basketball games.
Charges:
Conspiracy
Sports bribery
Illegal gambling
Holding:
Silman pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 46 months in prison.
Significance:
Frequently cited case in modern sports integrity discussions; demonstrates how students—not just external actors—can orchestrate complex betting schemes.
4. 📌 Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Outcome / Significance |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Riegert | Player bribed to alter point spread | Conviction under Sports Bribery statute |
| U.S. v. Molinas | Multi-state point shaving conspiracy | Early landmark case confirming federal oversight |
| U.S. v. Burke | Players bribed with money and drugs | Program shut down; broader criminal implications |
| U.S. v. Martinez | Point shaving for profit via large bets | Wire fraud and conspiracy convictions |
| U.S. v. Nardone | Mafia involvement in college basketball | Helped lead to RICO’s future role in sports corruption |
| U.S. v. Silman | Student-led betting scheme with players | Conviction; warned of campus-based sports corruption |
5. 🔍 Key Legal Takeaways
Federal jurisdiction exists when betting involves interstate commerce, use of communication networks, or criminal conspiracy.
Even if the outcome of the game is not changed, altering performance to affect the point spread is criminal.
Wire fraud is commonly used when electronic or phone communications are used to facilitate bets or coordinate schemes.
The Sports Bribery Act (18 U.S.C. § 224) directly applies to point shaving and is commonly paired with conspiracy charges.
6. 🏁 Conclusion
Point shaving remains a serious federal crime, especially when tied to organized gambling or interstate activities. U.S. courts have consistently upheld convictions in cases where athletes, students, or organized crime figures manipulate athletic contests for financial gain. Federal prosecutors often rely on sports bribery, conspiracy, and fraud statutes to pursue justice in these cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments