Opinion ID: 627803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Gambling Statute

Text: 24 The defendant property is also forfeitable under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955. 3 Section 1955(d) provides that [a]ny property, including money, used in violation of the provisions of this section may be seized and forfeited to the United States. This provision also defines the specific elements necessary to support a gambling forfeiture: 25 (1) The illegal gambling business must be a violation of the law of a state or political subdivision in which it is conducted; 26 (2) The illegal gambling business involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or own all or part of such business; and 27 (3) The illegal gambling business has been or remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day. 28 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955(b). Claimant contends that the District Court erred in finding probable cause to believe that five or more persons were involved in conducting an illegal gambling operation out of the defendant property. 29 During the execution of the 1991 search warrant, local law enforcement officials encountered John Weir who was on the telephone in claimant's den taking bets. Weir admitted to officers that he took wagers for claimant at defendant property. Joint App. at 133. The officers also seized numerous illegal gambling documents and video-equipment from claimant's residence. Thus, John Weir and claimant Floyd Varney were clearly involved in a gambling operation being run at the defendant property. In addition to the documents and equipment seized, police officers also seized an audio cassette tape which implicates at least three other people in the gambling operation. 4 Specifically, the tape indicated that a Mr. Mark Sabo took numerous wagers from claimant and John Weir and that Tiger and his wife took bets for the claimant. The government also presented evidence that an individual named Steve secured bets for claimant's gambling business and collected money from bettors on behalf of claimant, and that an individual named George took numerous bets for claimant, collected money from other people and funneled that gambling money to claimant. 30 After listening to the cassette tape, as well as the testimony regarding the gambling documents and equipment seized from claimant's home, the District Court found probable cause existed to believe all of the elements of section 1955 were present. Despite claimant's contention that the voices on the cassette tape are inaudible, garbled and confusing, the District Court stated: 31 I find on the record that there is illegal gambling on the premises. That tape, as I hear your [claimant's] argument, can't be the same one I listened to. I had no problem hearing the tape when I really concentrated. And it's clear from the tape that there are more than five persons involved in illegal, ongoing gambling. I learned a great deal about horse racing, football betting, spreads, and all kinds of interesting things on that tape. If you heard the one I did, [claimant's] counsel, I don't believe you'd have to struggle too long with whether they were addressing the fact of gambling and whether or not there were five or more persons involved in this. 32 Joint App. at 397. The court also found that the gambling documents seized from the defendant property demonstrated that the illegal gambling activity went on for more than 30 days. Joint App. at 398. Upon review of the record and after listening to the tape, we find that the District Court did not err in finding probable cause to forfeit claimant's residence under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1955. As claimant has presented no evidence to refute or rebut the conversations on the audio tape, 5 the judgment of forfeiture was properly entered.