United States v. Corrar
2007 WL 196862, 512 F. Supp.2d 1280, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4786 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction under the Travel Act requires the government to prove that the underlying unlawful state activity alleged in the indictment actually occurred within that state. In contrast, the Wire Act's prohibition on being "engaged in the business of betting or wagering" broadly applies to anyone who regularly participates in a gambling enterprise for profit, including agents who promote the business and provide necessary information, not just those who personally accept wagers.
Facts:
- Danny Corrar, a resident of New York, was an agent for PlayWithAl.com (PWA), an online sports book.
- Corrar set up Larry Parker, a Georgia bar manager, as a PWA agent, providing him with ten account numbers to distribute to customers.
- Parker's friends used these account numbers to place bets directly with PWA via phone or website, not through Parker.
- By summer 2002, Parker's friends had lost money, leaving Parker indebted to PWA for at least $20,000.
- Parker began cooperating with the FBI, wiretapping his phone conversations with Corrar.
- In November 2002, Corrar traveled from New York to Georgia to confront Parker at his workplace and attempt to collect the debt.
- In June 2003, Corrar traveled to Georgia again with an associate, Mikey Glorioso, to meet Parker and collect the debt, at which point they were arrested in an FBI sting operation.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government filed an indictment against Danny Corrar and others in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- A jury trial was held.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Corrar of violating the Travel Act and the Wire Act.
- Following the conviction, Corrar filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal with the trial court, asking the judge to overturn the jury's verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agent for an online sports book violate the Travel Act by traveling interstate to collect a gambling debt when the indictment alleges an underlying violation of Georgia's commercial gambling statute, but the evidence fails to show that the debtor committed any acts in Georgia that violated that specific statute? Furthermore, does that same agent violate the Wire Act by using a telephone to provide account numbers to bettors, even if he does not personally accept their wagers?
Opinions:
Majority - Carnes, J.
No as to the Travel Act; Yes as to the Wire Act. A conviction under the Travel Act cannot be sustained where the government fails to prove the underlying state-law crime it specifically alleged in the indictment. However, an individual who promotes and facilitates an online gambling operation by recruiting bettors and providing them with account numbers over the phone is 'engaged in the business of betting or wagering' and transmits 'information assisting in the placing of bets' in violation of the Wire Act. Regarding the Travel Act, the indictment specified a violation of Georgia’s commercial gambling statute as the 'unlawful activity'. The evidence showed Parker did not 'receive, record, or forward a bet' in Georgia. The court also found Parker did not 'participate in the earnings of a gambling place' because, despite being entitled to a share, he never intended to collect or receive any money from his friends' losses. Since no underlying violation of the specified Georgia law occurred in Georgia, the Travel Act conviction fails. The government cannot charge a violation of one state's law and then argue the illegal activity happened in another state. Regarding the Wire Act, the court rejected Corrar's argument that he was not 'engaged in the business of betting' because he didn't personally accept bets. The court reasoned that a business involves many roles, not just a single function, comparing it to the movie business where actors and directors are involved, not just camera operators. Corrar's activities of managing and promoting PWA on a regular basis for profit fit within the statute's scope. Furthermore, providing Parker with account numbers constituted 'information assisting in the placing of bets,' as those numbers were required to gamble with PWA.
Analysis:
This case highlights the critical importance of prosecutorial precision in charging documents, especially for statutes like the Travel Act that depend on an underlying state crime. It establishes that the government is bound by the specific state law violation it alleges and must prove that crime occurred in the specified jurisdiction. Conversely, the opinion provides a broad interpretation of the Wire Act, adapting its application to the realities of online gambling. By rejecting a narrow 'bookie-only' definition, the court confirmed that various roles within a modern gambling enterprise, such as agents and promoters, fall under the Act's purview, thus expanding its reach in the digital age.
