Can Gambling Prosecutions for Profit be Just?

Now comes the word that the alleged organizer of an illegal gambling ring settled civil claims by agreeing to let Indiana law enforcement keep $2 million in cash and half the properties they had seized.

The announcement last week that PartyGaming had paid $105 million to the US Attorney's Office to halt investigation for illegal online gambling raised some rumbles among civil libertarians. Now comes the word that the alleged organizer of an illegal gambling ring settled civil claims by agreeing to let Indiana law enforcement keep $2 million in cash and half the properties they had seized.

John Neal will retain his home, eight vehicles, a motor home, and ten area bars. He relinquished title to the cash, along with eleven other bars and ten more vehicles.

The Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission gets 35 percent of all funds from the Neal seizure. County prosecutors' offices will receive another 35 percent. The remaining 30 percent, about $625,00 in cash plus a part of all proceeds from property sales, goes to private attorney J. Gregory Garrison, who represented the government.

Last fall's Kentucky online casino domain name case also featured a deal between government officials and private attorneys to pay legal fees on a contingency basis from fines paid by Internet gambling sites. In that case, so far, the tactic backfired, as online casinos won the appeal and no money was forfeited.

The policy of settling cases for cash under threat of prosecution has been compared to extortion. And bringing the motive of profit-seeking into hearings that supposedly seek a fair and just result seemingly taints the objectivity of prosecutors and attorneys.

Neal is charged with installing so-called Cherry Machines in his bars. Cherry Machines resemble slots, and usually carry a disclaimer declaring play is for amusement purposes only. But bar owners nationwide have been known to operate them on a payout basis.