We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Mickelson and Gambling

HBirdman80 said:
The charge is money laundering. Silveira was charged with executing three wire transfers with knowledge that the funds were the 'proceeds' of illegal betting activities. The term 'proceeds' does not mean winnings, it could be what is leftover from an account after losses are removed...it's legal term that does not match with what we normally consider 'proceeds'.

Silveria must have cooperated or been unwilling to fight because the case was filed May 6 and a plea agreement was entered the same day, though later stricken because the government said they filed the wrong version of the agreement (apparently because it included a 'personal identifier' which could be a social security number or something similar).

The plea is not clear, but the way it reads suggests that the $2.75mm was an incoming transfer from, presumably, Phil, and was not the winnings from gambling.

The fact a plea agreement was ready to be filed the same date as the information was filed, combined with the vagueness of the information and plea, makes me wonder if there isn't another shoe to drop (whether on Phil or someone else).

If anyone has access, the case is 15-cr-00036-VAP in the Central District of California.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the personal identifier was "P.M." in the plea agreement.
 
McRock said:
Is it anywhere other than PACER? I never remember my PACER login.

~Rock
Click to expand...

Not that I know of...I used PACER. I'm sure someone will put the information online elsewhere now that it is a famous case. Nothing on the face of the case indicates it is anything more than an IRS sting.
 
bigskyirish said:
I'm pretty sure the personal identifier was "P.M." in the plea agreement.
Click to expand...

Could have been, though I would have expected something like "Client 1" or "John Doe 1".
 
You guys should really listen/watch the video in the link that have questions about why he's not being charged. It will answer your questions.
 
McRock said:
Is it anywhere other than PACER? I never remember my PACER login.

~Rock
Click to expand...

I looked it up on PACER and there's hardly anything in the docket. He was charged by information with 3 separate counts of money laundering based on the three transactions and, like HBirdman80 said, entered a plea agreement the same day. Since the deal was worked out ahead of time, its impossible to say whether the USAO agreed to forego filing other charges or whether they charged everything and just agreed to something else like a favorable sentencing recommendation.

Who knows whether the facts support it and I'm not a criminal lawyer, but it still seems to me that Phil could theoretically be charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting if he was complicit in the transfers. But I could easily be wrong and based on the ESPN article, it doesn't sound like they're pursuing him anyway.
 
I watched the video. Interesting to say the least. I'm no federal white collar crime defense attorney, but from what I understand of the process, the feds sort of 'announce' themselves at some point in the investigation, and its in your best interest (if you are guilty) to work out a plea deal before the charges are ever filed.

~Rock
 
Nate said:
You guys should really listen/watch the video in the link that have questions about why he's not being charged. It will answer your questions.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just being dense, but that video doesn't really help me. I think Lester Munson is right that Mickelson couldn't be charged under the Illegal Gambling Business Act, 18 U.S.C. 1955, which is aimed at organized crime and applies only to someone who "conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business." The general money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. 1956, is not gambling specific though and subsection (h) specifically imposes liability for conspiring to launder money even if the defendant didn't actually conduct the transaction. Again though, I'm no criminal lawyer and I'm certainly not a consultant for a major network. If anyone actually knows this stuff, I'm genuinely curious.
 
In the end, and this is just speculation, Mickelson will come through unscathed, because I'm fairly certain he has incredibly good lawyers who were probably on top of this before this story even came out.

~Rock
 
McRock said:
I watched the video. Interesting to say the least. I'm no federal white collar crime defense attorney, but from what I understand of the process, the feds sort of 'announce' themselves at some point in the investigation, and its in your best interest (if you are guilty) to work out a plea deal before the charges are ever filed.

~Rock
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been there with a client when the feds 'announce' themselves, and it's a pretty awful feeling when an unknown person appears and says "I'm the Assistant United States Attorney for the ______ District of ______" because you know you're screwed.

As for Michelson, the interplay between state and federal gaming law is complicated (for instance, under federal law, sports betting is illegal, except when it is not illegal due to a state having done certain things during certain periods of time). But, generally, sports betting is prohibited for those who "sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote." That leaves out "engage in."

So the issue is whether Michelson engaged in illegal activity in California. I suspect CA prohibits sports betting. However, a weird feature of this case is the timing -- the transfers were made in February 2010, so over five years ago (the feds then allege it continued until at least 2013 without alleging any other specific transactions, which is odd and another reason it seems there is more to come). The CA limitations period probably passed...it would only not have passed if betting on sports is a felony punishable by 8 or more years in prison or death (or is embezzlement of public funds). So PM could be off the hook even if CA decides to investigate.
 
bigskyirish said:
Maybe I'm just being dense, but that video doesn't really help me. I think Lester Munson is right that Mickelson couldn't be charged under the Illegal Gambling Business Act, 18 U.S.C. 1955, which is aimed at organized crime and applies only to someone who "conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business." The general money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. 1956, is not gambling specific though and subsection (h) specifically imposes liability for conspiring to launder money even if the defendant didn't actually conduct the transaction. Again though, I'm no criminal lawyer and I'm certainly not a consultant for a major network. If anyone actually knows this stuff, I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

It's complicated, but you're right that Lester Munson's analysis is too simplistic and there are possible ways PM could be charged.

And who knows, what if it turns out this amount of money from PM wasn't all for bets, but was actually helping to fund the gambling ring? The way the money was laundered (transfer in whole from one account to another) was a pretty shoddy laundering attempt.
 
Tadashi70 said:
Sounds like Phil will not be charged since he was the better. Funny how he is connected to these unsavory people.
Click to expand...

I agree. Sounds like no charges for him. I love Phil, but he should make better choices on who he hangs around with I would say. He makes $50+ million a year. Why put all of that on the line by hanging out with bad people.
 
Ron S said:
He should be banned from the Hall of Fame, or they need to finally let Pete Rose into Cooperstown
Click to expand...

Banned from the HOF for what reason? His activities and what Pete did are apples and oranges. BTW....I think Pete has done his time and should get in.
 
None of these guys are saints. Over the years, I've become less concerned with what athletes do "off the clock" because of the media environment we live in. Some of the athletes who were considered, "The face of the sport", up until the digital age, weren't actually what the media at the time made them out to be. Can you imagine if the Yankees of the 1960's played today? Mantle, Ford and Martin would be on the homepage of TMZ everyday and ESPN would be calling for them to be kicked out of the league. Barkley said it best when he said, "I'm not a role model", because he's right. These are humans, just like you and I. The difference is that they have the financial resources to act on all of the impulses you and I have, but can't afford....or if we did we would have some serious explaining to do.

I'm sure if Phil broke the law, they'd nail him on it, or at least some ambitious writer would continue to dig and eventually find the truth. Either way, Phil gambles, everyone knows it and life goes on.
 
As it stands, it doesn't appear Phil will be charged with any crime. What if it is later revealed that he indeed bet on professional golf? How would that affect his stature, standing in the game and legacy?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 
adamw238 said:
None of these guys are saints. Over the years, I've become less concerned with what athletes do "off the clock" because of the media environment we live in. Some of the athletes who were considered, "The face of the sport", up until the digital age, weren't actually what the media at the time made them out to be. Can you imagine if the Yankees of the 1960's played today? Mantle, Ford and Martin would be on the homepage of TMZ everyday and ESPN would be calling for them to be kicked out of the league. Barkley said it best when he said, "I'm not a role model", because he's right. These are humans, just like you and I. The difference is that they have the financial resources to act on all of the impulses you and I have, but can't afford....or if we did we would have some serious explaining to do.

I'm sure if Phil broke the law, they'd nail him on it, or at least some ambitious writer would continue to dig and eventually find the truth. Either way, Phil gambles, everyone knows it and life goes on.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
Hawk said:
He does seem to pop up in some odd conversations when you look at his TV image. He better watch out. He's managed to keep a pretty clean legacy thus far. Would be a shame to ruin it.
Click to expand...

I read the last sentence in the voice that you'd hear someone use in a bad mob movie collecting on a debt. Which, I guess, works here.
 
Ron S said:
He should be banned from the Hall of Fame, or they need to finally let Pete Rose into Cooperstown
Click to expand...

did you ever think that pro golfers bet on themselves every time they tee it up? that is what they do for a living!
 
My new fav PM photo

CItWzi-WEAE0As4.jpg:large
 
fupresti said:
I would have a hard time giving a pass to any PGA player betting on golf, even if it's technically legal.
Click to expand...

mikedean441 said:
Luckily its illegal so all of the "what ifs" can be tossed out
Click to expand...
i think its a fairly common practice at the Open Championship for players to place bets on themselves during the week and in some cases on others.
 
All aboard the Puritan Train. Tickets, please.
 
I'm thinking Phil should never have complained about the level of income taxation. After all this time and the previous allegations about insider trading, think maybe he's been targeted because he's rich and complained about taxes. I'm not sure why off shore gambling is such a big deal. Until some of the east coast states opened casinos, many beach resorts had boats that would open their casinos when it hit international waters, But again, Phil apparently lost and the IRS could not tax the gambling organization. Lately, with casinos and weed legalization. new tax sources are being created. What's the next tax source, hopefully Phil is not involved?
W
 
HoosierGolfer said:
Banned from the HOF for what reason? His activities and what Pete did are apples and oranges. BTW....I think Pete has done his time and should get in.
Click to expand...
He agreed to a lifetime ban for betting as a manager then continued to lie about betting when he was a player. A) 25 years does not equal lifetime, therefore he has not served his time. B) he still hasn't been punished for the betting when he was a player.
 
Hawk said:
Well Pete bet on his own team that he managed. Slightly different situation.
Click to expand...

And it came out last week, he also bet on/against his team while he was a player as well. (at least allegedly).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top