Indian court deems online poker illegal
Calls to have poker defined as a game of skill are dismissed, while wagering money on skill games is also deemed illegal where a rake is taken.
A court in the Indian city of Delhi has ruled that egaming sites offering poker and skill games with a house rake are forbidden in the Asian country.
The ruling follows a proposal from a New Delhi-based company to launch a site offering texas hold’em poker, rummy, bridge, chess snooker and billiards, with games taking place between two or more players rather than against the house.
In court documents seen by eGaming Review these games are all defined as having “A preponderance of skill over chance,” however the proposed commission of less than 5% on the winning hand has been ruled to fall foul of the country’s legislation.
Among the questions posed before the court is that of “Whether wagering or betting on games of skill makes the activity ‘gambling'”.
Seeking to justify the definition of poker as a game of skill, the counsel for the petitioner cited the acceptance of the game as a mind sport, as well as last year’s paper from Freakonomics author Steven D Levitt on the role of skill against luck in poker.
It also cites the recent New York court ruling which defined poker as “not gambling under IGBA”, although it accepts that “Many states in the US and other places seek to prosecute people playing poker.”
However the court found that poker would only be legal in states where it has specifically been “excluded from the ambit of gambling”, such as West Bengal.
It also notes, in relation to all skill games, that “When a service provider partakes a slice of the winning component, it is no better than a gaming house which are illegal,” and has ruled that such games are similarly illegal in those jurisdictions which prohibit gambling when the house takes a cut. However a game of skill between players, where a rake is not taken, is not classed as gambling.
As a consequence of the ruling, banks have been given the green light to refuse to provide their normal services to any website offering such games, while directors of such companies are liable to any relevant penal consequences.
Among the main reasons for the court ruling is the lack of checks and balances to ensure the egaming industry is run responsibly. The court does accept that “online gaming is replacing the bricks and mortar casinos” but warns that “There is little mechanism to check the transfer of money through international routes.”