United States v. Aiello: EDNY’s Illegal Poker Indictment
Case No. 1:25-cr-00314-JMA-CHK (E.D.N.Y.) | Filed October 9, 2025
The Indictment’s Deficiencies: What the Government Isn’t Telling You
The recently unsealed 31-defendant indictment in the Eastern District of New York has generated significant media attention for its allegations of a technologically sophisticated poker cheating scheme with purported La Cosa Nostra connections. But a review of the Indictment which is decidedly bare-bones for a case of this size, reveals significant vulnerabilities that merit immediate exploitation. his analysis focuses on the indictment's structural and substantive deficiencies, the remarkable lack of particularized allegations, and the prosecution’s apparent reliance on guilt-by-association theories that should trouble anyone committed to individualized justice.
Threshold Observation: An Indictment Built on Narrative, Not Specificity
The 17-page indictment provides elaborate descriptions of the alleged “Rigged Poker Scheme,” complete with technological details about card-reading shuffling machines, wireless communication systems, and specially designed contact lenses, it systematically fails to connect individual defendants to specific criminal acts with the particularity required for adequate notice and defense preparation. Consider what the indictment conspicuously lacks:
1. No Identification of Specific Communications
Despite charging a six-year conspiracy involving 31 defendants, the indictment fails to identify a single specific communication by date, sender, recipient, or content. Not one text message. Not one phone call. Not one email. The government alleges that defendants “used threats and intimidation" and that information was "communicated by cellular telephone," yet provides zero particulars about when these communications occurred, who sent them, what they said, or which defendants were involved.
2. No Timeline of Individual Defendant Conduct
While the indictment provides timeframes for the overall conspiracy and specific victim incidents, it fails to establish when individual defendants joined, what specific actions they took, or when their participation began and ended. The government employs formulaic language throughout, making it impossible to discern from the indictment itself which defendant allegedly did what and when.
3. Vague Organized Crime Allegations
The indictment prominently features allegations that various defendants are "members" or "associates" of the Bonanno, Gambino, Genovese, and Lucchese crime families. Yet nowhere does the government explain:
The factual basis for these designations
What "associate” means in this context
Whether any defendants are formally "made" members
What specific acts any organized crime family member committed
How the alleged family affiliations relate to the charged offenses
These allegations appear calculated to prejudice defendants and justify pretrial detention, yet they are not elements of any charged offense. The indictment’s organizational crime narrative serves purely inflammatory purposes without prosecutorial necessity.
5. Technology Allegations Lack Foundation
The indictment’s description of the alleged cheating technology is both detailed and vague. We learn about:
"Rigged Shuffling Machines" with "concealed technology to read the cards in the deck"
Card information transmitted to an "Operator" who communicated via "cellular telephone" to a "Quarterback" or "Driver"
"Electronic poker chip trays," "card analyzers," and "marked cards visible only to individuals wearing specially designed contact lenses or sunglasses"
Yet the indictment provides no information about:
The make or model of any device
When or where devices were used
How the government discovered these devices, and,
Whether the government has physical possession of any devices
6. Money Laundering Conspiracy Lacks Specified Transactions
Count Four charges all defendants with money laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), with the predicate acts being 1957 (spending count) and 1956 (concealment count). The indictment fails to identify:
Any specific financial transaction by date or amount
Which financial institutions were involved
Which defendants received laundered proceeds
What entities were used for laundering
Any specific cryptocurrency transactions
What made these transactions criminal rather than ordinary financial activity
Paragraph 54(a) of Count Four alleges conduct of "one or more financial transactions" involving proceeds of "wire fraud" and "operation of illegal gambling businesses," but this formulaic language provides little notice of what conduct the government will seek to prove at trial.
7. "Face Cards" Allegations Without Supporting Detail
The indictment alleges that "well-known former professional athletes" served as "Face Cards" to attract wealthy victims, specifically naming former NBA players Chauncey Billups and Damon Jones. The government claims they "received a portion of the criminal proceeds in exchange for their participation in the Scheme."
This allegation appears designed to generate media attention and add celebrity appeal to the prosecution. Yet the indictment provides no information about:
When Billups and Jones allegedly participated
At which games they appeared
What they allegedly knew about the cheating
How much they allegedly received
Whether they were themselves cheated or cheaters
8. Hobbs Act Charges Rest on Nothing
Counts Five, Six, and Seven charge four defendants with separate Hobbs Act conspiracies to extort or rob three different "John Does." These charges appear perfunctory, with virtually no content:
Count Five (¶¶ 55-56): Alleges that between November 2022 and February 2023, Thomas Gelardo, Zhen Hu, and Julius Ziliani "conspired to...extort" John Doe #5 using "wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear" to obtain "United States currency." The entire factual basis consists of these conclusory allegations—no specific threats, no amounts, no communications, no description of what actually occurred.
Count Six (¶¶ 57-58): Alleges that on September 7, 2023, five defendants "conspired to...robbery" of a rigged shuffling machine from John Doe #7. Again, no specifics about how this occurred, what each defendant did, or what evidence supports the allegation beyond bare conclusions.
Count Seven (¶¶ 59-60): Alleges that between September 2023 and October 2023, four defendants "conspired to...extort" John Doe #6. Identical conclusory format.
Conclusion: In sum, this Indictment is long on innuendo and short on specifics. Defendants need to present the Government for detail now!
Historical Context: 18 U.S.C. § 1955 and the Federal War on Organized Gambling
Understanding the government's charging strategy in Counts Two and Three requires examining the origins and evolution of 18 U.S.C. § 1955, the federal illegal gambling statute. This statute’s history reveals both its intended purpose and its limitations.
Legislative Genesis: The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
Section 1955 was enacted as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, a sweeping legislative package designed to give federal prosecutors new tools to combat La Cosa Nostra families that dominated American organized crime. The statute appears as Sections 801-811 of that Act, alongside § 1511 (which criminalizes political and police corruption enabling illegal gambling) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
The statute's legislative purpose was explicit and narrow: combat "syndicated gambling"—large-scale illegal gambling operations financing organized crime. Congress made specific findings that such gambling operations substantially affected interstate commerce, relying on its Commerce Clause power to federalize what had traditionally been state-level gambling prosecutions.
Congressional Intent and Scope Limitations: As the Justice Department's own manual acknowledges, "Congress did not intend to occupy the field of illegal gambling exclusively nor to relieve local law enforcement bodies of their obligations to enforce local gambling provisions. The syndicated gambling laws are directed only at those individuals who operate gambling businesses of major proportions: selection of targets for investigation and prosecution should be made on that basis.”
This limitation is critical. Section 1955 was not designed to prosecute every poker game or friendly gambling operation. It targets "major proportions"—organized crime-financed operations with substantial continuity and revenue. The five-person requirement, 30-day continuity requirement, and $2,000 daily revenue threshold were deliberately chosen to cabin federal jurisdiction to truly significant operations.
Early Case Law: Defining the Statute’s Contours
Commerce Clause Challenges
Early constitutional challenges to § 1955 consistently failed. Courts have routinely upheld § 1955 against a Commerce Clause challenge, finding that Congress had made adequate findings that illegal gambling substantially affects interstate commerce.
Decades later, when United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act as exceeding Congress's Commerce Clause power, defendants mounted renewed challenges to § 1955. These challenges also universally failed. Courts distinguished § 1955 from the statute invalidated in Lopez on three grounds:
Section 1955 regulates commercial activity (a gambling business), unlike the Gun-Free School Zones Act
Section 1955 contains jurisdictional elements (five persons, 30-day continuity, substantial revenue) that limit federal prosecution to operations likely to substantially affect interstate commerce
Congress made specific findings about illegal gambling's impact on interstate commerce
Defining "Illegal Gambling Business"
The statute’s definition of "illegal gambling business" has three essential elements, all of which must be proven:
State Law Violation: The gambling must violate "the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted"
Five-Person Requirement: The business must "involve[] five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business"
Continuity or Volume: The business must have "been or remain[] in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days" OR have "a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day"
Each element has generated substantial litigation:
State Law Predicate: Courts have consistently held that § 1955 cannot be prosecuted if the underlying state law is unconstitutional or unenforceable. The federal prosecution is entirely dependent on valid state law violations. If state gambling law contains exceptions, limitations, or defenses, those apply with full force to federal prosecutions.
Five-Person Requirement: The Eighth Circuit has held that the five persons “may include unindicted and unnamed persons as well”—but significantly, customers cannot be counted toward the five. Only persons who “conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own” the business count. This creates important defense opportunities in cases where defendants claim they were merely players or customers rather than operators.
Continuity Analysis: Courts have been “fairly generous: in assessing continuity, but divisions exist about whether the five-person and continuity requirements must coincide temporally. Some defendants successfully argued they cannot be convicted if they weren't involved during the 30-day continuity period.
Mental State: General Intent Crime
§ 1955 is a general intent crime. The government need not prove defendants knew their activity violated state law—only that they intentionally engaged in the conduct that turned out to be illegal.
This holding substantially lowers the government's burden. However, it does not eliminate knowledge requirements entirely. The government must still prove:
Defendants knew they were conducting, financing, managing, supervising, directing, or owning a gambling business
Defendants knew the general nature and scope of the operation
Defendants acted to make the business succeed
What the government need not prove is that defendants knew the specific state law their conduct violated.
Poker Prosecutions: A Troubled History
Section 1955’s application to poker has generated significant controversy and inconsistent results, particularly regarding whether poker is "gambling" under state law.
United States v. DiCristina and Its Aftermath
The most significant poker case is United States v. DiCristina, 886 F. Supp. 2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), rev’d, 726 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2013). Lawrence DiCristina operated a poker club in a warehouse on Staten Island, running No-Limit Hold'Em games twice monthly with a five percent rake.
The District Court Decision: Judge Weinstein, an iconic figure in federal criminal law, initially dismissed the § 1955 indictment, holding that poker is not covered by the statute's definition of "gambling." Judge Weinstein found that:
The statute's enumerated list of gambling activities (pool-selling, bookmaking, slot machines, roulette, dice tables, lotteries, policy, bolita, numbers games) all involve games predominantly of chance
The phrase "includes but is not limited to" should be read to cover only activities similar to the enumerated ones
Poker is predominantly a game of skill, not chance, and therefore doesn't fall within the statute's definition
The Second Circuit Reversal: On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the relevant question is not whether poker is gambling under federal law, but whether it violates state law. Since New York applies the "material element test" (which asks only whether chance is a material element of the game, not whether chance predominates), poker qualified as illegal gambling under New York law. The federal prosecution could therefore proceed.
Critically, the Second Circuit did not hold that poker is inherently “gambling” under § 1955. Rather, it held that if state law treats an activity as illegal gambling, § 1955 applies—regardless of whether the activity is predominantly skill or chance.
Significance for Current Case: DiCristina means that in New York federal prosecutions under § 1955, courts look to New York’s material element test rather than engaging in federal predominance analysis. However, this creates several defense opportunities in the present case:
New York’s social gambling exception may apply
Defendants may have reasonably believed games were legal
The statute’s requirement that defendants "conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own" the business may not be met by mere players
United States v. Scheinberg ("Black Friday")
Another landmark § 1955 prosecution involved online poker. On April 15, 2011—quickly dubbed "Black Friday"—federal prosecutors unsealed indictments against the founders of PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker/UltimateBet. United States v. Scheinberg, No. 1:10-cr-00336 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
The defendants were charged with violating § 1955, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), bank fraud, and money laundering for operating online poker sites that accepted U.S. players after passage of UIGEA. The government sought over $3 billion in forfeiture.
The case generated substantial controversy:
Congressman Barney Frank (himself a poker player) criticized prosecutors for focusing on poker rather than financial crisis prosecutions
Former Senator Alfonse D'Amato called it "an attack on Internet poker and American poker players"
Antigua & Barbuda claimed the prosecution violated international trade laws
Most defendants eventually reached plea agreements or settlements, with the companies paying hundreds of millions in fines and forfeiture.
Molly Bloom and Celebrity Poker Games
Another high-profile § 1955 prosecution involved Molly Bloom, whose celebrity poker games in Los Angeles and New York became the subject of the book and film "Molly's Game." Bloom was indicted in 2013 for operating illegal poker games involving Hollywood celebrities and business executives.
Bloom eventually pleaded guilty to a reduced charge and received probation, avoiding prison time. Her case highlighted the government's interest in high-stakes poker games involving wealthy participants—similar to the present indictment's allegations.
Application to the This Case
The historical context of § 1955 creates several defense opportunities in United States v. Aiello:
Congressional Intent: The statute was designed for "gambling businesses of major proportions" connected to organized crime. High-stakes poker games among wealthy individuals may not fit this paradigm, regardless of the government’s mob allegations. [Note: this is a policy argument and not generally a legal argument]
State Law Requirements: The government must prove New York state law violations with all their elements, exceptions, and defenses. Social gambling exceptions and other state law limitations apply with full force.
Role Requirements: Players, even frequent players who sometimes won, may not “conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own” the business under the statute's requirements.
Skill vs. Chance: While DiCristina forecloses challenging poker as predominantly skill-based, defendants can still argue they reasonably believed their activities were lawful under state law's potential exceptions.
Comparison to Historical Prosecutions: Unlike traditional bookmaking or numbers operations that clearly target unsophisticated customers, poker games among wealthy sophisticates may lack the predatory character Congress sought to prevent.
The statute’s history thus reveals not a broad federal prohibition on all substantial gambling, but rather a carefully calibrated tool for attacking organized crime-connected gambling operations of major scale. Whether the present case fits that mold is a question the government must answer—and one defense counsel should vigorously contest.
Section 1955 Illegal Gambling Charges May Fail on State Law Element
Counts Two and Three charge violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1955, which criminalizes operating an illegal gambling business. However, § 1955 is not a freestanding federal crime—it requires proof that the gambling business violated state law. Specifically, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the gambling business violated New York Penal Law §§ 225.05 and 20.00.
New York gambling law contains several statutory defenses and exceptions:
Social Gambling Exception (N.Y. Penal Law § 225.05): Gambling is not illegal if:
Players participate on equal terms
No person receives or is expected to receive anything of value beyond winnings
No person or entity receives a profit or fee for organizing or hosting the game
The government alleges these were illegal gambling businesses, but if the games operated on a social gambling model (even if entry fees or rakes were charged), state law violations may not be established.
Summary: The indictment is serious and alarming. But at the same time, with 31-defendants it is puzzling that the Indictment so completely lacks specifics as to what each defendant did. Defendants need to press the Government for details.
About Dynamis
Dynamis represents clients in complex federal criminal matters including white-collar fraud, RICO prosecutions, and organized crime investigations. We are admitted in the Eastern District of New York, and we have offices in New York, Boston and Florida. We provide aggressive, sophisticated defense grounded in thorough investigation, creative legal analysis, and fearless advocacy.
If you or a potential client faces charges in this matter or similar federal prosecution, we offer confidential consultations to assess the case, evaluate defense options, and develop winning strategies.
Contact Eric Rosen to discuss representation.
This analysis is attorney commentary on a public court filing and does not constitute legal advice. Representation decisions require individualized case assessment.
