Wisconsin § 945.03 - Commercial gambling.

§ 945.03. Commercial gambling.

945.03(1m) (1m) Whoever intentionally does any of the following is engaged in commercial gambling and, except as provided in sub. (2m) , is guilty of a Class I felony: 945.03(1m)(a) (a) Participates in the earnings of or for gain operates or permits the operation of a gambling place; or 945.03(1m)(b) (b) For gain, receives, records or forwards a bet or offer to bet or, with intent to receive, record or forward a bet or offer to bet, possesses facilities to do so; or 945.03(1m)(c) (c) For gain, becomes a custodian of anything of value bet or offered to be bet; or 945.03(1m)(d) (d) Conducts a lottery where both the consideration and the prize are money, or with intent to conduct such a lottery, possesses facilities to do so; or 945.03(1m)(e) (e) Sets up for use for the purpose of gambling or collects the proceeds of any gambling machine; or 945.03(1m)(f) (f) For gain, maintains in this state any record, paraphernalia, tickets, certificates, bills, slip, token, paper, writing or other device used, or to be used, or adapted, devised or designed for use in gambling; or 945.03(1m)(g) (g) For gain, uses a wire communication facility for the transmission or receipt of information assisting in the placing of a bet or offer to bet on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of a bet or offer to bet. 945.03(2m) (2m) If the violation of sub. (1m) involves the possession, operation, setup, collection of proceeds, participation in earnings or maintenance of, or involves acting as the custodian of anything of value bet or offered to be bet on, not more than 5 video gambling machines on premises for which a Class “B” or “Class B” license or permit has been issued under ch. 125 , the person may be penalized as follows: 945.03(2m)(a) (a) If the violation involves one video gambling machine, the person may be required to forfeit not more than $500. 945.03(2m)(b) (b) If the violation involves 2 video gambling machines, the person may be required to forfeit not more than $1,000. 945.03(2m)(c) (c) If the violation involves 3 video gambling machines, the person may be required to forfeit not more than $1,500. 945.03(2m)(d) (d) If the violation involves 4 video gambling machines, the person may be required to forfeit not more than $2,000. 945.03(2m)(e) (e) If the violation involves 5 video gambling machines, the person may be required to forfeit not more than $2,500. 945.03 History History: 1977 c. 173 ; 1999 a. 9 , 185 ; 2001 a. 109 . 945.03 Annotation The offense of commercial gambling is distinguishable from the offense of making a bet. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Vlahos, 50 Wis. 2d 609 , 184 N.W.2d 817 (1971). 945.03 Annotation A complaint charging 30 counts of commercial gambling, one for a specific bet allegedly taken by the defendant and 29 for the regular receipt of bets from eight bettors with all but one named in two or more counts, on unspecified athletic events over extended periods was multiplicitous and defective as to the 29, because the counts divided a single charge of continuous commercial gambling into several counts. State v. George, 69 Wis. 2d 92 , 230 N.W.2d 253 (1975). 945.03 Annotation A video poker machine is not a gambling machine per se. The defendant must have collected proceeds from video poker machines knowing they were being used for gambling and that the proceeds were derived from the gambling. State v. Hahn, 203 Wis. 2d 450 , 553 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1996), 94-2567 . 945.03 Annotation An Iowa-licensed river boat equipped with casino-style gambling games may be engaged in illegal commercial gambling if it enters Wisconsin waters. 79 Atty. Gen. 206 . 945.03 Annotation Although an indictment failed to state which of seven subsections the defendants’ alleged gambling business violated, more specificity was not required to enable the defendants to successfully plead the bar of double jeopardy and to inform them of what they would have to meet to formulate a defense; thus the indictment was not subject to dismissal. United States v. Halmo, 386 F. Supp. 593 (1974).