Page 17
imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
18 U.S.C.S.
§ 1084 (1998).
20. "(a) Whoever conducts . . . an illegal gambling busi-
ness shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than five years, or both. (b) As used in this section--
(1) ' i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g b u s i n e s s ' m e a n s a g a m b l i n g b u s i -
n e s s which--(i) is a violation of the law of a State . . .
in which it is conducted; (ii) involves five or more per-
sons who conduct . . . all or part of such business; and
(iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous
operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a
gross revenue of $2000 in any single day." 18 U.S.C.S.
§ 1955 (1998).
21. "(a) Whoever . . . uses the mail or any facility in
interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to--(1) dis-
tribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity . . . (3)(A)
. . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 5 years, or both. . . . (b) As used in this section
(i) 'unlawful activity' means (1) any business enterprise
involving gambling. . . ." 18 U.S.C.S. § 1952 (1998).
22. See United States v. Lockretis, 385 F.2d 487, 489
(7th Cir. 1967), holding that the Wire Act prohibits "use
of an interstate wire facility with intent to promote ille-
gal activity, and it is well within the power of Congress
to so insure the integrity of channels of interstate com-
merce by such a prohibition," vacated on other grounds, 390
U.S. 338 (1967), rev'd on other grounds, 398 F.2d 64 (7th
Cir. 1968); and United States v. Smith, 209 F. Supp. 907,
916 (E.D. Ill. 1962), holding that "Congress intended that
communication facilities in interstate commerce should be
included within the scope of the prohibitions of the
statute. . . ." See also United States v. Villano, 529
F.2d 1046, 1052 (10th Cir. 1976); United States v. Kelly,
395 F.2d 727, 729 (2d Cir. 1968); and United States v.
Borgese, 235 F. Supp. 286, 298 (S.D.N.Y. 1964).
23. The plain language of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1952(a)(1) sug-
gests that the Travel Act should apply to individual ama-
teur Internet bettors. Internet gamblers certainly attempt
to "distribute the proceeds" of gambling, both by putting
money on bets and by collecting their wins. True, a line
of cases has interpreted 18 U.S.C.S. § 1952(a)(3) to not
render individual amateur bettors liable under the Travel
Act. See Rewis v. U.S., 418 F.2d 1218, 1221 (5th Cir.
1969), holding that interstate bettors do not "promote,
manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion,
management, establishment or carrying on of any unlawful
activity" under § 1952(a)(3), reversed on other grounds,