Bet on behalf of someone living in a country where betting is illegal Let's say I have a friend living in a country like Albania where sports betting is illegal. I tell him he can send me money and I will bet for him in my country (for example Italy), where betting is legal. If he wins, we agree that I keep part of the win for me. Is he committing a crime in Albania? Am I committing a crime in Italy?
Is he committing a crime in Albania? It would help if you posted the statutes that regulate or prohibit betting, since the terms thereof would shed light on the legal definition (aka prima facie elements) of betting and/or the legislative intent behind those statutes. Absent that information, your description reflects that most certainly the Albanian is committing a crime. The Albanian's conduct matches --at least-- the ordinary meaning of betting: he is not disbursing (or promising to disburse) money merely for fun or leisure, but for the prospect of possibly profiting from an uncertain event of which he officially has no control. Doing it through a third party located in another country changes nothing in this regard. Am I committing a crime in Italy? The Italian might be considered an accessory of that conduct being classified as criminal in Albania. Thus, facilitating activity that is prohibited in Albania could turn out to be problematic even for the Italian. Furthermore, even if betting is legal in Italy, the Italian might be in trouble under the laws of Italy if taking money (without the requisite license) from someone else to make bets constitutes unauthorized business of gambling. The condition that the Italian would retain a portion of any profits makes the business (or for-profit) element quite evident.
Jurisdictions vary but, in general, gambling involves wagering something of value in a game of chance to win something of value. “Something of value” is usually interpreted broadly but it must usually be something that can, at least in theory, be sold for money. So, skins in a popular online game qualify if there is a secondary market for their trade. However, a mother’s love isn’t. “Game of chance” versus game of skill is a continuum. So, for example, Snakes and Ladders is a game of pure chance - it can be played equally well by an automaton as a human. Go is a game of pure skill - it requires a human brain or an extremely sophisticated algorithm to play well. Sport is considered a game of skill so competing for prize money is not gambling even if there is an entry fee. However, wagering on the outcome of sports is gambling even though it requires considerable skill to do well. Arcade and carnival games avoid gambling laws by: primarily being games of skill (e.g. a shooting gallery); by giving everyone a prize, the vast majority of which cost less than the price of entry. This is the “loot box” solution and really nudged the line; by being exempt, either explicitly or by a long period of tolerance by the authorities.
In general As Dale M explained, if you give the money to someone who is not obviously authorized by the business to accept money and sell stuff in exchange, you have not entered into a valid sales contract. That means you are taking things without permission. Therefore the shop could sue you for any damage this causes (maybe you took something the shop did not want to sell, or the person at the information desk was not an employee and ran away with the money). However, whether this constitutes a crime such as theft will depend on jurisdictions. Germany In Germany, for example, it would probably not, because by definition a theft requires "intention to take posession in violation of the law" (StGB §242). You could argue that you did not intend to violate the law, because you paid the required amount, and only gave the money to the wrong person by mistake. Of course, I cannot guarantee that will convince the judge... England and Wales Similarly, the law in England and Wales defines "theft" in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; [...] Furthermore, section 2 says: A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— [...] (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or [...] So, similar to the situation in Germany, you could argue in court that you intended to buy the item legally, and believed that the shop would be okay with that.
In the US it is not a crime to be in the country illegally. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States. Arizona v US So it's illegal, you get a state induced consequence (deportation) but it doesn't make you a criminal e.g. you don't go to jail for it. I have no idea if that's what's going on over there but it's a plausible explanation.
Possibly The game company has almost certainly excluded liability under the contract you entered. There may be some consumer protection that you have that they cannot exclude - I don’t know enough about German law to meaningfully comment. Notwithstanding, if you were to initiate legal action against the, as yet, unknown wrongdoer, you could subpoena the relevant records from the game company with a court order. No matter what privacy or other protections the other person has, the game company must obey the order or be in contempt. Without such an order the game company is right that they can’t disclose details of other users. As a practical matter, it will cost several hundred € to initiate legal action and several thousand to pursue it to the end. And you might lose. A better response is to treat the lost €80 as a relatively cheap life lesson - many people lose a lot more learning to recognise scams.
Extrajudicial implies there is some weight of law behind the casino behaviors you describe. I don't think there is. For example, refusing to cash out chips could just be a management intimidation tactic to try to coerce the customer into agreeing to be "questioned." Which the customer would be under no legal obligation to do. Card counting can't be proven if the counter is not using a device of any kind. The casino can refuse to serve the customer and expel the customer but they can't unilaterally keep the customer's money by not cashing the customer's chips without a judgment. I am not an attorney. This answer is not legal advice.
We have made a complaint about this decision to the local administrative and highest courts of Finland. Both of these courts rejected our complaint (the highest court rejected our right to even file a complaint!) without even looking into the details of the matter at hand. Did you hire a lawyer? If the court rejected your complaint without even considering it, it may have been procedurally improper. Generally speaking, once your complaint is rejected by a court with proper jurisdiction, the matter is resolved and you lost. End of story, too bad. You have no recourse but to accept the action of the local government as lawful even though you believe that your case was wrongfully decided. In any case, I doubt that the local government's action in your context is illegal. This is an issue of "condemnation" and not zoning. Generally speaking, the government has a power of eminent domain to seize property for a public use so long as a process is in place for the owner to obtain compensation for the seizure. A government owned recreation center would generally be considered a public use. Certainly, nothing you have described would violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2010/C 83/02, Article 17. As you note: No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. This is a case where the deprivation is in the public interest, in which the Finnish courts have decided that the conditions provided by law for doing so have been met, and in which you acknowledge that you have a right to compensation. Since it appears that the compensation has not yet been determined, it is premature to say that the compensation you receive will not be fair or paid in good time, and you need to participate actively and vigorously in the compensation process to make sure that you do make the best case you can for fair compensation. Also, as you note, this has happened many times in Finland. This strongly support the conclusion that this action is legal under Finnish law, even if you would prefer to interpret its laws in another manner. Of course the compulsory purchase will not be paid with a fair market price but with a much lower price, which is technically a legalized robbery as it has many times occurred in similar cases in Finland. My next step is to file a complaint to the European Union Fundamental Rights commission in hopes that they can help me. An appeal to the European Union sounds futile to me, as everything you have said suggests that your rights under the E.U. Charter have not been violated. Call it robbery if you will from a moral perspective, but as you note, it is legalized robbery in much the same way that taxes are "legalized theft." Your efforts would be better sent hiring a lawyer to help you negotiate with the local government over the price. If you make a strong evidentiary case that the land is worth more than you have been offered, you have a decent chance of getting more than you have been offered, even if it is less than what you believe it is worth. You also have a better case of winning on appeal on the issue of an unfair price in a second instance court in Finland, than you would on the issue of whether the condemnation was legal, on which the settled law in Finland and under international law is that it generally is legal in your circumstances.
This site says that the legal age for online gambling in AZ is 18, and for &quot;land&quot; gambling is 21, but does not mention penalties for violations. According to Arizona code section 13-3301 &quot;Regulated gambling&quot; requires that Beginning on June 1, 2003, none of the players is under twenty-one years of age. According to 13-3302 Regulated gambling is &quot;not unlawful&quot; provided that the gambling is conducted in accordance with the statutes, rules or orders governing the gambling. Acording to 13-3303: A. Except for amusement, regulated or social gambling, a person commits promotion of gambling if he knowingly does either of the following for a benefit: Conducts, organizes, manages, directs, supervises or finances gambling. Furnishes advice or assistance for the conduct, organization, management, direction, supervision or financing of gambling. B. Promotion of gambling is a class 5 felony. So it would appear that the organizer could be guilty of a felony if underage gambling is allowed in a regulated gambling situation, which seems to be what the question is describing. I cannot find any AZ law imposing penalties on an underage person who engages in gambling, but I am not sure if there are any or not. I suspect in the situation described in the question, it would be treated as if the father was doing the gambling, but the description is not entirely clear.