NBA’s Betting Conspiracy Is DOJ Overreach
The NBA Indictments are a Risk to All Americans
Chauncy Billips was indicted on fraud charges in the Eastern District of New York
A chart detailing all of the charges is below
The Eastern District of New York (EDNY) has unsealed a sweeping indictment charging six defendants—including current Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier and former NBA player/coach Damon Jones—with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The theory is simple but potent: defendants allegedly harvested non‑public medical and lineup information from NBA insiders, placed “under” prop bets or game wagers before that information reached the public, then laundered the proceeds. [1]
EDNY also unsealed a separate, same‑day case accusing 31 defendants of rigging high‑stakes underground poker with concealed technology—an indictment that, remarkably, names Portland Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups and, again, Damon Jones.
Together, these filings show how deep the alleged corruption cuts: into locker rooms, coaching trees, betting syndicates, and even illegal gambling dens backed by organized crime. The question isn’t whether this was a blip. It’s whether this was Year One of the online wagering era’s first systemic integrity crisis.
Wire Fruad and Conspiracy Charges
The charging statutes. The sports‑betting indictment centers on 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (conspiracy to commit wire fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (money‑laundering conspiracy), with forfeiture claims under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and § 982(a)(1) and substitute‑asset language via 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). In other words: if the government wins, it not only convicts—it also seizes the proceeds and anything commingled, diminished, or moved beyond reach. [2]
The “victims.”
Note the government’s framing: the sportsbooks (not the NBA or fans) are the defrauded parties. The indictment alleges the conspirators lied by implication—placing wagers as if they complied with house rules forbidding bets based on non‑public information or placed through straw bettors—thereby inducing payouts they weren’t entitled to.
The Government thinks this is classic money‑as‑property wire‑fraud theory, well clear of the Supreme Court’s 2023 rejection of the loose “right‑to‑control” doctrine.
How the scheme worked. Prosecutors highlight at least seven instances of fraud:
Mar. 23, 2023 (Hornets) — Rozier allegedly told co‑defendant Deniro Laster he would leave early with a supposed injury; bets piled onto Rozier’s “unders,” and the cash was counted at Rozier’s home soon after. [2]
Mar. 24, 2023 (Trail Blazers) — Before public news that key players would sit, conspirators allegedly bet heavily against Portland. When the lineup dropped, the line moved—and the early bets cashed. [2]
Apr. 6, 2023 (Magic) — A co‑conspirator’s relationship with a Magic player yielded pre‑release scratch intel; bets followed; the Cavs covered by 24. [2]
Feb. 9, 2023 & Jan. 15, 2024 (Lakers) — Jones allegedly sold pre‑release medical information about “star players” to bettors; one text urged, “Get a big bet on Milwaukee tonight before the information is out!” (emphasis added). [Quoted portion <25 words.] [2]
Jan. 26 & Mar. 20, 2024 (Raptors/Jontay Porter) — Porter allegedly agreed with Long Phi Pham to exit games early on purported injuries so conspirators could cash “unders.” [2]
If the narrative feels familiar, it’s because it is. Jontay Porter was banned by the NBA in April 2024 and pleaded guilty that July to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in the same general scheme, admitting he exited games early to assist bettors while trying to dig out of gambling debt. [5]
Defendants, status, exposure. The EDNY press release names Eric Earnest, Marves Fairley (“Vezino Locks”), Shane Hennen, Damon Jones, Deniro Laster, and Terry Rozier. If convicted, each faces up to 20 years on the wire‑fraud conspiracy and 20 years on the money‑laundering conspiracy. [1]
The Conspiracy Theory—In the Legal Sense
For these two federal conspiracies, prosecutors don’t have to prove an overt act. The sports‑betting count uses § 1349; the laundering count uses § 1956(h). Courts—including the Supreme Court—have repeatedly held no overt act is required for these statutes. Agreement and intent carry the day. [8], [9]
That matters.
Old‑school conspiracy (§ 371) forces prosecutors to show some overt step. Not here. If the grand jury credits messages about pre‑release injuries, the bet placement pattern, and the money flows, the government can argue it has the agreement + intent it needs—even if some wagers were voided or never paid. [8], [9]
This design also buffers the case against Ciminelli’s right‑to‑control wipeout. EDNY isn’t claiming the books were deprived of “economic information”; it’s claiming they were tricked into paying out money on bets placed through deception, violating house rules and terms the bettors certified. That’s orthodox property‑based wire fraud. [10]
“Manner and Means”: The Words That Matter
Indictments teach through phrasing. The Earnest indictment hammers a few points:
Non‑public information is the fulcrum. The betting companies’ rules expressly bar wagering based on pre‑release medical/lineup intel or via straw bettors, and the indictment frames each successful bet as profit extracted by concealing those facts. [2]
After laying out the ecosystem (injury reports, betting mechanics), the pleading devotes pages to game‑by‑game timelines (messages, dollar amounts, timing relative to public injury updates), then folds all of it into two spare counts: § 1349 and § 1956(h). That is textbook EDNY. [2]
Follow the money and seize it. The back of the indictment is pure forfeiture: proceeds, property “derived from” proceeds, commingled funds, and substitute‑asset language if the cash is gone, moved, or diminished. [2]
What This Means for Leagues, Sportsbooks, and the Law
Notice what EDNY is not charging in the sports‑betting indictment: it doesn’t lean on sports‑bribery statutes. Instead, it frames the books as the defrauded property owners and the bettors as liars about the source and legality of their wagering edge. That’s legally cleaner post‑Ciminelli and fits the evidence profile—timestamps, IPs, app records, and P2P ledgers. [2], [10]
“No overt act” lowers the bar from a trial perspective. Prosecutors need agreement and intent; the detailed messages and contemporaneous betting activity supply both. Expect the defense to focus on knowledge and materiality—did the books really rely on any misrepresentation, and was non‑public info “material” to a payout decision? [8], [9]
Expect forfeiture battles. The indictment’s substitute‑asset language signals aggressive clawbacks. Follow‑the‑money cases rarely end at the verdict; they continue into post‑conviction hearings over what’s “traceable,” “commingled,” or “beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” [2]
Compliance will move from “rules” to controls. Sportsbooks already ban insider wagering and straw bettors on paper. After this case, the emphasis shifts to real‑time anomaly detection (e.g., sudden prop under spikes tied to locker‑room chatter) and expanded closed‑loop reporting between leagues and books when lineups change. The indictment itself reads like a playbook for sharpening those controls. [2]
The horizon: more defendants, more cooperation. In the Porter offshoots, Long Phi Pham and Mahmud Mollahpleaded guilty in 2024; Porter pleaded in July 2024; and today’s EDNY press release notes additional guilty pleas related to the January 26 and March 20 games. That’s momentum—and incentive for new cooperators. [1], [4], [5]
How Deep Does It Go?
Deep enough that non‑public medical and lineup information—once the stuff of beat writers and game‑time decisions—has become the equivalent of a tradable instrument. Deep enough that a second, separate indictment ties organized crime to rigged poker engineered by hidden tech and glamorized by NBA cachet. And deep enough that, on a single day, the Department of Justice painted a picture of two ecosystems feeding off pro‑sports credibility and real‑time wagering liquidity. [1], [6]
If the allegations are true, a few text messages could swing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars before the public ever sees an injury tag flip from “probable” to “out.” That’s not the casino “edge”; it’s asymmetric information arbitrage. The statutes now doing the heavy lifting—§ 1349 and § 1956(h)—were built for precisely this: agreement + intent + wires + money. [2], [8], [9]
Takeaways
This case criminalizes the use of non-public information in any sector.
No overt act is required under § 1349 or § 1956(h), which makes it easier to convict.
The ecosystem is wider than one roster. The indictment references nine additional co‑conspirators across multiple states and cites games involving at least seven NBA matchups across several franchises. The case will get bigger.
The parallel poker case shows cultural overlap. Organized crime, cheating tech, and sports celebrity as bait—the separate poker indictment suggests broader risk vectors where pro‑sports credibility lubricates fraud.
The Line
If you’re looking for the “how deep,” read the language: non‑public intel; straw bettors; P2P payments; cross‑pollination with organized crime; overlapping defendants in parallel cases. The statutes the government chose don’t require an overt act. The forfeiture provisions ensure the money chase continues long after the headlines. And the timing—same day, twin cases—suggests EDNY is telling the market something simple: this is not a one‑off. [1], [6], [7]
CHART OF ALL CHARGES Updated October 25, 2025
NBA Indictments – Case Snapshot
| Name | Charges | Factual Theory | Indictment |
|---|
About Ronald W. Chapman II
Ronald W. Chapman II is a Marine Corps veteran, nationally recognized attorney, and author focused on the collision points between healthcare, civil liberties, federal investigations—and now, the sports‑betting economy. He translates complex prosecutions into practical insights for professionals and citizens alike. Explore his work, including Truth & Persuasion and Fight the Feds. For more about Ronald’s practice and writing, visit Ron’s website.
[1] EDNY Press Release, “Current and Former National Basketball Association Players and Four Other Individuals Charged in Widespread Sports Betting and Money Laundering Conspiracy,” Oct. 23, 2025.
[2] Indictment, United States v. Eric Earnest et al., No. 25‑CR‑323 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 16, 2025; unsealed Oct. 23, 2025) (background on sports betting; scheme allegations; counts; forfeiture).
[3] EDNY description of sportsbook terms and anti‑straw‑betting rules (Earnest indictment ¶¶22–35).
[4] Criminal Complaint, United States v. Long Phi Pham, F. #2024R00288 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 3, 2024) (arrest announced June 5, 2024).
[5] Reuters, “Banned NBA player Jontay Porter pleads guilty,” July 10, 2024 (guilty plea; sentencing posture).
[6] EDNY Press Release, “31 Defendants, Including Members and Associates of Organized Crime Families and National Basketball Association Coach Chauncey Billups, Charged in Schemes to Rig Illegal Poker Games,” Oct. 23, 2025.
[7] Indictment, United States v. Aiello et al., No. 25‑CR‑314 (E.D.N.Y. unsealed Oct. 23, 2025) (rigged shuffling tech; “Face Cards”; organized‑crime involvement; named overlap).
[8] United States v. Roy, 783 F.3d 418 (2d Cir. 2015) (no overt act requirement under § 1349).
[9] Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005) (no overt act requirement under § 1956(h) money‑laundering conspiracy).
[10] Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023) (rejecting “right‑to‑control” as basis for wire fraud).