> Seriously, if it wasn't illegal gambling where these people gambled I don't see a problem That's not the case. What appears to have happened is the guy's sof

> Seriously, if it wasn't illegal gambling where these people gambled I don't see a problem That's not the case. What appears to have happened is the guy's software was sub-licensed or resold to a company that took bets from people living in the US (which is, until the US legalizes online gambling, illegal). However, if you go by the Wired article then the Manhattan DA doesn't actually have any proof that the developer of this software knew this was going on. You can only be an accessory to a crime if you have knowledge of it: selling your gambling software to a company that you knew was running an illegal operation would be a crime. Selling it to a company that subsequently resells it to an illegal operation and doesn't tell you would not. If you go by the Wired article what seems to have happened is the developer in question had no knowledge of this, but received some terrible legal advice advising him to sign the plea bargain.