But ok, let’s follow your thought process. Couldn’t someone place a bet on a sporting event and then murder a key player? Wouldn’t all the same laws be triggered?
Laws against criminal activity aren’t regulations. Regulations are limitations and oversight requirements on business activities.
> Couldn’t someone place a bet on a sporting event and then murder a key player?
I don't follow, these are separate hypotheticals. For the record the answers would be:
1a) Can? Yes
1b) Legal? No, listing itself against public policy.
2a) Can? Yes
2b) Legal? No, murder is illegal
2c) Wager profits retained? No, slayer rule/No profit theory.
Re: 2c also applies to scenario 1, if you get caught you can’t retain the money.
So, to your point about which is more regulated - there is no difference in the amount of regulation between the two scenarios.
Not a lawyer, but jurisprudence (case law) is law, especially in Common Law jurisdictions like the US it has even more weight than actually codified law (unlike for example napoleonic Civil Law like in Argentina or France).
"Restatement (Second) of Contracts" (1989), Chapter 8, has a pretty extensive list of restatement and examples of case law of contract nullity by being against public policy.
Additionally, it's even a more basic rule that contracts are void ab initio if they are about breaking a law, I can see how it might be argued that a contract about a murder is not about breaking the law, but it's debatable and probably fact dependent.
There's also probably statutes or UCC that explicitly state such rules, but that's secondary.
>Easily skirted by making the bet not directly about death, e.g. https://polymarket.com/event/trump-out-as-president-before-2...
Worth noting that polymarket is not in US Jurisdiction, so no, it's not regulated. Kalshi is in US jurisdiction and is regulated by US laws.
There was a case that reached some appeal court about election bet in Kalshi, and Kalshi won, you may agree or disagree, but it is under regulation.
>Re: 2c also applies to scenario 1, if you get caught you can’t retain the money.
Not necessarily, because both parties would be at fault in scenario 1. In scenario 2, the law would not declare the contract void, but award the payment to the non murdering party. In case 1 the whole contract is void, and the court will probably not get involved in any action whether forcing award of monies, nor forcing a party to return money, letting "the loss lies where it falls", in pari delicto.
>So, to your point about which is more regulated - there is no difference in the amount of regulation between the two scenarios.
It was a very basic mathematical claim, prediction markets include sports bets, so therefore they touch more regulations. The regulations the prediction markets touch is huge, as it can be about anything really, it must follow the regulations of almost every branch of contract law.
Probably not, no. I would be very surprised if the sports betting shops didn't have some sort of "force majeure" clauses.
I don’t see any force majeure clauses here https://polymarket.com/event/trump-out-as-president-before-2... but maybe they’re hidden in the fine print?
