Moreover, defendants’ business is an ongoing illegal business enterprise which evidently will continue unless and until it is enjoined. Indeed, the need for injunctive relief is underscored by the fact defendants continued operating even after they received a letter from the Attorney General notifying them that their business was illegal and that an injunction had been issued against another company which operated a substantially similar business. Therefore, whether or not defendants’ activities subject them to criminal prosecution, the public interest requires entry of an injunction prohibiting them from violating New Jersey’s constitutional and statutory prohibitions against unauthorized gambling. Cf. State v. Phoenix Savings Bank & Trust Co., 68 Ariz. 42, 198 P.2d 1018 (Sup.Ct.1948) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the
holding these two statutes are not criminal offenses and only affect sentencing holding that money seized from a bank account must be traceable to illegal activity in order to be subject to forfeiture even if account previously contained proceeds of illegal activity holding that illegal gambling activity may be enjoined even though these operations are also subject to criminal prosecution holding that no action may be maintained on an illegal agreement holding that nonmonetary claims are not subject to these requirements