A casino that is nevada-based games developer, manufacturer and distributor is wanting to reassure worried shareholders following the company's California 'suitability to do business' rights were revoked by that state's Gambling Control Commission recently.
Galaxy Gaming CEO Robert Saucier has delivered a four-page missive to investors, claiming that all the issues decried by the California regulators inside their decisions stemmed from a 'predecessor entity that ceased business procedure in 2009 and dissolved. The proceedings failed to involve Galaxy, directly' Saucier went on, incorporating that 'it is business as usual [at Galaxy ] even as we continue to provide our products and solutions with no interruption.'
With Galaxy doing plenty of its business in the Golden State specially with many Indian tribes who have gambling enterprises Saucier wanted to guarantee clients and investors that Galaxy's 'gaming permit with California tribes is unchanged and in good standing. Likewise, our status in most other jurisdictions we serve is additionally unchanged and remains in good standing. In fact, we continue steadily to seek and get new licenses and approvals in extra jurisdictions,' the letter went on to state.
And this is where things get, um, a confusing that is little. All evidence points to the contrary because while Saucier emphatically states in his letter that the California Gambling Control Commission didn't rule against him or his company in their recent closed regulatory meeting. In fact, it's the CEO's very past that is checkered misstatements, witholding information, and providing misleading information that appears to have gotten him into the pickle in which he now finds himself. So who're shareholders to believe?
According to Administrative Law Judge Catherine Frink, not Saucier. He has been described by her as 'evasive, intentionally dishonest, and misleading in their reaction to questions.' She adds that 'in a highly managed industry such as video gaming, the failure become forthcoming with relevant information ended up being inexcusable.'
Whatever Saucier is trying to convince his minions of, it nonetheless seems that Galaxy Gaming LLC will no longer manage to run as a vendor that is tribal California after the Gambling Commission decision. In fact, he will not also be able to request a reconsideration unless new evidence crops up.
Details of 'Can't Lose' Promotion do not stay Well with Revel Customers
Experience Atlantic City had been designed as a Las Vegas-style resort regarding the city's famous Boardwalk; however a rocky start caused the casino to file for bankruptcy simply ten months after it opened one of the many disastrous starts for a casino in recent memory.
That's why Revel designed summer that is special, in order to get players right back through the casino's doorways. Within an advertising campaign that admitted things got off to a rough beginning, Revel invited players right back in July, with the promise of a 'can't lose' promotion on slot machines. According to the ads, players would receive all of their losses back on slots until the end of the a deal that many gamblers simply couldn't pass up month.
Unfortuitously, numerous players didn't browse the small print. And when they found out exactly what the advertising entailed, some weren't happy with royal vegas chat just what they'd to get their refunds.
'we employ a different definition of the 'refund' than the Revel and I believe a most of others would agree that a refund implies that you will receive the full reimbursement of funds,' customer Ed Conti told The Star-Ledger after visiting Revel. ' I do not feel it is right.'
Read the print that is fine
The print that is fine the offer from the casino makes the promotion a little less incredible than it may look at first. A few of the restrictions are rather tame: gamblers must lose at the least $100 to qualify, the loss rebates are capped at $100,000, and table game losses aren't covered.
It's the way in which the 'refunds' are provided to players that has Conti and others upset. Players can get their refunds only 5 percent at a right time, with every 'block' of 5 percent being available in one for the 20 weeks following the advertising ends. If a gambler doesn't visit the casino in a given week, they won't be able to receive that percentage of their refund. In addition, the refund doesn't spend in cash, but in free play credits that may be used in the devices; it can not be directly cashed out.
Some might say that a few conditions on an offer such as this one are to be expected: after all, it would be foolish to think that a casino could simply surrender all of its winnings to customers, even over a period that is short of. Nevertheless, the fact that the details associated with the 'refund' program are flashed on television ads for only a second and in extremely print that is small mean that Revel is skirting laws on clarity in marketing, or even really breaking them.
Regardless of the standing that is legal of ad, the character regarding the advertising has turned off a minumum of one gambler from visiting Revel again.
'When I told my mother about this she said, 'That's not just what the ad on TV said,'' Conti stated. 'My mom has not attended the Revel and will maybe not go in the foreseeable future.'
Federal Theft Trial Begins for Former Pequot Tribe Chairman
Michael Thomas, a disgraced previous Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation chairman, has become facing theft that is federal involving inappropriate use of a tribe-issued bank card during hus tenure from 2003 to 2009. Thomas, who chaired the Indian tribe that owns Connecticut's Foxwoods Casino, is charged with utilizing the company card to personally rack up $80,000 in limousine service expenses to get his mother to and from her medical appointments, according towards the prosecutor's opening statements at his trial.
Costly, Considerable Limo Rides
$80,000? That has to've been close to 200 round trips, by our conservative estimation. Thomas' protection is he was having monetary hardships when he decided Mom could only start to see the doc arriving via limo. The charges that are actual spot for 2 years between 2007 and 2009 just as the tribe began grappling with tighter available funds after being struck by both the recession and more neighboring states' land casino competition.
Thomas' unrelated protection lawyer, Paul Thomas, says it is up to the jury to ascertain if those costs were really banned.
'Was it impermissible to charge travel with respect to their unwell, dying mother to get treatment?' said defense attorney Thomas. Nice touch, there. The lawyer added that tribal leaders frequently buy gifts for high rollers with these cards, though what that is because of his mother, we're not entirely sure. Regardless, it appears that Michael Thomas never submitted required expense reports detailing his unwell mom's limo solution. Also not assisting the chairman that is former instance was testimony from Barbara Poirier, the tribe's manager of health solutions, who noted that the tribe makes transportation services available for members whom need to arrive at and from medical appointments.
Dirty Laundry…or underwear
Also apparently maybe not for Mom there had been some Victoria's Secret credit fees made to the account that is tribal. Probably for a rainfall party ceremony or something, we're guessing. Prosecutors brought to light tax statements showing Thomas' income of $863,000 in 2008 had fallen to $354,000 by 2009, so naturally anyone could connect to his suffering.
Defendant Thomas has pleaded not bad to one count of theft from A indian tribal organization, and to two counts of theft concerning an Indian tribal federal government getting federal funds. His brother Steven Thomas that is being tried separately was also indicted early this year. Steven Thomas, who acted as the Piquot's tribal treasurer, has been charged with theft of more than $700,000 between 2005 and 2008, while acting as assistant director of this tribe's natural resources department.
The family that steals together, appeals together? That's a complete great deal of wampum.
UK Debt Collector Makes Bad Casino Bets Using Collected Funds
A Coventry, UK debt collector decided it in fact was a idea that is good gamble away a £6,000 (over $9,000) agreement which he had recovered from the debtor on behalf of his employer, to be able to recover their own £30 ($46) petrol bill.
Not Certified to Steal
Unfortunately for him, this is maybe not a good idea after all. In fact, it was probably the decision that is stupidest he ever made, as he's now been sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for just two years, and is forced to complete 80 hours of unpaid work for his employer, and spend right back compensation to your sum of £3,600.
Sandeep Chatha pleaded guilty to stealing the cash after their employers noticed the missing sum and called in police.
Chatha took the ability to steal the money in February year that is last after being instructed to pick up two £6,000 contracts for Face 2 Face, a business that executes warrants and recover debts on behalf of utility companies.
Upon collecting the debts, it was Chatha's task to deposit the funds to the company's account within 24 hours. However, seizing the ability to make a small money that is extra the 34-year-old instead deposited one among the contracted amounts, and tottered on over up to a local casino where he gambled away all the money over the course of several days.
When questioned by police, he attempted to claim that it had been all just a simple banking mistake, and this 1 £6,000 deposit had been paid over the countertop, while the other was deposited towards the Face 2 Face account via a deposit machine that is automated.
Surveillance Video Tells the Story
However, when police took to the CCTV footage from the bank branch, they determined that Chatha was in fact building a false testimony, and in the end tracked him down again in February in 2010, him no choice but to admit his actions and own up to the theft after he had changed his address, and revealed their findings, which left.
'I needed seriously to pay for petrol while I was working,' said Chatha, whom chose to express himself. 'I was not thinking right. It was never ever my intention to take it all. We spent some cash to invest in my petrol expenses, and ended up being then attempting to get the amount of money back without anyone knowing, therefore I went up to a bookmakers and a casino,' he said, incorporating that using the pressure of trying to win his losses back, 'I used it all.'
The judge, however, ended up beingn't buying it.
' I don't believe your account of what happened, but I may not be certain just what did occur to it,' stated Judge Richard Griffith-Jones upon sentencing your debt collector. 'It is important that this did not continue for a any period of time of time. It was one impulsive act to steal the money, and you also pleaded accountable at the first opportunity.'