A Nevada-based casino table games developer, maker and distributor is attempting to reassure worried shareholders after the company’s California ‘suitability doing company’ rights had been revoked by that state’s Gambling Control Commission recently.
Galaxy Gaming CEO Robert Saucier has sent out a four-page missive to investors, claiming that all the issues decried by the California regulators in their decisions stemmed from a ‘predecessor entity that ceased business operation in 2009 and dissolved. The proceedings didn’t involve Galaxy, directly’ Saucier went on, adding that ‘it is business as usual [at Galaxy ] even as we continue to give our products and services without the interruption.’
With Galaxy doing a great deal of its business in the Golden State specially with many Indian tribes who have gambling enterprises Saucier desired to assure clients and investors that Galaxy’s ‘gaming license with California tribes is unchanged and in good standing. Likewise, our status in every other jurisdictions we serve is additionally unchanged and remains in good standing. In reality, we continue steadily to seek and get new licenses and approvals in additional jurisdictions,’ the letter went on to say.
And this is where things have, um, a little perplexing. Because while Saucier emphatically states in their letter that the Ca Gambling Control Commission did not rule against him or his company in their recent closed regulatory conference, all evidence points to the contrary. In fact, it is the CEO’s very past that is checkered misstatements, witholding information, and providing misleading information that appears to have gotten him into the pickle by which he now finds himself. So who are shareholders to believe?
According to Administrative Law Judge Catherine Frink, not Saucier. She’s described him as ‘evasive, intentionally dishonest, and misleading in their reaction to questions.’ She adds that ‘in a highly controlled industry such as video gaming, the failure to be forthcoming with relevant information had been inexcusable.’
Whatever Saucier is trying to convince his minions of, it nonetheless seems that Galaxy Gaming LLC will no longer be able to run as a tribal vendor in California after the Gambling Commission decision. In reality, he will not also be able to request a reconsideration unless new evidence crops up.
Enjoy Atlantic City was designed as a Las Vegas-style resort in the city’s famous Boardwalk; however a rocky start caused the casino to file for bankruptcy just ten months after it opened certainly 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 back through the casino’s doorways. In an advertising campaign that admitted things got off to a beginning that is rough Revel invited players straight back in July, with the vow of a ‘can’t lose’ promotion on slot machines. Based on the ads, players would get all of their losses back on slots through to the end of the month, a deal that many gamblers just couldn’t pass up.
Unfortunately, many players didn’t browse the print that is fine. And when they discovered what the promotion entailed, some weren’t pleased with what they’d to get their refunds.
‘we have a very definition that is different of ‘refund’ compared to the Revel and I believe a most of other folks would agree totally that a reimbursement implies you will receive a complete reimbursement of funds,’ customer Ed Conti told The Star-Ledger after visiting Revel. ‘ I do not feel it is right.’
The fine print on the offer from the casino makes the promotion a little less amazing than it may seem at first. A number of the restrictions are rather tame: gamblers must lose at least $100 to qualify, the loss rebates are capped at $100,000, and table game losses aren’t covered.
It’s the manner in which the ‘refunds’ are fond of players that has Conti and others upset. Players can get their refunds only 5 percent at time, with each ‘block’ of 5 percent being available in one of this 20 weeks after the advertising ends. If a gambler doesn’t visit the casino in a given week, they won’t have the ability to receive that percentage of their refund. In addition, the refund doesn’t spend in cash, but in free play credits that can be used in the devices; it can’t be directly cashed down.
Some might say that the few conditions on an offer similar to this one are become expected: after all, it might be foolish to think that a casino could simply hand back each of its winnings to customers, even over a period that is short of. Nevertheless, the fact that the details of the ‘refund’ program are flashed on tv ads for merely a second and in very tiny print could mean that Revel is skirting laws on clarity in advertising, if not really breaking them.
Whatever the legal standing of the ad, the character associated with promotion 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 hasn’t visited the Revel and will maybe not go later on.’
Michael Thomas, a disgraced previous Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation chairman, is now facing federal theft charges involving inappropriate utilization of a tribe-issued charge 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 business card to personally rack up $80,000 in limousine service expenses to get his mother to and from her appointments that are medical according to your prosecutor’s opening statements at his trial.
$80,000? That must’ve been close to 200 round trips, by our conservative estimation. Thomas’ protection is he decided Mom could only see the doc arriving via limo that he was having financial hardships when. The real charges took spot for just two years between 2007 and 2009 just as the tribe started grappling with tighter available funds after being struck by both the recession and much more neighboring states’ land casino competition.
Thomas’ unrelated defense attorney, Paul Thomas, says it’s up to the jury to find out if those costs were really not allowed.
‘Was it impermissible to charge travel on behalf of his unwell, dying mother to get treatment?’ stated 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 perhaps not totally sure. Regardless, it appears that Michael Thomas never submitted required expense states detailing his sick mom’s limo service. Also not assisting the previous president’s case had been testimony from Barbara Poirier, the tribe’s manager of wellness solutions, whom noted that the tribe makes transportation services available for members who have to reach and from medical appointments.
Also apparently perhaps not for Mom there had been some Victoria’s Secret credit charges made to your tribal account. Probably for a rain party something or ceremony, we’re guessing. Prosecutors brought to light tax returns showing Thomas’ income of $863,000 in 2008 had fallen to $354,000 by 2009, therefore obviously anyone could relate to their suffering.
Defendant Thomas has pleaded not bad to one count of theft from an indian organization that is tribal and to two counts of theft concerning an Indian tribal federal government getting federal funds. His brother Steven Thomas who 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 a lot more than $700,000 between 2005 and 2008, while acting as assistant director associated with tribe’s natural resources department.
The family that steals together, appeals together? That’s lot of wampum.
A Coventry, UK debt collector decided it was a idea that is good gamble away a £6,000 (over $9,000) agreement which he had recovered from a debtor on behalf of his employer, in order to recover his or her own £30 ($46) petrol bill.
Unfortunately for him, this is not an idea that is good all. In reality, it was probably the stupidest decision he ever made, casinopokies777.com as he’s now been sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended for two years, and are going to be forced to do 80 hours of unpaid work for his company, and spend right back settlement towards the sum of £3,600.
Sandeep Chatha pleaded guilty to stealing the cash after his employers noticed the sum that is missing called in police.
Chatha took the chance to take the profit February year that is last after being instructed to pick up two £6,000 contracts for Face 2 Face, an organization that executes warrants and recover debts on behalf of utility companies.
Upon collecting the debts, it absolutely was Chatha’s task to deposit the funds into the company’s account within a day. However, seizing the chance to make a small additional money, the 34-year-old alternatively 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 authorities, he attempted to claim that it absolutely was all just an easy banking error, and any particular one £6,000 deposit had been compensated over the countertop, whilst the other was deposited towards the Face 2 Face account via a automated deposit device.
However, when police took to the CCTV footage through the bank branch, they determined that Chatha was in reality creating a false testimony, and finally tracked him down again in February this year, 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.
‘we needed to pay for petrol while I was working,’ said Chatha, who chose to represent himself. ‘I was not thinking straight. It had been never ever my intention to just take it all. I spent some money to finance my petrol expenses, and was then trying to get the amount of money back without anyone knowing, therefore I went up to a bookmakers and a casino,’ he stated, incorporating that utilizing the stress of wanting to win back his losses, ‘I tried it all.’
The judge, however, wasn’t buying it.
‘ I do not believe your account of what happened, but I may not be sure just what did occur to it,’ stated Judge Richard Griffith-Jones upon sentencing the debt collector. ‘It is important that this didn’t go on for a period that is long of. It was one impulsive act to steal the money, and you also pleaded responsible during the first opportunity.’