A casino that is nevada-based games developer, manufacturer and distributor is trying to reassure worried shareholders after the company’s California ‘suitability to complete company’ rights were revoked by that state’s Gambling Control Commission recently.
Galaxy Gaming CEO Robert Saucier has sent a four-page missive to investors, claiming that all the issues decried by the Ca regulators in their decisions stemmed from a ‘predecessor entity that ceased business operation in 2009 and dissolved. The procedures did not directly involve Galaxy,’ Saucier went on, incorporating that ‘it is business as usual [at Galaxy ] once we continue to offer our products and solutions without any interruption.’
With Galaxy doing plenty of its business in the Golden State particularly with many tribes that are indian have casinos Saucier desired to guarantee clients and investors that Galaxy’s ‘gaming license with Ca tribes is unchanged and in good standing. Likewise, our status in every other jurisdictions we serve is also unchanged and remains in good standing. In fact, we continue steadily to seek and find new licenses and approvals in extra jurisdictions,’ the letter went on to express.
And this is where things get, um, a confusing that is little. Because while Saucier emphatically states in their letter that the California Gambling Control Commission did not rule against him or his company in their recent shut regulatory conference, all proof points to the contrary. In reality, it is the CEO’s very checkered past involving misstatements, witholding information, and providing misleading information that seems to have gotten him into the pickle by which he now finds himself. So who’re investors to believe?
According to Administrative Law Judge Catherine Frink, not Saucier. He has been described by her as ‘evasive, intentionally dishonest, and misleading in his reaction to questions.’ She adds that ‘in a highly controlled 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 not be able to run as a vendor that is tribal Ca following the Gambling Commission decision. In reality, he will not also manage to request a reconsideration unless new evidence crops up.
Details of ‘Can’t Lose’ Promotion do not Sit Well with Revel Customers
Revel in Atlantic City ended up being designed as a Las Vegas-style resort in 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 unique summer promotions, in an effort to get players right back through the casino’s doors. In a ad campaign that admitted things got off to a beginning that is rough Revel invited players right back in July, with the vow of a ‘can’t lose’ promotion on slot machines. Based on 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.
Unfortunately, numerous players didn’t browse the print that is fine. And whenever they found out just what the advertising entailed, some weren’t satisfied with exactly what they’d to get their refunds.
‘I have a very different definition of the ‘refund’ than the Revel and I believe a most of other people would concur 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 really 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 initially. A number of the restrictions are rather tame: gamblers must lose at the very least $100 to qualify, the loss rebates are capped at $100,000, and table game losses are not covered.
It’s the way in which the ‘refunds’ are given to players that has Conti and others upset. Players can get their refunds only 5 percent at a right time, with each ‘block’ of 5 percent being offered in one associated with the 20 weeks following the advertising ends. If a gambler doesn’t go to the casino in a given week, they won’t manage to receive that percentage of the refund. In addition, the refund doesn’t pay out in cash, but in free play credits that are used in the devices; it cannot be directly cashed away.
Some might say that the few conditions on an offer such as this one are become expected: in the end, it would be foolish to think that the casino could simply surrender every one of its winnings to clients, even over a short time period. Nevertheless, the fact that the details of the ‘refund’ program are flashed on tv ads for merely a second and in very print that is small mean that Revel is skirting laws on clarity in marketing, if not actually breaking them.
No matter what the legal standing of the ad, the nature of this advertising has turned off a minumum of one gambler from visiting Revel once more.
‘When we told my mother about that she said, ‘That’s not just what the ad on TV said,” Conti said. ‘My mother have not gone to the Revel and will perhaps not go as time goes by.’
Federal Theft Trial Begins for Former Pequot Tribe Chairman
Michael Thomas, a disgraced former Mashantucket Pequot Tribal country chairman, has become facing federal theft charges involving inappropriate use of a tribe-issued credit 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 to your prosecutor’s opening statements at his trial.
Costly, Considerable Limo Rides
$80,000? That must’ve been close to 200 round trips, by our conservative estimation. Thomas’ protection is that he was having monetary hardships as he decided Mom could just begin to see the doc showing up via limo. The real charges took spot for 2 years between 2007 and 2009 just as the tribe started grappling with tighter available funds after being hit by both the recession and more neighboring states’ land casino competition.
Thomas’ unrelated protection attorney, Paul Thomas, says it is as much as the jury to determine if those costs were actually banned.
‘Was it impermissible to charge travel on behalf of their sick, dying mother to get treatment?’ said defense attorney Thomas. Nice touch, there. The lawyer added that tribal leaders usually buy gifts for high rollers with these cards, though what that is because of his mother, we’re not totally sure. Regardless, it appears that Michael Thomas never submitted required expense reports detailing his unwell mother’s limo service. Also not assisting the chairman that is former situation ended up being testimony from Barbara Poirier, the tribe’s manager of wellness services, who noted that the tribe makes transportation services available for members who need certainly to arrive at and from medical appointments.
Dirty Laundry…or underwear
Additionally apparently not for mother there were some Victoria’s Secret credit fees made to the tribal account. Probably for a rain party something or ceremony, 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 anybody could connect to his suffering.
Defendant Thomas has pleaded not accountable to at least one count of theft from an indian organization that is tribal and to two counts of theft concerning an Indian tribal 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 significantly more than $700,000 between 2005 and 2008, while acting as assistant director of the tribe’s natural resources department.
Your family that steals together, appeals together? That’s a complete lot of wampum.
UK Debt Collector Makes casino that is bad Using Collected Funds
A Coventry, UK debt collector decided it was a idea that is good gamble away a £6,000 (over $9,000) contract which he had recovered from a debtor on behalf of his employer, so that you can recover his own £30 ($46) petrol bill.
Maybe Not Licensed to Steal
Unfortunately for him, this is perhaps not a good clear 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 jail, suspended for 2 years, and will be forced to do 80 hours of unpaid work for his manager, and spend back settlement to the 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 get two £6,000 contracts for Face 2 Face, a company that executes warrants and recover debts with respect to utility companies.
Upon collecting the debts, it was Chatha’s task to deposit the funds to the company’s account within twenty four hours. However, seizing the opportunity to create a small extra money, the 34-year-old instead deposited one among the contracted quantities, and tottered on over up to a regional casino where he gambled away all the money over the course of several days.
When questioned by police, he attempted to claim that it was all just a simple banking mistake, and any particular one £6,000 deposit had been paid over the countertop, whilst the other was deposited to the Face 2 Face account via a automated deposit device.
Surveillance Video Tells the Story
However, whenever police took to the CCTV footage through the bank branch, they determined that Chatha was in reality making a false testimony, and eventually monitored him down again in February in 2010, after he had changed their address, and unveiled their findings, which left him no option but to admit their actions and admit the theft.
‘we needed seriously to pay for petrol while I was working,’ said Chatha, whom chose to represent himself. ‘I was not thinking straight. It was never ever my intention to just take it all. I spent some cash to invest in my petrol costs, and ended up being then wanting to get the cash back without anyone knowing, so I went up to a bookmakers and a casino,’ he said, adding that aided by the pressure of trying to win his losses back, ‘We tried it all.’
The judge, however, wasn’t buying it.
‘ I do not believe your account of what happened, but I can not be certain what did happen to it,’ reported Judge Richard Griffith-Jones upon sentencing your debt collector. ‘It is important that this did not carry on 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.’