A Nevada-based casino table games developer, maker and distributor is wanting to reassure worried shareholders after the company’s California ‘suitability doing business’ rights had been revoked by that state’s Gambling Control Commission recently.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 Ca regulators inside their decisions stemmed from a ‘predecessor entity that ceased business operation in 2009 and dissolved. The procedures didn’t directly involve Galaxy,’ Saucier went on, adding that ‘it is business as usual [at Galaxy ] even as we continue to provide our products and solutions without the interruption.’
With Galaxy doing a great deal of its business in the Golden State particularly with many tribes that are indian have gambling enterprises Saucier desired to assure customers and investors that Galaxy’s ‘gaming permit with Ca 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 to seek and find new licenses and approvals in additional jurisdictions,’ the letter went on to express.
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 by which he now finds himself. So who are investors to believe?
According to Administrative Law Judge Catherine Frink, not Saucier. She’s described him as ‘evasive, intentionally dishonest, and misleading in their response to questions.’ She adds that ‘in a highly regulated industry such as gaming, the failure become forthcoming with relevant information ended up being inexcusable.’
Whatever Saucier is wanting to convince his minions of, it nonetheless appears that Galaxy Gaming LLC will no longer be able to run as a vendor that is tribal California following Gambling Commission decision. In fact, he will not even be able to request a reconsideration unless new evidence crops up.
Details of ‘Can’t Lose’ Promotion do not Sit Well with Revel Customers
Enjoy Atlantic City had been designed as a Las Vegas-style resort regarding the city’s famous Boardwalk; but a start that is rocky 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 time promotions, so that you can get players straight back through the casino’s doors. 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. In accordance with the ads, players would receive all of their losses back on slots through to the end of the a deal that many gamblers simply couldn’t pass up month.
Unfortuitously, numerous players didn’t see the fine print. And when they learned what the advertising entailed, some weren’t happy with what they’d to obtain refunds.
‘I have a very various definition of a ‘refund’ compared to the Revel and I also believe a most of others would agree totally that a refund implies that you’ll 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 Fine Print
The print that is fine the offer from the casino makes the promotion a little less amazing than it may seem in the beginning. A number of the restrictions are instead tame: gamblers must lose at the very 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 given to players that has Conti and others upset. Players can receive their refunds only 5 percent at time, with every ‘block’ of 5 percent being available in one of this 20 weeks after the promotion ends. If a gambler doesn’t visit the casino in a given week, they won’t manage to receive that percentage of these refund. In addition, the refund doesn’t shell out in money, but in free play credits that are used in the devices; it may not be directly cashed down.
Some might say that the few conditions on an offer such as this one are to be expected: after all, it will be foolish to think that a casino could simply hand back most of its winnings to customers, even over a short period of time. Nonetheless, the fact that the details of the ‘refund’ program are flashed on tv ads for just a second and in extremely print that is small mean that Revel is skirting laws on clarity in marketing, if you don’t really breaking them.
Regardless of appropriate standing of the ad, the character of the advertising has turned off at least one gambler from visiting Revel once again.
‘When we told my mother about any of it she said, ‘That’s not just what the ad on TV said,” Conti said. ‘My mother has not visited the Revel and will maybe not go as time goes by.’
Federal Theft Trial Begins for Former Pequot Tribe Chairman
Michael Thomas, a disgraced former Mashantucket Pequot Tribal country president, is now 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 using the business card to personally rack up $80,000 in limousine service costs to get his mother to and from her medical appointments, according to the prosecutor’s opening statements at his trial.
Costly, Considerable Limo Rides
$80,000? That have to’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 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 determine if those costs had been 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 often buy gifts for high rollers with these cards, though what that is due to his mother, we’re maybe not entirely sure. Regardless, it appears that Michael Thomas never submitted required expense reports detailing his ill mother’s limo service. Also not helping the former chairman’s situation was testimony from Barbara Poirier, the tribe’s director of wellness services, who noted that the tribe makes transportation services available for members whom have to reach and from medical appointments.
Dirty Laundry…or Lingerie
Additionally apparently not for mother there were some Victoria’s Secret credit fees made to your account that is tribal. Probably for a rain party ceremony or royal vegas claim bonus 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, therefore naturally anybody could connect to his suffering.
Defendant Thomas has pleaded not guilty to 1 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 12 months. 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.
Your family that steals together, appeals together? That’s a complete lot of wampum.
UK Debt Collector Makes Bad Casino Bets Using Collected Funds
A Coventry, UK debt collector decided it was a good clear idea to gamble away a £6,000 (over $9,000) contract which he had restored from a debtor on behalf of his employer, in order to recover their own £30 ($46) petrol bill.
Maybe Not Certified to Steal
Unfortunately for him, this is not an idea that is good all. In reality, it absolutely was most likely the stupidest decision he ever made, as he’s now been sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended for two years, and will likely be forced to do 80 hours of unpaid work for his manager, and pay back payment to 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 ability to take the profit February a year ago, after being instructed to pick up two £6,000 contracts for Face 2 Face, a company that executes warrants and recover debts on behalf of utility companies.
Upon collecting the debts, it had been Chatha’s task to deposit the funds into the company’s account within twenty four hours. However, seizing the ability to make a little money that is extra the 34-year-old alternatively deposited one among the contracted quantities, and tottered on over to a regional casino where he gambled away all the money during the period of several days.
When questioned by authorities, he attempted to claim that it was all just an easy banking error, and this one £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 Tale
However, when police took to the CCTV footage from the bank branch, they determined that Chatha was in reality making a false testimony, and in the end monitored him down again in February this present year, after he had changed his address, and revealed their findings, which left him no option but to admit his actions and realize the theft.
‘we needed to pay for petrol while I was working,’ said Chatha, who chose to represent himself. ‘I wasn’t thinking straight. It was never my intention to just take it all. I spent some funds to fund my petrol expenses, and ended up being then attempting to get the cash back without anyone knowing, so I went up to a bookmakers and a casino,’ he said, adding that with the force of trying to win his losses back, ‘I tried it all.’
The judge, however, had beenn’t purchasing it.
‘ I do not believe your account of what happened, but I can’t be certain exactly what did occur to it,’ reported Judge Richard Griffith-Jones upon sentencing your debt collector. ‘It is very important that this failed to go on for a period that is long of. It was one impulsive act to steal the money, and also you pleaded responsible during the first opportunity.’