Jackpot Giant

About Jackpot Giant

Last year, the DRC’s Minister of Finance Doudou Fwamba estimated iGaming operators generated around $1.7 billion in annual revenue, yet contributed approximately $1 million in taxes.

A CEO of a prominent operator in the DRC last year told iGB the tax system largely operates on a declaration basis of how much operators report to the government.

“Operators do pay, yes, but they pay whatever suits them,” they said. “In other words, we effectively pay what benefits us. All the while, the state has no means of monitoring its regulatory policies.”

What is Jackpot Giant?

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has published a report setting out red-flag risk indicators across the gaming and gambling sector. The indicators cover money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing. 

FATF released the report – Risks of Gaming and Gambling – on Wednesday. It updates the body’s 2009 analysis of the casino sector. In addition, it draws on questionnaire responses from 80 jurisdictions and written comments from a further 29, alongside industry consultation.

The report identifies land-based and online casinos and sports betting as carrying the highest money laundering exposure. By contrast, lotteries and scratchcards present lower risk. 

What is Jackpot Giant?

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”

This particular lawsuit involving Fox Financial, one of a growing list IPI is battling, centers on an arrangement the company made with a third party, Forson Holdings. That entity had leased property from Fox in 2016, but fell behind. IPI had signed as a guarantor of that lease agreement and, as such, was responsible for covering Forson in the event payments weren’t made. However, it decided it didn’t need to follow the terms of the contract.