About this app
About Circuit Shock
It found Lalabet’s operators and directors had acted unlawfully by targeting Dutch players and ordered them to cease activities and provide detailed ownership and shareholder information.
The court also explored potential liabilities for trust administrators and local representatives who facilitate illegal gambling sites.
While it did not find Curaçao-based trust firm DECC and its directors liable in this case, the ruling signalled that closer scrutiny of such intermediaries could unfold.
How to play Circuit Shock
The Dream Drop feature has been designed to enhance the player experience and provide players with unmatched experiences. With a total of 32 MEGA Jackpot winners since launching the product four years ago, Dream Drop has been a constant focal point for player interest.
“Seeing such a positive player response so early is a rewarding reflection of the hard work and dedication that has gone into bringing Dream Drop to market. We’re excited to build on this momentum and encourage Danish operators looking to elevate their jackpot offering to discover what Dream Drop can do for their casinos and their players,” Smith added.
FDJ United Director of Casino and Gaming David Robertson was similarly pleased with the opportunity to see his company strengthen its content offering with brand-new types of content.
About Circuit Shock
George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.
Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”
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.
