Genies Gem Bonanza

What is Genies Gem Bonanza?

At the time KSA announced: “Providers that made mistakes in the past five years must explain during the application process how they have learned from previous mistakes and how they intend to prevent recurrence. If we find this explanation insufficient, the permit may be denied or additional conditions and restrictions may be imposed.” 

This requirement raised concerns among operators worried that the barriers to entry could have become more restrictive, But at a meeting on the policies last year the regulator assured licensees it was not enforcing a specific strict rule on this.

Speaking to iGB at the time, Bjorn Fuchs, chairman of VNLOK Fuchs noted “there was a sigh of relief going through the room when it was presented”.

What is Genies Gem Bonanza?

“Having a minimum standard in player protection is one of the aims of the network. Our view is that responsible gaming regulations need to move beyond being paper-based requirements to actual standards that are upheld as a regulatory requirement.”

The ARGN’s launch follows the inaugural Africa Safer Gambling Week earlier this month.

Hosted by the African iGaming Alliance, the week brought together a range of stakeholders in the African sector.

How to play Genies Gem Bonanza

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.