40 Burning Dice

What is 40 Burning Dice?

Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stated that, if it were up to him, online betting companies would be shut down.

During a livestream on Sunday, he said he had met with “eight victims of online betting”. To reinforce his criticism of the sector and in an attempt to win over conservative voters, he pointed out that one gambler had made 1,400 instant fund transfers (Pix) to a betting site. Lula criticised the Central Bank for failing to detect such a high volume of transactions to a single company.

However, that responsibility does not lie with the Central Bank. It is the role of the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets to monitor and regulate the sector. Betting companies submit detailed daily reports on bettors’ financial transactions with the sites. A specific module within Brazil’s betting management system detects recurring transfers.

What is 40 Burning Dice?

As has been flagged in previous reports, Regulus highlighted that the top 1% of active customers accounts for almost 50% of black market revenue across Europe. This follows a similar trend across licensed gambling as the report highlights “online gambling is a consumer discretionary expenditure item. This means a large proportion of expenditure is concentrated into a relatively small number of players.”

In its market-specific breakdown, the report noted a “rapid reduction in channelling” in the UK, following the increased use of affordability checks.

The remote gaming duty hike from 21% to 40% in April is also expected to have a significant impact on the black market, with Regulus estimating it could drive the market to be worth up to €1 billion, as consumers choose illegal offerings to access unrestricted bonuses.

About 40 Burning Dice

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.

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.”