The Equalizer

About The Equalizer

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. 

It finds that online gaming shows more documented terrorist financing activity than gambling, although proliferation financing risks remain limited across both sectors.

Cash, e-wallets, mobile money and virtual assets emerge as the payment methods most vulnerable to abuse. This is particularly true where operators use them to structure deposits below reporting thresholds. 

About The Equalizer

Apuesta Total strengthens online poker offering with EvenBet Gaming

Peruvian operator integrates supplier’s world class platform

Leading online gaming software developer, EvenBet Gaming, has significantly extended its presence in South America after integrating its market-leading online poker platform with Apuesta Total. The Peruvian operator has strengthened its multi-channel offering with EvenBet’s poker software, enabling the company to capitalise on the vertical which has experienced tremendous growth in the previous 12 months.

How to play The Equalizer

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.”