About this app
About Diamond Rise
“What I saw is, Holland Casino is a company with 4,000 people working in hospitality, in a strongly regulated market where you have to balance between offering entertainment and a nice evening out with hospitality, and the risk attached to that – and there you see the similarities with the airline industry.
She adds: “For example, Transavia also had 4,000 people, cabin crew, cockpit, and more, all very regulated, labour union intensive, people being busy with what can we offer to the guests – but at the same time they have to know their rules and their regulations very well, because it’s important when there’s risk attached.
“I had never been a CEO before so I came to it with a kind of Pippi Longstocking attitude – ‘I’ve never done it, but I’m sure I can do it!’”
About Diamond Rise
As QuinnBet is also licensed in Gibraltar, Williams expects its regulator to consider the UK’s findings under the jurisdiction’s strengthened Gambling Act 2025. That would not necessarily require a second sanction, but Gibraltar must satisfy itself that any underlying weaknesses have been addressed, he says.
QuinnBet is just the latest news.
This summer, the Commission reached settlements of £900,000 with Betfred over safer gambling failures, £4.75 million with Evolution over weaknesses in its AML risk assessment and supply-chain oversight, and £122,835 with Stakelogic after games were found to be running faster than permitted.
About Diamond Rise
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.
