February 9th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
Paddy Power has increased its stake in Australia’s Sportsbet, strengthening its position beyond Europe.
Paddy Power said its stake had risen to 60.8% following the buyout of a 9.8% holding from a minority shareholder – Nambawan Capital – for €8.5m.
Analysts said the increased stake as a sign Paddy Power’s plans to expand beyond saturated British and Irish markets were a success.
Last year, Paddy Power announced it was acquiring an initial 51% stake in Sportsbet.
Paddy Power shares were up 2% to stand at €23.95 in Dublin this afternoon, a gain of 50 cent.
Posted in: Casino News
February 9th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
MGM Mirage MGM Mirage and other gaming stocks have been slowly declining in the early trading days this week, but on Thursday the stocks rebounded in a big way. MGM stock led the way, increasing by almost ten percent.
For the first three days of the week, gaming stocks were hovering near the even mark, with some dropping or increasing by less than one percent, but Thursday the stocks were helped by the revenue numbers released by the Nevada Gambling Control Board.
Las Vegas casino revenue was up for the month of December. The increase in revenue caused investors to become comfortable again with buying stock in US-based gaming companies.
MGM Mirage was up almost a full $1, closing the day at $11.38. It was an increase of 9.42%, the best of the day. Other companies such as Boyd Gaming, Pinnacle Entertainment, and Monarch Casino & Resort were up to $7.78, $7.60, and $6.91, respectively.
Wynn Resorts and Las Vegas Sands were two companies that had big days Thursday after the Las Vegas revenue figures were announced. Wynn stock rose 5.80%, to $64.96, and Sands stock finished the day at $16.87, up 5.80%.
Posted in: Casino News
Tags: Gambling
February 4th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
When it comes to Super Bowl 2010, there were a few standout bets that made especially good sense considering recent past history and other variables.
Peyton Manning winning Super Bowl 2010 MVP was one such bet. Odds favor the Colts winning the big game and, should that happen, we don’t see anyone other than Manning being named Super Bowl MVP. These odds were available at Sports Interaction.com.
Indianapolis Colts on the money line at -200. Sure the risk is $20 to win $10 (the $20 bet is refunded should the Colts win outright), but there are good trends that make all the difference in the world between winning outright and covering a line of -4 ½ to -6.
All but two of the last eleven Super Bowls were won by the favorite, however, 4 of those games were won by only 3 points (below the current spread).
Another bet Gambling911.com likes in the Super Bowl 2010 is an obscure wager found at Sports Interaction.
Will a member of The Who smash a guitar during the Super Bowl Halftime Show?
With odds that pay $16.50 for every $10 bet on the "NO", we say bet it!
The Who were known for smashing their instruments and they might want to do something a little edgy. No wardrobe malfunction though please!
Bet on the 2010 Super Bowl Here Remember to use bonus code GAMBLING911 to claim your FREE CASH. Use your Visa, Master Card or Direct Money Transfer to open an online betting account today. The first online sportsbook licensed in Canada. Established 1997.
Tyrone Black, Gambling911.com
Posted in: Casino News
February 4th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
Previously we answered the question: "Where can I bet on the 2010 Super Bowl?", providing the necessary information as to where you can bet on the Super Bowl online.
Some of you may not be familiar with how to bet on the Super Bowl 2010 online. It’s not as complicated as one might think.
Remember to ONLY USE ONLINE SPORTSBOOKS ENDORSED BY GAMBLING911.COM HERE. All of these companies are long established. Most are older than 10 years. They are also among the more financially sound. Fly-by-nights cannot and those online sportsbooks that have limited funds cannot afford to advertise on Gambling911.com, the world’s leader in gambling news and odds monitoring.
The most popular method in which to open an online betting account is by eCheck. It’s quick and efficient. Some people do not feel comfortable using this method. The younger you are, the more inclined you are to do so.
For us older folks, credit cards may be the way to go. No online sportsbooks accept American Express. Visa and Mastercard are widely accepted at most online gambling sites.
Some online sportsbooks accept gift cards but one can only bet a few hundred dollars as they do have limitations.
A lot of you don’t mind going to your neighborhood Western Union, while others find that method sleazy and sometimes intimidated. It is among the fastest ways to deposit and collect funds however.
All of these methods should take under an hour in terms of setting up but Gambling911.com advises not to wait until the last minute as it may be tough getting through during the final few hours of Super Bowl Sunday with the crunch time betting frenzy in full swing. And do not forget to mention bonus code GAMBLING911 as all our online sportsbooks offer FREE CASH BONUSES (some restrictions apply contingent on how much money is being bet or deposited)
Placing your first bet is simple and takes just seconds.
Follow the easy-to-read instructions and you are ready to go. Every site features a section on how to bet along with policies. The question most people ask in regard to how one places a sports bet online is the amount that must be wagered.
Most books feature a minimum of no more than $10 online. Some books allow bets as low as $1. Maximum bets can range in the thousands, though Super Bowl prop bets are often limited to a few hundred dollars.
Posted in: Casino News
Tags: Gambling
January 30th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
Online gambling software group Playtech plc, has introduced its new playing platform for Mobile gaming. The new Mobile Web Apps is the latest cross-platform solution from Playtech, allowing players to continue playing their favourite online casino games on the go, dispensing with the need to download first.
Playtech Mobile gives its operators the opportunity to grow their player base by expanding their existing online operations into the mobile entertainment market. Playtech Mobile’s Web Apps is the latest way in which users can enjoy the freedom and flexibility of mobile casinos, switching easily between their computer and mobile using the same account log-in. This non-stop, instant play experience is supported by mobile platforms of iPhone/iPod Touch and Android phones, enabling a maximum exposure to a maximum audience.
With over a dozen casino games already available for the mobile, the three pioneer games to launch as Mobile Web Apps are Blackjack, Jacks or Better (video poker) and the Gold Rally progressive slot, which is linked to the Playtech progressive jackpot.
Playtech is launching three more new games as Java apps : Pop Bingo, a single player version of the classic Bingo; Keno, an exciting lottery-style game, and the all-enduring, fixed odds face-off Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Playtech Mobile’s innovative Casino Packs allow operators to create their own unique download packages. By bundling the custom-selected games into one package, users can log-in one time and access all the games instantly.
Playtech’s Mobile Gaming is fully supported by the Information Management Solution (IMS), Playtech’s operational infrastructure that expertly manages and monitors all the activities of the mobile gaming operation. The system’s modular architecture enables full integration and customisation opportunities, allowing licensees to take full advantage of Playtech’s cross-platform capabilities.
Posted in: Casino News
Tags: Gambling, Poker
January 30th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
Online poker payment processor, Douglas Rennick of Canada, is facing up to 30 years in prison after an appeals court on Monday upheld a contempt order for his refusing to comply with a grand-jury subpoena. Rennick is accused of processing more than $350 million in payments for Internet gambling companies including PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker.
In an order Monday, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that two companies owned by Douglas Rennick can refuse to comply with a subpoena on grounds that it would violate Rennick’s Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
Rennick, who lives in Canada, is the sole shareholder, officer and employee of Account Services Corp. and KJB Financial Corp.
"Although the long-established ‘collective entity rule’ prevents corporations from availing themselves of the Fifth Amendment privilege, the companies contend that the Supreme Court’s decision in Braswell v. United States compels us to carve out an exception for one-person corporations," the three-judge panel found. "We disagree and affirm the district court’s contempt order."
What follows is the ruling obtained by Gambling911.com.
On June 18, 2009, a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York issued a subpoena duces tecum to Account Services Corporation in connection with an investigation of alleged bank fraud, illegal gambling, and money laundering. The Government and the Companies agreed to construe the subpoena as being directed not just to Account Services Corporation, but to both of the Companies. On July 10, 2009, Rennick moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that his personal Fifth Amendment rights permitted the Companies to resist the subpoena since he was the only individual capable of producing the requested corporate records and the act of production would be testimonial and potentially self-incriminating. Judge Swain, sitting in the Southern District’s emergency part, denied the motion. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued June 18, 2009, No. M11-189, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71610 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2009).
On August 5, 2009, Rennick was indicted on charges of conspiracy, bank fraud, illegal gambling, and money laundering. Subsequently, the Companies refused to comply with the subpoena, leading Judge Sullivan, who was then sitting in the emergency part, to hold them in contempt. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued June 18, 2009, No. M11-189 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2009).
The Companies now appeal.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. amend. V. This text "limits the relevant category of compelled incriminating communications to those that are `testimonial’ in character." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000). Because the act of producing documents can be both incriminating and testimonial – such as when it confirms the documents’ existence, possession, or authenticity – a subpoenaed party may be able to resist production on Fifth Amendment grounds. See United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612-13 (1984).
Under the long-established "collective entity rule," however, corporations cannot avail themselves of the Fifth Amendment privilege. Braswell, 487 U.S. at 104-10. A corollary of this rule is that the custodian of corporate records, who acts as a representative of the corporation, cannot refuse to produce corporate records on Fifth Amendment grounds. See Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). This is true (1) whether the subpoena is directed to the corporation itself or to the custodian in his representative capacity, see id. at 88, and (2) "regardless of how small the corporation may be," id. at 100.
In In re Two Grand Jury Subpoenae Duces Tecum, 769 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1985), we considered whether there was an exception to the collective entity rule for a corporation that was "essentially a one-man operation" (nominally, it had three shareholders). Id. at 54. There, the subpoenaed party made much the same argument that the Companies make here: the custodian of corporate records for a one-person corporation could resist the subpoena since he was the only person capable of producing the documents and the act of production would incriminate him personally. We disagreed, stating emphatically, "[t]here simply is no situation in which the fifth amendment would prevent a corporation from producing corporate records, for the corporation itself has no fifth amendment privilege." Id. at 57. Assuming it remains good law, this case appears to resolve the issue now before us. See United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004) ("[We] are bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court.").
Since our ruling in In re Two Grand Jury Subpoenae, the Supreme Court decided Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988), a very similar case. There, the targeted corporations were also essentially one-person operations (the owner’s wife and mother served alongside the owner as figurehead directors). Although the Supreme Court held that the corporations’ custodian of records could not resist a subpoena on Fifth Amendment grounds, it also held that, should the custodian stand trial, the Government could not introduce evidence that the custodian himself produced the records since he acted in his representative and not personal capacity. Id. at 117-18. The Court acknowledged, however, that the jury might permissibly infer that the custodian was the source of the documents based on his position at the corporation. Id. at 118. In a footnote, the Court "le[ft] open the question" of whether a custodian could resist a subpoena where he "is able to establish… that the jury would inevitably conclude that he produced the records," such as where the corporation was truly a one-person operation. Id. at 118 n.11.
We conclude that Braswell did not overrule In re Two Grand Jury Subpoenae. The Supreme Court explicitly withheld decision on the question of whether an actual one-person corporation could resist a subpoena on Fifth Amendment grounds. This non-decision does not call into question our categorical finding that "[t]here simply is no situation" in which a corporation can avail itself of the Fifth Amendment privilege. In re Two Grand Jury Subpoenae, 769 F.2d at 57. We note that we are not the first circuit court to conclude that Braswell did not overrule such precedent. See Amato v. United States, 450 F.3d 46, 51 (1st Cir. 2006).
Our conclusion that a one-person corporation cannot avail itself of the Fifth Amendment privilege is not only supported by our precedent, but is sensible. First, it prevents the erosion of the "unchallenged rule that the [corporation] itself is not entitled to claim any Fifth Amendment privilege." Bellis, 417 U.S. at 90. Second, it recognizes that the decision to incorporate is freely made and generates benefits, such as limited liability, and burdens, such as the need to respond to subpoenas for corporate records. See Amato, 450 F.3d at 52. Third, it avoids creating a category of organizations effectively immune from regulation by virtue of being beyond the reach of the Government’s subpoena power. See United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 700 (1944) ("Were the cloak of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege to be thrown around these impersonal [corporate] records and documents, effective enforcement of many federal and state laws would be impossible."); see also Braswell, 487 U.S. at 115 (noting the importance of subpoenaing corporate records in the fight against white collar crime). Every other court to have considered this issue has reached the same conclusion for largely the same reasons. See, e.g., Amato, 450 F.3d 46, 51-53; United States v. Stone, 976 F.2d 909, 912 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Milligan, 371 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1129 (D. Ariz. 2005); SEC v. Bremont, No. 96 Civ. 8771, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6125, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 1997); United States v. Maxey & Co., 956 F. Supp. 823, 829 (N.D. Ind. 1997); United States v. Raniere, 895 F. Supp. 699, 706-07 (D.N.J. 1995); United States v. Moseley, 832 F. Supp. 56, 58-59 (W.D.N.Y. 1993).
Finally, we question the basic premise of the Companies’ argument, namely, that a jury would inevitably conclude that Rennick himself produced the documents. Although the inference would be strong, it would not be automatic. For example, the jury might believe the Government obtained the documents entirely on its own, such as by conducting a search. Even if the jurors learned that the Government obtained the documents via a subpoena, they might infer that the corporation engaged a third party to search its records and make the production on its behalf.
In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding the Companies in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena.
We observe in closing that the subpoena in question requires only that the Companies, and not any particular individual, produce the requested documents; how best to accomplish this is a question for the Companies and not this Court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
Posted in: Casino News
Tags: Gambling, Poker
January 25th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
Online Vegas Casino The upcoming weekend will mark the end of all of the new year slot tournaments that are taking place at online casinos. That means February has almost arrived, and Online Vegas Casino is taking players into the new month with a $50,000 slot tournament.
The See You In February $75,000 Weekend Madness event begins this Friday, and runs through next Tuesday, February 2nd. The tournament already has almost 100 players signed up, and thousands of more are sure to follow.
The tournament is set up similarly to how many of the most recent tourneys at Online Vegas have been structured. The entry fee has changed again for these slot tournaments, up to $13.99, but the prize pool has also increased.
Of the $75,000 that will be won by players, $50,000 will be in real money, and the other $25,000 will be bonus money. First place will win $21,000, second place is $9,500, and third place will be $4,500. The top twenty finishers will all win cash prizes of no less than $250.
The game of choice for this event is Love Bugs, and as is the case with many slot events these days, players may re-buy into the tournament if their balance runs low. The re-buy fee for this tournament is $13.99, and a player will receive an additional balance of $350. The starting balance for all players will be $325.
Posted in: Casino News
January 25th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
After nearly a year of television commercials featuring Dom Joly, and the chance for everyone to win a life changing jackpot of £8,888,888, it looks like the Pirate’s treasure is still safe. As yet, no one has found the ‘X’ that marks the spot!
The offer remains the same: all a player has to do is sign up and register with 888 Casino and they are then offered three free spins on the special Pirates Millions online slot. If the player gets very – very – lucky, the spin will land on the jackpot and the player will win the largest slots jackpot in the history of online gambling – a mind-blowing £8,888,888.
The advertising campaign has been a huge success with thousands of people signing up and giving the slots game a spin.
“I have never before gambled on an online slots machine,” said 888 Casino debutante Deborah Cullen. “I saw the television commercial and thought it was worth a punt. I registered, downloaded the software, and had my three spins.
“Unfortunately, I didn’t win but I guess it’s the same as filling in a lottery ticket. Someone, somewhere, will eventually get lucky and win!” She added.
If you still haven’t had your three free spins – what are you waiting for? You have until the end of the month to get lucky. No one has won it as yet!
Posted in: Casino News
Tags: Gambling
January 20th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
MGM Mirage It was a bad day for the stock market in general on Thursday and US gaming stocks felt the affects. Most top gaming stocks fell on Thursday, with Melco Crown Entertainment and Ameristar Casinos up slightly.
MGM Mirage stock dropped the most at the close of the trading day, falling by 4.95%. MGM stock finished the day at $11.32, declining $.59. The stock has now had two consecutive days where it has dropped.
Similarly, Las Vegas Sands stock fell 4.81%. It was a loss of almost a dollar a share, and Sands stock closed at $17.02. The stock is still trending upwards despite the small setback on Thursday.
Other gaming stocks that declined were Boyd Gaming, Pinnacle Entertainment, and Isle of Capri Casinos. Boyd stock closed at $8.76, Pinnacle stock finished the day at $8.58, and Isle of Capri stock ended the day at $8.89.
Melco Crown has traditionally gone against the trend of other gaming stocks and that was the case on Thursday. Melco Crown stock closed at $3.63, up 1.68%. Ameristar Casinos stock rose .53%, to $15.13.
Posted in: Casino News
January 20th, 2010 / No Comments » / by admin
Microgaming-powered Nedplay Casino, which has been worrying players for several weeks with bad communications and slow-pay problems, has been acquired by the popular 32Red AIM-listed online gambling group.
Initial player reaction appeared to be favourable due to 32Red’s outstanding reputation; it was awarded “Casino of the Decade” at Casinomeister earlier this week for outstanding support, ethical and responsive operations and business transparency.
A statement from 32Red revealed that the Nedplay player base would be absorbed and an immediate start made on processing outstanding player payments. The takeover agreement also includes all Internet domains and Intellectual Property.
The Nedplay branding will, at least for now, be maintained as the acquisition joins other 32Red brands such as 32Red Casino and Dash Casino.
In the company’s statement, chief executive Ed Ware said: “We are pleased to have the Nedplay Casino join our group and look forward to delivering the same high standards we apply across our existing operations to the Nedplay Casino.”
Nedplay players with approved pending withdrawals that are outstanding should expect payment from 32Red shortly, the statement advised, adding that the same applies to any outstanding affiliate payments.
Posted in: Casino News
Tags: Gambling
This site is built for the purpose of sharing information about Casinos. Online casinos gambling became very popular in the last few years as a medium for gambling on the internet. Players can place bets from their own home on every casino game they desire. Different online casinos have different games and their variations. Paying methods are used by depositing money into your account using a Credit Card. The casino players pay a cash advance in order to get virtual chips for playing online.
