Captain Nemo

About Captain Nemo

These remarks align with a broader regulatory focus on harm-minimisation within online gambling, where adherence to self-exclusion protocols is under closer scrutiny.

“These were serious breaches by Dabble. Wagering providers must have robust systems in place to protect people who have chosen to self-exclude,” Lidgerwood added.

Tabcorp Holdings Limited, one of Australia’s largest wagering and media companies was also fined more than AU$2.7 million earlier this year. ACMA clarified that Tabcorp had violated telemarketing and spam regulations over a 16-month period. 

How to play Captain Nemo

Bright believes the biggest challenge in Africa remains ensuring more women reach senior decision-making positions.

“I think if you look at the regulators, sometimes I do feel sad to see that it is largely just men,” she says. “I’d like to see more women regulators in more senior positions.

“But I think the tide is turning. Our work is not done. That’s how I see it. We’ve got lots more to do, but I definitely think it’s moving in the right direction.”

About Captain Nemo

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.