Monopoly Money Line

What is Monopoly Money Line?

Illegal gambling operators are thriving at the expense of American consumers, siphoning billions in tax revenue from state governments, and undercutting the efforts of the legal market,” said AGA President and CEO Bill Miller. “It’s time for a national crackdown on the pervasive illegal market that is draining state coffers and putting people at risk.”

The AGA estimates that Americans wager $673.6 billion with illegal and unregulated gambling operators a year, with unregulated online slots and table games accounting for the lion’s share of the unlawful bets at $466.2 billion.

The post Mid-Atlantic Casinos Post Soft August as Revenues Slide Across NY, PA, and VA appeared first on Casino.org.

About Monopoly Money Line

A former Connecticut funeral director who stole clients’ prepayments to fund his excessive gambling habit will spend the next seven and a half years in state prison.

Philip Pietras, 52, admitted to stealing from more than 170 people, many of whom are senior citizens who sought to limit the emotional and financial burdens placed on their loved ones by prepaying for their funerals. But instead of placing those funds, meant for caskets and burial services, in escrow accounts, Pietras pocketed the money to gamble.

Pietras accepted a plea deal from the state, and prosecutors expect him to enter a guilty plea on Oct. 23 and be formally sentenced on Jan. 22, 2027.

What is Monopoly Money Line?

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.