Chief Stipe

As has been pointed out to you before the legislation exists for Sports to receive profit revenue from the TAB activities related to those sports. However they must have a NSO (National Sporting Organisation) to be eligible. Unless you are arguing that the surplus revenue from Sports that don't have an agreement should be shared by equally or proportionally amongst all three codes and any sport that has an agreement with the TAB. Name one Sport that doesn't have an NSO/agreement with the TAB that has significant revenue that isn't distributed to that Sport?

Well AUSTRAC in their statement of claim make a case for ENTAIN not having done enough Geo-blocking.

Yeah well MGM Resorts share prices is down 34% in the last 6 months. The share price will be under more pressure if the USA tips into a recession.

Picked up a suspension yesterday.

I know where the quote comes from but in your opinion Greg what does it mean? You seem to be inferring something but it is unclear what.

Reading the latest TABNZ annual report Jetbet is long gone. The TAB has always been a statutory entity. The Crown owns it in fact it only exists as long as the Crown permits it to.

I didn't say it was "all good" but we've all experienced one way or another the AML laws in NZ. But do you seriously think that ENTAIN would try and rort the system in NZ? Sky Casino got nailed last year. I would say unlike other acquisitions ENTAINS NZ customer database and their transactions would be quite clean. ENTAIN would be very very stupid to jeopardise their monopoly license in NZ. The AUSTRAC case if you ignore the BS journalists is at a low end of the scale compared to what AUSTRAC have taken on previously in OZ.

Not true. The difference in the AUSTRAC case is the issues indentified in their Statement of Claim had their origin with the Ladbrokes business. ENTAIN took over the NZ customer base and migrated to their online betting system those customers that have been subjected to quite thorough due diligence. There is an expectation underpinned by regulations and legislation in NZ that ANY entity dealing with large amounts of monetary transactions HAS to electronically send data to the DIA. I've had some work experience in this area and it wasn't unheard of for the data that was sent to trigger a red flag with the DIA which in the first instance notified the business and requested more information. The only way for ENTAIN to circumvent that system is to manipulate the data transfer. TABNZ still have a governance role in that respect.

I'm sorry to say but you are wrong. Under the AML/CFT legislation financial institutions, casinos, and other businesses identified as potentially vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing are considered reporting entities and have obligations to comply with AML/CFT regulations. These organisations have rule based software systems that create data files that are regularly exchanged with the DIA. There is no way with the TABNZ/ENTAIN turnover that they are not exchanging data. Activities that trigger compliance obligations are known as "captured activities" and have been identified by the DIA as potentially exposing businesses to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. Prescribed Transactions: Certain transactions, such as international wire transfers of $1,000 or more and physical cash transactions of $10,000 or more, are considered "prescribed transactions" and must be reported to the DIA. Data Exchange: The DIA requires reporting entities to exchange data related to these transactions and activities, including customer identification data, transaction details, and any information that could assist in identifying or preventing money laundering or terrorist financing.

Seriously @westbrew what major sport doesn't have a National Organisation in NZ? You are talking loose change that gets reallocated. No that's factually incorrect on a number of points. Racing does NOT own the TAB nor the platform "the totalisator". TABNZ is a statutory entity essentially owned by the Government of NZ on behalf of all New Zealanders. It has a Governance Board that does comprise members from each of the codes (will be interesting to see the legislation changes to get ride GRNZ). Fixed odds wagering on Sports in NZ is "owned" by TABNZ. It is the only NZ entity that is legislated to provide that service. Under the Racing Act TABNZ is obliged to distribute wagering revenue to sports through National Sporting Organisations. Check out Sections 78 and 79 of the Racing Act. 78Sports betting rules (1) TAB NZ may make, amend, and revoke rules providing for the establishment of a system (or systems) of sports betting, and providing for any matter relating to the conduct and operation of sports betting by TAB NZ. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the rules— (a) may state the kinds of betting that may be undertaken; and (b) may state the circumstances in which— (i) a bet may be refunded, and when it may be retained by TAB NZ; or (ii) any fixed-odds bets may be laid off on other betting systems by TAB NZ for the purpose of limiting TAB NZ’s exposure on any particular event or events; or (iii) TAB NZ may cancel any bet; and (c) must state the amounts described in section 84(2). (3) TAB NZ must consult Sport and Recreation New Zealand before making, amending, or revoking any rules under subsection (1). (4) However, subsection (3) does not apply if TAB NZ and Sport and Recreation New Zealand agree otherwise in any particular case. (5) Rules under this section are secondary legislation (see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 79Agreements with New Zealand national sporting organisations (1) TAB NZ may not conduct sports betting on any sporting event or events without the written agreement of the appropriate New Zealand national sporting organisation. (2) An agreement entered into under subsection (1) must be on the terms and conditions that are agreed between TAB NZ and the New Zealand national sporting organisation concerned, including payment to the sporting organisation, under section 82(1)(e), of revenue derived from sports betting on the event or events to which the agreement relates.

It was a percentage of turnover on the respective sport and that sport needed to have a National Organisation in order to receive the revenue. As far as I know Racing didn't directly get any of that money except that which wasn't allocated. Of course there was a contribution to overheads from Sport.

What does that mean and where did you extract it from? Source please.

Where have they "failed miserably" in NZ? Bear in mind they were taking over an existing business along with its existing compliance issues if any. The alledged NZ'er in the article was obviously betting with Ladbrokes Australia. I guess geo-blocking will stop that.

Where in NZ? You seem to be all over it. Post the detail.

TABNZ/ENTAIN will like any organisation that comes under the rules of the ACT has to supply information to the DIA and FMA on an ongoing and regular basis. Essentially they are being audited constantly. If there are data matches that cause red flags to be raised the business will be informed to allow compliance action to take place. Currently there are three agencies in NZ overseeing the enforcement of the AML legislation. The Reserve Bank; The Financial Markets Authority (FMA); The Department of Internal Affairs. The functions done by these entities is about to be merged into one dedicated organisation. There are other agencies as well involved - the Ministry of Justice, Police FIU and Customs. 23 October 2024 Government to overhaul anti-money laundering regime Hon Nicole McKee Justice The Government will introduce a single supervisor and a new funding model in a major overhaul of New Zealand’s Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) system, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee says. “Cabinet has approved an AML/CFT reform work programme which will change the supervisor structure that monitors AML/CFT compliance and introduce a new funding model for the system. These reforms will allow the system to be more responsive to industry and community needs, more agile, and more focused on the real risks posed by money laundering to New Zealand businesses. “The changes will deliver a critical Government priority to reform key sectors where the cost of regulation is overly burdensome for businesses and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the AML/CFT system to meet international standards.” The Government is introducing the changes following a Financial Action Task Force evaluation of New Zealand’s regulatory regime and a subsequent review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. A single-supervisor model will replace the current three-supervisor model and will establish the Department of Internal Affairs as the sole supervisor of the AML/CFT system. Currently, supervision of different parts of the AML/CFT system are overseen by the Reserve Bank, Financial Markets Authority, and Internal Affairs. “The Government is very aware of the risks money-laundering and financing of terrorism poses to New Zealand businesses and moving to a single supervisor will improve the efficiency of the system, establish a more risk-based approach, and enable more timely provision of guidance and support. I have heard from businesses that this will provide substantive regulatory relief,” Mrs McKee says. “In considering how to improve the supervisory model, I will be focusing on how the positive effects can be felt as soon as possible, such as ensuring work on industry guidance and codes of practice starts promptly.” “The Government will also introduce a new sustainable funding model for the AML/CFT system as part of the reforms. The funding model will establish an industry-levy to support a flexible and coordinated system that will deliver sector benefits. The levy will be designed to ensure that costs are equitable and reasonable for the sector and will not place undue burden on small businesses.” An AML/CFT National Strategy and work programme will be introduced as part of the funding model. Legislation will require any amendments to the levy to be informed by the National Strategy and work programme. “This work programme will be developed in partnership with industry and agreed by Cabinet to ensure that the AML/CFT system is focussed on industry priorities. The new funding model will mean better and more efficient regulation, supervision, and support for industry. “The changes will ensure New Zealand maintains its international reputation and will align our AML/CFT system with the financial sectors of our key trading partners to support trade, investment and economic growth.”

So @Kit Walker what is your motivation?

Again another journalis beat up. Where is the evidence of that? Yes as is every other organisation handling large sums of money.

Ladbrokes was purchased by ENTAIN. With regard to the compliance software - it has struggled to keep up with changes in regulations and enforcement agency expectations. The enforcement agencies have been given access to a considerable amount of data that businesses don't have access to. Not only that by the agencies have been well funded. If the systems were that good why did WESTPAC get it so wrong? Even the Commonwealth Bank of Australia got done $700m in 2018 i.e. 7 years ago. The software is good at raising flags but not so good at aiding investigation. For example how would Ladbrokes (now ENTAIN) have access to the bank statements of big customers unless they requested them at sign up? Let alone draw the dots between a report in the media about an asian drug trafficker and a customers bank account? Especially 15 years ago. That's drawing a long bow. Are you suggesting our AML enforcement agencies aren't up to scratch?

Ladbrokes aren't alone in that regard. A losing punter is gold. Ladbrokes started in AUS in 2013. ENTAIN didn't buy Ladbrokes until 2018 even then it was a precursor to ENTAIN namely GVC. ENTAINS statutory issues were essentially purchased issues.

Most of the cases mentioned in AUSTRAC's claim go back to 2015. By international standards $15m isn't large. Kerry Packer used to bet more than $500k a hand of poker and $10m+ in a sitting. What also isn't mentioned in the embellished articles is that ENTAIN has been improving their AML systems. Many of the cases date back years and relate to entities that ENTAIN purchased e.g. Ladbrokes. Most of the accounts in question have already been closed as the new systems have come into service. So in terms of "previous similar problems" these statutory issues overlap and isn't as if ENTAIN has been sitting on their hands. If you want to be informed read the 600+ pages of the AUSTRAC Statement of Claim (attached). I'm sure it will keep you excited for days. AUSTRAC CEO v Entain Group Pty Ltd - Statement of Claim (redacted).pdf

They have an interim CEO - Stella David. The EBITDA for the 2024 year is NZ$2.5 billion - so they aren't doing that bad. In fact the majority of financial analysts are saying buy.

As with many of the journalists writing these articles they tend to embellish the facts. The person referred to in this article who allegedly knew an alleged asian drug trafficker opened an account in 2015 and it was closed in 2022. AUSTRAC expected ENTAIN to match foreign news reports to the trafficker who allegedly deposited money in the account holders bank account. The ladbrokes account had a turnover of about $9m in 7 years. The second example is similar however as these articles tend to do they infer the turnover was the amount that was allegedly money laundered when the amount is considerably less than that. AUSTRAC have a dedicated team that has access to a considerable amount of financial data that ENTAIN doesn't. In terms of perspective the Statement of Claim against ENTAIN pales in comparison to the likes of SkyCity, SportsBet, and Westpac. One punter at SkyCity had a turnover of nearly $2 billion! Westpac was fined $1.3 billion for 19 million individual breaches of the act.

Uh? Reported where? I suspect you have made it up.

About what?

Then you'll be back to training on the AWT.