curious

https://www.miragenews.com/austrac-takes-ladbrokes-and-neds-operator-entain-1379104/#google_vignette AUSTRAC Takes Ladbrokes And Neds' Operator - Entain Today, AUSTRAC commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against Entain Group Pty Ltd (Entain), which operates online betting sites including Ladbrokes, Neds and other online betting brands. The proceedings allege serious and systemic non-compliance with Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) laws. AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas said the agency considers there were systemic failures in Entain's approach to its AML/CTF obligations. "AUSTRAC's proceedings allege that Entain did not develop and maintain a compliant anti-money laundering program and failed to identify and assess the risks it faced. We are alleging this left the company at serious risk of criminal exploitation. "Money laundering is often a symptom of serious criminal activity, including fraud, scams and corruption, all of which have equally serious effects on our communities," he said. AUSTRAC's allegations include that: Entain's board and senior management did not have appropriate oversight of its AML/CTF program, which limited its ability to identify the ML/TF risks it faced and its vulnerability to criminal exploitation. Entain operated a 24/7 business through its website and app, which created risks that persons unknown to Entain could access and use Entain's betting platform including through third party providers. Third parties, including businesses and individuals, accepted cash and other deposits on behalf of Entain to be credited into betting accounts in ways that could obscure the proceeds of crime. Cash is less transparent than other forms of money and is at higher risk of being the proceeds of crime. Entain did not have appropriate controls to confirm the identity of customers making these deposits and the source of this money. Entain did not conduct appropriate checks on 17 higher risk customers, including examples where Entain did not appropriately deal with the risk that its online betting sites were being exploited by criminals to spend the proceeds of serious crime. This includes allegations that Entain deliberately obscured the identity of some high risk customers, on its own systems, through the use of pseudonyms to "protect their privacy". "This is the first time AUSTRAC has brought civil penalty proceedings against businesses operating in the online betting sector, and the Australian arm of Entain is part of one of the world's largest sports betting and gaming groups," Mr Thomas said. "The online betting sector, and all other businesses regulated by AUSTRAC, must take their AML/CTF obligations seriously. This includes ensuring they have appropriate procedures to know who their customer is, even when they rely on third parties to process transactions." The action taken today is part of AUSTRAC's ongoing work focussed on gambling businesses in Australia to fight money laundering opportunities in the gambling industry. Following the Federal Court ordering Crown pay $450million in penalties over 2 years in 2023, this year AUSTRAC has seen the Federal Court order SkyCity to pay $63M penalty for breaches to the AML/CTF Act, accept an enforceable undertaking from Sportsbet, continue the Federal Court case against Star and we are continuing our regulatory focus on a number of other gambling entities across Australia. Additionally, the launch of the money laundering National Risk Assessment this year highlighted the highly exposed nature and vulnerability to money laundering online betting agencies face. This valuable resource has been developed support business better understand and develop appropriate measures to mitigate their risks.

20 heats tomorrow at Foxton and horses from as far afield as Hastings, New Plymouth and Cambridge. What is wrong with the system that horses have to go to the expense and trouble to travel that far for a trial? 30 heats at Pukekohe!

Who are they?

What? I doubt it.

if the call for a referendum was held, 74.8% (992/1327) would vote in support of a ban on greyhound racing. Furthermore, 58.8% of respondents stated they would be disappointed in the government if they did not ban racing (780/1327), 68.3% (906/1327) agree that a ban on the greyhound racing is the right thing to do, and 65.5% (869/1327) believe it would improve New Zealand’s reputation for animal welfare.

I agree and I think the last quarterly data I saw showed injury rates to be double what they were for the same quarter last year. Then you have a bigger problem with the public perception and surveys showing that 75% would support a ban if there were a referendum. Hard for politicians to go against that I would say.

NZTR to Implement Interim Co-transition Leads Following the resignation of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) CEO Bruce Sharrock, The NZTR Board has planned an interim structure to take effect from 31 December as they continue the process to recruit a new CEO. The Board has appointed Chief Operating Officer, Darin Balcombe and Head of Legal, Jill Gregory as Co-Transition Leads to support the CEO function following Sharrock’s departure at the end of the year. NZTR Chairman Russell Warwick believes this approach will ensure comprehensive coverage across both the racing and commercial sides of the business, as both parties are already immersed in their respective areas through their current roles. “Recruitment for the CEO role is well underway, and the Board is encouraged by the quantity and quality of the applicants who have applied,” said Warwick “The Board expect a shortlist to be presented at the end of the month. However, it was important to have leaders in place who would keep the business progressing in the absence of a CEO. “Both Darin Balcombe and Jill Gregory are already heavily involved in the racing and commercial areas of NZTR, and it made sense for them to co-lead the NZTR team during the transition phase.” NZTR will continue to communicate the transition process over the next several months. Any questions or concerns can be directed to Darin Balcombe or Jill Gregory. Corporate Communications New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Contact: Catlyn Calder +64 27 252 2803 nztrcommunications@nztr.co.nz

NZTR are planning for it to be in effect by February as of the latest road show info. They've tentatively budgeted for the extra money. I'm similar to you though. I do 5-10% of my turnover on TAB/Betcha. That will probably halve once the 'no deductions' is gone. If I can't bet overseas, I'm still not going to find any more bets at value on the NZTAB unless they significantly improve their pricing. They certainly won't get any of the turnover that I currently bet offshore. I'm sure there are many like us. I'd love to see the business case for this. I wonder if that could be obtained? Perhaps by an OIA request if necessary?

True.

If there is such evidence, at this stage anyway, code specific punters will still be able to bet on the code, just not NZ racing.

What bias? All the evidence suggests that if you add or remove products, the existing punters will still lose the same amount betting as they did before.

I agree too. It's a bit like the whip rules. Not a lot wrong with the rules but if the enforcement and penalties remain so weak, the incidence of offences will not reduce, and we will continue to give human animal welfare advocates more ammunition to close racing down.

So, you think that no dog racing will reduce TAB turnover? I don't and I doubt Entain would either.

I find it interesting that they have taken a simple approach, making it illegal for overseas operators to take bets. No geo-blocking for example and not making it illegal for NZers to place bets with overseas operators. The onus seems to be on anyone offering to take bets. 74AAA Prohibition on offering betting to persons in New Zealand (1) No person other than TAB NZ may offer racing betting, sports betting, or other racing or sports betting (or any combination of those forms of betting) to a person in New Zealand. (2) Subsection (1) applies to a person (other than TAB NZ) regardless of where the person is resident or incorporated.

I don't see what the connection would be?

Another good one. I learn something or go away with something to reflect on from each of these. Again, the interviewing skill and style is something we just don't have here.

Maybe a win at all costs rider? Perhaps a has been one?

There's no place for mongrel in this or any other game if that puts the lives of humans and horses at any more risk than necessary for the sport to continue. TR will go the way of greyhounds if it's not sorted and promptly.

And it was 43.3 for the 800 so the course proper was again faster than the chute.

I'm guessing that in part she means dealt with at all, and then with severe enough penalties to significantly reduce their incidence.

Yeahh but as above the fastest half by quite a bit was on the course proper and I think the chute there is downhill isn't it?

Correct. The fastest half. Best last 400 was 20.92. So, the course proper was even faster than the chute.

Well, in the second race, the R65 1000, they ran the last 800 in 43 and change. That's surely a Firm 1? If not, how fast do they need to go for it to be so? That's cf. a reported Slow 5 that morning. This definitely deserves more than a slap on the hand from NZTR if they are serious about ensuring clubs meet track preparation requirements. It's a disgrace.

Meeting Type Funding.