About this app
What is Jungle Reveal?
It is important to stress that the Commission has not published detailed findings or established that breaches occurred. Customers can still access their accounts and withdraw funds. Following the closures the sites still provided messaging about the suspended licences.
Even so, suspension is an unusually forceful intervention.
“In my experience, where compliance concerns can be satisfactorily addressed without suspending an operator’s licence, the Commission may allow the operator to implement remedial measures or an action plan while continuing to trade,” says Richard Williams, partner at Keystone Law, speaking before the news of the collapse of the businesses.
What is Jungle Reveal?
“Brazil learned a great deal from the experience of regulators worldwide while developing our own regulatory framework, and I view the IAGR as one of the most important forums for this exchange of knowledge,” he stated.
“Although each jurisdiction has its own legal system, market characteristics and regulatory priorities, many of the challenges we face are increasingly global. Combatting the illegal market, preventing money laundering, protecting consumers and ensuring betting integrity require ever-greater cooperation among regulators from different countries.”
Macorin will attend the IAGR Annual Conference in Peru (19-22 October). There, regulators and industry representatives from around the world will discuss emerging challenges and opportunities in gaming and betting regulation.
About Jungle Reveal
In June, Administrative Law Judge Joseph Meyer sided with the tribe, finding Minnesota Valley’s policies did not prohibit behind-the-meter generation and that disconnecting the casino would violate the cooperative’s obligation to provide service.
More than two dozen other Minnesota electric cooperatives subsequently backed the findings, agreeing that threatening disconnection over a non-exporting solar project violated core cooperative principles.
The PUC largely adopted Meyer’s recommendations, ruling that Minnesota Valley acted “unlawfully and unreasonably” by threatening the tribe.
