About this app
About Easter Heist
The press release also warned operators against complying with any payment requests from departments that aren’t legally authorised to do so.
It called for any such acts to be reported immediately to the Ministry of Finance and the Directorate General of Administrative, Judicial, State Property and Equity Revenues (DGRAD).
The DGRAD has been tasked with identifying and securing the cancellation of any irregularly issued payment notices.
About Easter Heist
The lottery operator also criticised government proposals for a blanket advertising ban on licensed online gambling providers in June. It argued such restrictions could inadvertently drive more players towards unregulated, illegal platforms.
According to Nederlandse Loterij, illegal operators currently control approximately half of the Dutch online gambling market and account for roughly 95% of online gambling advertisements, frequently masquerading as licensed providers.
The Loterij suggested around 200,000 Dutch citizens already engage with unauthorised platforms.
What is Easter Heist?
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.
IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”
This particular lawsuit involving Fox Financial, one of a growing list IPI is battling, centers on an arrangement the company made with a third party, Forson Holdings. That entity had leased property from Fox in 2016, but fell behind. IPI had signed as a guarantor of that lease agreement and, as such, was responsible for covering Forson in the event payments weren’t made. However, it decided it didn’t need to follow the terms of the contract.
