Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Luker said: No you clearly don’t understand the difference. No, I think RR does understand the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Gladys said: No, I think RR does understand the difference. Self evidently she does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 3 minutes ago, Luker said: Just to get back to what was originally said without the pedantic distractions. Consider S13.3 (C) OGRA. But who has been convicted? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Kopek said: The receivers are not likely to find much to realise? Usually what happens is that the police get a secret court order freezing bank accounts a few days before a raid. That order gets activated just before the raid starts so that by the time the police kick the back doors in the bank accounts are already blocked. It’ll be interesting to see what is left. Edited August 27 by Ringy Rose Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 The AG forced the receivership so the normal paths would not have applied? Operators of this type of business are likely to have 'escape routes' in place, both for their money and hides!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 4 minutes ago, Gladys said: But who has been convicted? Well, @Luker, has the licence holder or a designated official been convicted? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Ringy Rose said: Usually what happens is that the police get a secret court order freezing bank accounts a few days before a raid. That order gets activated just before the raid starts so that by the time the police kick the back doors in the back accounts are already blocked. It’ll be interesting to see what is left. Well the receivers would know. It was reported to be turning over upwards of £5M a month. But receivership is vastly different to liquidation or administration. There could easily be millions there making it highly solvent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Kopek said: Operators of this type of business are likely to have 'escape routes' in place, both for their money and hides!!! Once they knew about the raid it’ll have been too late to move anything. What will be interesting is how often the owners emptied the accounts- sorry, paid dividends- before the raid. That’ll determine what’s left. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 2 minutes ago, Luker said: Well the receivers would know. It was reported to be turning over upwards of £5M a month. But receivership is vastly different to liquidation or administration. There could easily be millions there making it highly solvent. Look at s4(2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: Look at s4(2). Why? They have said the licenses were revoked under S 13 OGRA so S 4 is completely irrelevant as it deals with license issuing. But as an aside are you suggesting that a court appointed receiver is not a competent or fit and proper person or lacks integrity? Edited August 27 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Luker said: Why? They have said the licenses were revoked under S 13 OGRA so S 4 is completely irrelevant as it deals with license issuing. But as an aside are you suggesting that a court appointed receiver is not a competent or fit and proper person? No, look again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 1 minute ago, Gladys said: No, look again. I don’t need to. You and Rosy are just full of shit and seem to think you’re some sort of experts on nothing. It seems to be a theme for this entire forum. Edited August 27 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 2 minutes ago, Luker said: I don’t need to. You and Rosy are just full of shit and seem to think you’re some sort of experts on nothing. It seems to be a theme for this entire forum. But you have not demonstrated why s13(3)(c) applies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 5 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: What will be interesting is how often the owners emptied the accounts Surely it's unlikely that they would hold accounts on the Island, too much scrutiny? Their money didn't need to touch any of our Banks, it was remote earnings. Could be anywhere, including friendly accounts in China? Right people backing them, keep the wampum flowing and carry on till some other Chinese official realises they are not getting a few beads!!! It was the AG who instigated the receivership, that is not invisible? I got my money out of SIB, carrier bags at dawn, how did I know??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Luker said: Why? They have said the licenses were revoked under S 13 OGRA so S 4 is completely irrelevant as it deals with license issuing. A licence can be revoked under s.13(1) if the licence holder no longer meets the requirements set out at s.4(2). The main requirements are integrity, competence, and adequate financial means. Adequate ifnancial means is wider than liquidation. Receivership indicates a lack of adequate financial means. I’m not an expert on gambling law as I don’t touch on it very often, not since most banks on the island de-risked by binning off gambling companies anyway. But you seem to be fixating on one specific sub-section of s.13. Point is that we don’t know which grounds the GSC used because they’ve not said. So you are outright wrong to say the local staff knew what was going on because the licence is gone. Licences can go under s.13(1) without any foul play if the licence holder runs out of money. Maybe the local staff did know, maybe some did and some didn’t, maybe none of them did and were completely hoodwinked. We don’t know. Edited August 27 by Ringy Rose 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.