Its Over

....I'd rather not buy companies that "feeds" on the misfortune of others.
Veteran Crown executive admits to preying on problem gamblers
Elouise FowlerReporter
Jun 8, 2021 – 5.45pm

The Crown Resorts executive in charge of Melbourne’s VIP Mahogany Room, Peter Lawrence, sent just one problem gambler from the casino’s high-roller room to seek help over almost a decade.

He admitted in evidence to the royal commission that his team was “predatory” towards problem gamblers at Crown Melbourne.
Mr Lawrence was forced to admit on Tuesday he had “over-egged” his formal statement to the inquiry into Crown’s suitability to hold its Melbourne casino licence by claiming to refer “two problem gamblers” to Crown’s responsible gambling services per year.
Under cross-examination by counsel assisting the inquiry, Geoffrey Kozminsky, he could recall just one patron he assisted over his nine-year tenure at the helm of the Mahogany Room.

Mr Kozminsky accused Mr Lawrence and his team of disregarding the welfare of punters and pursuing “money above all else”, driven by pay incentives linked to the $2.5 billion churned through the Mahogany Room over five years to 2020.

Mr Lawrence accepted this, casting doubt on Crown’s commitment to reducing gambling harm and the adequacy of its responsible gambling code.

Responsible gambling is a key condition of Crown’s Melbourne casino licence and a central line of investigation in the royal commission, led by former federal court judge Ray Finkelstein, QC. The commission was sparked by NSW’s Bergin inquiry, which found Crown unfit to operate its Sydney casino.
Regular breaches of Casino Control Act

Mr Lawrence also admitted on Tuesday that staff in the Mahogany Room regularly breached Victoria’s Casino Control Act by allowing patrons to buy chips with illegitimate cheques addressed to themselves, not Crown Melbourne as is required by law.
A patron known as “Mr Hasna” used this “cash-chequing facility” to exchange a $100,000 cheque for chips at the Southbank casino in May 2016. The cheque bounced, and he lost it all but was encouraged to continue gambling to pay back the debt.

He eventually paid back the debt from winnings but lost it all again, owing hundreds of thousands of dollars. During this period he gambled for long stretches without intervention, including one instance of 26 hours and 23 minutes.

Mr Lawrence, agreed he had been “predatory and irresponsible” by allowing and encouraging Mr Hasna to continue playing, knowing he could not afford to.

Mr Lawrence agreed he should have identified the man as a problem gambler, as Mr Hasna had banned himself from the casino twice before, had flagged to staff he was in financial “strife” and was considering another self-imposed ban.

“The decision to let Mr Hasna come back to gamble was predatory and irresponsible?” Mr Kozminsky asked.

Mr Lawrence: It was irresponsible? Yes.

Mr Kozminsky: You don’t accept it’s predatory?

Mr Lawrence: It’s a strong word, but possibly, yes.

Prompted by the royal commission’s focus on responsible gambling, Mr Lawrence said Crown issued a new policy two weeks ago, on May 24, which prohibited punters from gambling while in debt.

Mr Lawrence said he was “surprised” to learn Crown was not allowed, under the Casino Control Act, to deposit a cheque payable to anyone other than the operator into a deposit account.

“Given that’s right, do you accept that there has been on a regular basis, commonly, frequently, at the Mahogany Room cage, there were breaches of the Casino Control Act?” Mr Kozminsky asked.

“Yes,” Mr Lawrence replied.
Blank cheques a ‘matter of course’

Separately, Mr Kozminsky told the inquiry on Tuesday of evidence given in private by hosts working in the Mahogany Room that revealed it was “a matter of course” for patrons to present a blank cheque in exchange for chips.

Mr Lawrence denied this happened.

“Should the commission be concerned about the disconnect between your evidence and the evidence of the hosts?” Mr Kozminsky asked.

“Looking at the evidence you provided from the hosts, it’s correct, except where they state a customer can go to the cage, present a blank cheque and receive chips,” Mr Lawrence said.
Mr Kozminsky warned his evidence was unconvincing.

“Mr Lawrence, at the end of this commission, counsel assisting will make a submission that the evidence you’ve just given on this topic shouldn’t be accepted and that the evidence of the hosts about the practice of cashing blank cheques in the Mahogany Room should be accepted,” he said.

“On what I’m seeing, as far as the host statements, I can’t imagine or believe we would cash a cheque for chips without setting up a deposit account and going through a cheque cashing facility approval process … I don’t think it’s possible,” Mr Lawrence replied.

Under cross-examination from Mr Finkelstein, Mr Lawrence conceded it was “possible” a customer could leave a blank cheque that could be filled out after their gambling session.

Mr Kozminsky asked Mr Lawrence if he knew the name of the person called “Darth Vader” at the casino.

Mr Lawrence said he did not know, and Mr Kozminsky did not reveal the person’s identity.

The inquiry continues.
Afterpay US faces class action complaint

Tom RichardsonMarkets reporter and commentator
Jun 8, 2021 – 11.04am

Big questions around Afterpay’s regulation are back. This time, at its fastest-growing and most promising jurisdiction.
The fintech juggernaut faces a proposed class action complaint filed in the US Northern District Court of California by two US law firms.

The claim alleges Afterpay’s marketing is misleading over fees consumers can incur with their banks. It seeks restitution of all fees paid, punitive damages, actual damages, and “an injunction on behalf of the general public to prevent Afterpay from continuing to engage in its illegal practices as described herein”.

Of course we don’t claim to be legal eagles and cannot pass judgement on the merits of the claim that, for now, remains proposed. But an attempt to have a California court stop Afterpay engaging in allegedly illegal practices within the court’s jurisdiction seems serious.

The proposed lawsuit is filed on behalf of plaintiff Brooke Miller and argues Afterpay’s marketing materials deceive its users over the true operations and risks of the service.

The crux of the claim is that Afterpay’s rapid growth in the US has concealed the “hidden scourge” of “hundreds of thousands of overdraft and NSF (insufficient funds) Fees its already-struggling users have to pay for using the service.”

The 13-page lawsuit goes on to allege that “Afterpay misrepresents (and omits facts about) the true nature, benefits, and risks of its service, functioning of which means that users are at extreme and undisclosed risk of expensive bank fees when using Afterpay”.

It demands a jury trial and looks to represent any Afterpay US user who incurred an overdraft or insufficient funds fee from their bank as a result of an Afterpay repayment.

As at June 1, Afterpay was issued a summons notice, according to online records, with Judge Donna Ryu listed as being responsible for assessing the complaint.

Afterpay says that it hasn’t been served with a class action claim, but based on public documents, it believes the complaint is without merit. And adds that the claim, if served, will be vigorously defended.