PokerStars’ New Jersey License Requires Dismissal of Four Staffers

3

On Friday, the transactional waiverallowing Amaya to operate in New Jersey was published. The waiver outlines several terms Amaya must adhere to before launching. It is not known when the Amaya brands PokerStars and Full Tilt will begin operating in New Jersey, where their land-based partner is Resorts.

Six Months or Bust

The waiver is good for six months “subject to final approval of the Regulated Gaming System and each game by the Division’s Technical Services Bureau.” During this time period, PokerStars will undergo plenty of testing to ensure it can geo-locate players and address underage and problem gamblers.

Repayment to New Jersey Players

The Division of Gaming Enforcement, or DGE, added that Amaya must “escheat to the State of New Jersey all funds remaining in any PokerStars’ accounts for New Jersey players received prior to April 15, 2011 before commencing internet gaming operations in New Jersey.” PokerStars repaid US players immediately following Black Friday, while Full Tilt, then under different ownership, failed to do so and is in the process of repaying US customers. DGE specifically references PokerStars, not Full Tilt.

Heave Ho, Four Must Go

Not sure where we came up with that subtitle, but it rhymes. The DGE is demanding that “four individuals identified by the Division as having failed to establish the requisite good character, honesty, and integrity required by the Act due to their involvement in the business activities of the PokerStars Entities between the enactment of UIGEA and Black Friday” be dismissed. It is not known who the four individuals are.

The Blacklist

Isai Scheinberg (pictured), Mark Scheinberg, Pinhas Schapira, Yehuda Nir, Paul Telford, Paul Tate, Nelson Burtnick, Ray Bitar, Rafael Furst, and Chris Ferguson are prohibited from being involved in the business in any way, shape, or form without DGE approval.

Reports, Reports, Reports

Amaya must let DGE know if it begins to operate in any new jurisdiction, if any complaints are brought against the company, and any other event that would affect the transactional waiver. All transactions and business records can be reviewed by DGE at any time.

Private Eyes Are Watching You

According to Online Poker Report, DGE’s investigation into Amaya was exhaustive. It included review of 45,000 pages of documents, 71 interviews, and review of Amaya’s 2014 records with the help of a consulting company.

Visit PocketFives’ New Jersey poker community for the latest news and discussion from New Jersey players.

Want the latest poker headlines and interviews? Follow PocketFives on Twitterand Like PocketFives on Facebook.

3 COMMENTS

  1. The Blacklist

    Isai Scheinberg (pictured), Mark Scheinberg, Pinhas Schapira, Yehuda Nir, Paul Telford, Paul Tate, Nelson Burtnick, Ray Bitar, Rafael Furst, and Chris Ferguson are prohibited from being involved in the business in any way, shape, or form without DGE approval.

    But Howard Lederer is OK???

    • Requesting that 4 individuals are dismissed seems unethical to me. Under what grounds are they to be dismissed? What would happen if the individual took Amaya to an employment tribunal and lost and perhaps forced to re-employ the individual. At the very least it’s constructive dismissal.
      And the arguement, ‘Because the DGE said so’ is never going to be seen as a valid excuse and seems a bit 1984 to me.
      Once the framework and rules have been set, let them get on with it regardless who works for them even if you give them a harsh one strike and you’re out rule.

    • Requesting that 4 individuals are dismissed seems unethical to me. Under what grounds are they to be dismissed? What would happen if the individual took Amaya to an employment tribunal and lost and perhaps forced to re-employ the individual. At the very least it’s constructive dismissal.
      And the arguement, ‘Because the DGE said so’ is never going to be seen as a valid excuse and seems a bit 1984 to me.
      Once the framework and rules have been set, let them get on with it regardless who works for them even if you give them a harsh one strike and you’re out rule.

      Unethical? LOL. Ethics has nothing to do with this.

      We (generally) don’t have forced employment in this country (in either direction).

      No court is going to force a company to re-hire a dismissed employee, especially when/if the dismissal is due to specific regulatory mandate.