Crazy 7

About Crazy 7

The bill would amend the Gambling Authority Act to align it more closely with the Financial Intelligence Act and Financial Action Task Force standards. Its memorandum says the changes are intended to strengthen anti-money laundering requirements and reduce financial crime risks.

The proposed amendments include provisions on beneficial ownership, financial and controlling interests, fit-and-proper-person assessments and know-your-customer requirements. They would also require Authority approval for the acquisition of a direct or indirect financial or controlling interest of 5% or more, unless a lower threshold is prescribed.

The bill would require most licence holders to link gambling machines and devices installed on their premises to the Gambling Authority’s statutory monitoring system. Casino and bingo licence holders would be required to install their own monitoring systems instead.

About Crazy 7

The Debtors here deployed an insolvency statute against the one creditor whose judgment they wished to defer and compromise, left every ordinary-course creditor untouched, preserved their own equity, and sought releases for the insiders who directed the conduct that produced the judgment—then asked this Court to treat that machinery as proof that their affairs are centered in Israel,” the petition continued.

“The Court should refuse the relief requested by … because it is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States based on the Debtors’ well-documented and pervasive bad faith conduct,” the petition said. “The Debtors are using the Israeli Action—a limited action which lacks many of the core characteristics of a collective insolvency proceeding—as a strategic tool to evade responsibility for their deceptive conduct.”

On Aug. 26, Tel Aviv District Court Judge Iris Lushi-Abudi rejected Papaya’s motion to pay down the Skillz judgment over 6.5 years with profits from its continuing operations.

What is Crazy 7?

UK operators already carry out enhanced checks on politically exposed persons (PEPs), but this case shows the limits of those safeguards, Bethan Lloyd, partner at law firm Wiggin, recently told iGB.

“PEP status does not prevent someone from gambling,” Lloyd explained. She said PEPs are entitled to bet, but not on events where inside information gives them an unfair advantage.

A low ranking MP or parliamentary aide is unlikely to meet the threshold for PEP status. She argued it would place an onerous burden on operators to verify every customer’s occupation.