Skip to main content

Sportingbet agree US settlement - did they get off lightly?

The market seems to think that they got off lightly with a $33m settlement, they are up 12.86% already today.

Sportingbet agrees $33m US settlement

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- U.K. online gambling group Sportingbet (UK:SBT 77.75, +7.75, +11.07%) said Tuesday that it has entered a non-prosecution agreement with the Office of the United States Attorney of the Southern District of New York under which it will pay a total of $33 million. Sportingbet said that under the terms of the agreement, the Southern District of New York will not seek to prosecute the company for activities related to its Internet gambling business with customers in the U.S. from 1998 to 2006.

Considering the length of time the companies operated by Sportingbet were in that market, it seems like quite a light penalty in comparison with Party Gaming who agreed a $105m deal in 2009, although it could be argued that poker was booming at the time, and Sportingbet didn't own all of the companies breaking US law for the entire period of 1998-2006, they acquired them along the way.

Party Gaming stocks rose 20% immediately after their settlement announcement, and Sportingbet are well on the way to a similar result.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla