Flutter tries to defend himself in the Supreme Court after illegal operation in Kentucky

Home » Flutter tries to defend himself in the Supreme Court after illegal operation in Kentucky

Flutter tries to defend himself in the Supreme Court following an illegal operation in Kentucky. In this article our experts explain what is going on in the United States, and more precisely in Kentucky, after the owner house of pokerstars Was fined for a figure of $ 1.3 billion (more than 1.1 billion $).

This very high fine, which It dates back to a violation on the offer of gambling in the state committed by PokerStars between 2006 and 2011, has now been brought before the Supreme Court by Flutter Entertainment.

But let's see immediately the details of what is happening in the next paragraphs.

Flutter tries to defend himself in the Supreme Court: the details of the petition

The case for which Flutter tries to defend himself in the Supreme Court, concerning an operation in Kentucky, is linked to the violazione del Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

PokerStars, which saw his operations blocked by the authorities in 2011, would seem to have collected 18 million $ not respecting the legislation.

The Judgment of 2015 At the expense of Amaya, operator of PokerStars in the state, provided for a fine of 290 million $null This amount, considered adequate by the judge of the Franklin Circuit Court, Thomas Wingate, corresponded to all the games made and lost by users.

The figure, however, was then tripled under the request of the state who appealed to one 18th century state law called Loss Recovery Actnull In 2018, then, the sentence had been overturned by the Court of Appeal and approved by the Supreme Court. The latter had the payment of $ 870 million restored which, with the interest accumulated, came to $ 1.3 billion.

Now, Flutter trying to defend himself in the Supreme Court, he tries to leverage Two fundamental points:

  1. It is right that a statutory damage prize exceeds any conceivable damage by 30 times? Don't violate the "right process"?
  1. The excessive fines clause Does it not prohibit a state of punishing a defendant with a sentence 50 times higher than the revenue earned with the forbidden conduct?

And it is proper With these motivations that flutter tries to defend himself in the Supreme Court For the illegal operation carried out in Kentucky.

Flutter's statements on the sentence

The declarations of Flutter who tries to defend themselves in the Supreme Court were:

“In cases involving punitive damage, this Court has repeatedly warned that The prizes that exceed the actual damage of more than one relationship to a figure probably violate the Constitutionnull [...] Here, the Supreme Court of kentucky supported one ruling by a billion dollars that is completely disconnected from any rational measure of real damage.”

Furthermore, according to the company, This case manifests a roughly excessive punishment prohibited by the clause of the right processnull He also says that a sentence of this kind In the future, it allows states to pursue "new requests" of damage on behalf of their citizens for the sole purpose of raising funds.

Finally, he also added that The damage would have been only one tenth of the volume if they had been calculated on overall net losses.

The best online casinos:
william hill

200 free spin to verification + 20 $ immediately and up to $1.000 progressive bonus

888 Casino

20 $ FREE Without deposit + 125% up to $ 500 on the first deposit

Digital game

350 free spin and 100% bonus
On the first deposit up to $ 500