Empress Charm

About Empress Charm

Being a state-owned monopoly is beneficial for RG purposes. You don’t have an employer or shareholders expecting a positive quarterly earnings report four times a year, and as long as the business is self-supporting it can continue to make the best choices for player health and relationships. As Petra defines it: “It’s about a healthy long-term relationship.”

Holland Casino has a responsible gambling board, which includes scientists, experts with lived experience and their own RG executives. They meet with the board every few months to talk over current processes, and the board challenges the operator’s ideas and implementations, pushing them to do better.

“They challenge us both from an academic side and a more practical side. We try to develop our rules as we go along but you have to prove every single day that you’re doing all that you need to do on responsible gaming,” Petra notes.

What is Empress Charm?

The move aims to clean up the gaming sector by cutting ties between casinos, cyber-fraud operations and untraceable money flows. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior Sar Sokha warned that any casino found breaching the suspension after it takes effect risks licence revocation and further legal consequences.

In August, Cambodia’s state news agency, AKP, reported that authorities had inspected 195 licensed casinos nationwide as part of a broader anti-scam crackdown. This resulted in the revocation of 20 licences and the suspension of 29 others, with an additional 23 licences lapsing naturally. 

Touch Sokhak, deputy spokesperson of the Ministry of Interior, emphasised that the operation seeks to prevent Cambodia from becoming “a safe haven or money-laundering base for technology-related criminals”.

About Empress Charm

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”