Six questions around ex-Jags employee’s fraud case
Credit to Author: Xuan Thai| Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:45:34 EST
Amit Patel, the former midlevel finance manager for the Jacksonville Jaguars who pleaded guilty to stealing $22 million from the team, will be sentenced by a federal judge on Tuesday.
Prosecutors have recommended Patel receive a seven-year prison sentence for stealing the money to fund his gambling habit and lavish lifestyle. Patel transferred $20 million of the funds to FanDuel, where he had a VIP host, and $1 million to DraftKings. ESPN has previously reported that Patel was a high-volume, high-stakes daily fantasy sports player known for racking up big losses. Patel has said that he suffers from a gambling disorder and is seeking treatment.
As ESPN has also previously reported, the Jaguars have asked FanDuel to reimburse some or all of the $20 million, but the company is unwilling to pay. The Jaguars declined to comment on the talks.
FanDuel and DraftKings also have declined to comment or answer questions about how Patel could lose such large sums over more than three years without being flagged or drawing attention sooner.
ESPN spoke with a group of experts to understand what gambling industry safeguards exist that should stop such a crime, whether the system is vulnerable for more serious crimes, and whether FanDuel is under any obligation to return the team’s lost funds.
The experts include Stephen Bell and Paul Calli, two lawyers who specialize in banking crimes and anti-money laundering laws; Keith Whyte, the executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling; Craig Ferreira, Operations Director for the University of Nevada at Las Vegas’ International Center for Gaming Regulation; and Becky Harris, the former Chair of Nevada Gaming Control Board and a former Nevada state senator. She is also a board member for the sportsbook PointsBet.
Their interviews have been edited for clarity and brevity.
Is FanDuel under any obligation to return the Jaguars’ stolen money?
Calli: I think it’s incredible hubris by the Jacksonville Jaguars to request FanDuel return the money. How on earth could they have not had the kind of rudimentary internal accounting checks and balances that a mom-and-pop store might have? To turn around and ask for that money back is mind-boggling.
Bell: The bigger question is, what is the government going to do to any of these sites that take ill-gotten gains?
Ferreira: If the regulator comes back and says, “Hey, [the gambling sites] didn’t do enough,” then maybe the Jaguars have a case to get some of that money back. But if the regulator says, “No, you did enough, we’re happy,” then Jacksonville can probably not expect to get any of that money back.
Generally speaking, what obligations are these sites under to ensure these funds are legal?
Harris: From a gambling perspective: Make sure that you understand the source of funds, making sure that if there is some suspicious activity, filing your suspicious activity reports with [authorities]. That’s all critical. From a daily fantasy sports perspective, that would be up to the individual company.
Bell: Every site has some level of Know Your Customer that must be met because they have to confirm that the person placing the bets is who they say they are and that they’re of legal age. All of these businesses are subject to the federal money-laundering statute, which can impose huge financial and potentially criminal penalties on one that knowingly takes “dirty money” from an individual who’s engaged in the commission of a crime.
How does something like this happen? Should there have been red flags?
Whyte: There should have been red flags. One, there should have been responsible gambling indications based on the volume of play losses and other commonly assessed markers of harm. Two, were there any money-laundering and Know Your Customer concerns? Three, the VIP team, who have personal relationships, should have been able to flag some of the obvious signs of a gambling problem.
Calli: These platforms have the ability to engage in really fulsome accounting, because [when a player cashes out] with $1 million or $2 million or $5 million they’re going to make sure they get every possible piece of information from you that they can. But not surprisingly, when you’re walking in the door with $5 million, it’s a little bit more lax.
Bell: In a case like this, where they’re taking $20 million from an individual, that amount alone should trigger inquiry. Full stop.
Why is there so much confusion about what is and isn’t regulated, especially around daily fantasy sports?
Harris: When daily fantasy sports emerged, there was confusion. Is it a skill-based game? Is it a gambling game? What do we call it? How do we deal with it? Legislators were really struggling with how to interpret what daily fantasy sports was and by extension, how to regulate.
Daily fantasy sports is considered gambling in Nevada. But other states don’t see it that way. They want to be able to offer a very popular product to their citizens and not have it regulated with the strict accountability that you have in the gambling industry.
I’m not aware of a state that specifically regulates daily fantasy sports the same as it regulates sports wagering.
Ferreira: So you get into this really kind of muddled area: Is it just a fun little hobby that millions of people do both for money and not for money? Or is it really gambling that can form addiction and problems that you would get with traditional gambling? And each state is different.
Are you worried about these sites being used for more serious criminal activity?
Calli: Isn’t that the bigger concern? You’re not worried about the one-off guy.
Bell: I have very little doubt that much larger amounts have been run through these betting entities, no different than they’re run through traditional casinos, the stock market and a bevy of other legitimate businesses every day. The lack of uniform regulation, however, likely makes it fairly easy compared to, for instance, laundering that money through a publicly traded company.
Harris: Anti-money laundering is going to emerge as the new big issue in gambling. It’s an issue of when, not if, in terms of finding bad actors who have criminal intent. The key is to have a good relationship with your regulator. As soon as irregularities are detected, you’re in immediate communication with them and investigations can get started so that we can begin to prosecute.
What does the industry owe players such as Patel, who has said he suffers from addiction?
Bell: I personally think Amit Patel is a victim. I think things went wrong on the betting site side.
Harris: It’s challenging because there is this tension between free will — I made my money and I want to spend it how I want — versus somebody telling me that I can’t do that.
Whyte: I think the industry absolutely had an obligation to detect and intervene when his play reached incredibly high levels far beyond his means and showed many signs of a florid gambling addiction. But the ultimate person who bears that responsibility is him, to self-exclude or to take other steps to stop his gambling problem before he got out of control.