Super 7s

About Super 7s

The Commission launched its investigation into various reports of insider betting on the election date in June 2024 after Ladbrokes flagged a bet placed by Williams, who was recorded as a politically exposed person.

Further bets flagged by operators involved other politically sensitive individuals, including Metropolitan Police officers and political advisers. The Commission charged 15 people total in April 2025. Four have now pleaded guilty.

The offences relate to special betting markets that let customers wager on the exact date of the general election.

What is Super 7s?

“We felt there was a gap for a continent-wide network that could connect organisations, encourage collaboration, and help build a stronger collective voice on player protection. ARGN is not here to replace national organisations or regulators. Its purpose is to support and strengthen the work already being done by bringing people and organisations together.”

But while the ARGN intends to enhance collaboration between stakeholders across the continent, Akolade asserts the aim is to promote “common principles rather than identical regulations”.

Akolade explains: “Every African country has its own legal framework, culture, and level of market development, so a single model might not work everywhere.

About Super 7s

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

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.