Treasure Mania

What is Treasure Mania?

His bankruptcy was discharged a year later, though he remained subject to bankruptcy restrictions until March 2009. MFS was incorporated in November 2006 by Pratibha Dewan, who later became Raja’s wife.

Raja, who has publicly described himself as the company’s founder, did not formally become a registered director until 2017.

Raja has characterized the allegations and media reporting against him as a “personal vilification campaign.”

How to play Treasure Mania

Holland Casino celebrates 50 years this year since the Dutch government founded it. Petra says it was very important at the time to provide that activity to local people. “So they decided to found Holland Casino. At that time, they also thought it might be interesting for tourists. That aspect is really gone, we’re really focused on the local market now. But 50 years later, it’s still very relevant to have a good, healthy legal industry.”

Is the monopoly safe, is it set in the law that it will operate forevermore? No, it’s under constant evaluation, Petra explains: “The Dutch state, represented by the Ministry of Finance, is our shareholder and they evaluate every seven years, not only us as Holland Casino, but all state-owned companies.”

One of the operator’s most significant challenges is the increase in gambling tax enforced over recent years. Petra has been particularly vocal about this and the company’s profitability has taken a reasonable hit, since the first tax increase to 34.2% of GGR came into effect on 1 January 2025.

How to play Treasure Mania

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.