One Hundred and Twenty Dollars in Chips
The available records of the case have been obtained through asking the Ministry of Attorney General by means of the freedom of information law. This states that the players were issued with $37,000, $40,000 and $43,000 in payouts by the dealers. And these amounts were in no way results of fair play.
Angela Swan, VP of regulatory affairs and compliance at Parq Casino, had a very few words to say about the incident. She mentioned in an email that the company doesn’t comment on internal affairs regarding employees, and that the casino views compliance in a serious light.
Ed Rampone, who is a ex director of investigations in the casino niche within the province, states that it is likely that there was a continuing conspiracy that existed between the players and dealers, where the dealers would slyly pass some chips to players over time. He used to specialize in the field of criminal investigations within casinos, but he's not aware of the precise details of such cases, and he mentions that in a table game like blackjack for example, that it is possible that the croupier could include an extra few chips as he's issuing them on the table. The player would then, at some point during, before or after the game, pay off said dealer for their trouble. This could have possibly taken place on the premises, but out of site, like in the parking lot for instance or off-site altogether. He went on to describe a potential scenario for perspective. Imagine that for each $100 or $1,000 that is slipped, the player has to pay the dealer back 50% or 30%.
More information about the case is continuously being unearthed due to the freedom of information law mentioned earlier. In most cases such a case like this one, the information revealed usually turns out to be scandalous. From the hushed response from Swan and the casino, it seems they are concerned about an imminent scandal if too much is said, they may wish to distance the involvement of the establishment from the incident.
Casino employees are required to be impartial and remain unbiased whilst at work, but this can be easier said than done when the temptation is too great for the employee. The accused employees have been charged and information regarding the case is still being revealed to the public.