Premium slots and table games provider, Habanero, is introducing the Reel Rewards feature in its new 6×3 reel slot Golden Taj Mahal.

Paying homage to Indian culture, the game sees tigers, candles, precious gemstones, the prince and princess as well as the magic lamp Wild fill the grid as the slot’s symbols.

At the top of the board, there are six empty spots which can be filled by the Reel Rewards mechanic on any spin, awarding a prize ranging from 2x, 3x or 5x multipliers to a Wild, which transforms all symbols below it.

Cash prize symbols are also in play throughout the game, which trigger a respin if three or more fall anywhere on the reels. This locks all money symbols in place and keeps on spinning until no further cash symbols land.

Three to six Scatter symbols can land on the reels, awarding up to a staggering 50 Free Spins, unlocking massive win potential.

Golden Taj Mahal is the latest addition to Habanero’s robust portfolio of slots and joins the ranks of recently released hits, Wild Flow and Vampire’s Fate.

Commenting on the release, Toni Karapetrov, Head of Corporate Communications at Habanero, said: “Taking inspiration from the iconic Indian landmark, the Golden Taj Mahal showcases Habanero’s expertise in enhancing the slot experience with innovative in-game features such as Reel Rewards.

“With its captivating and immersive theme, transformative reels, and the opportunity to win up to 50 Free Spins, our latest release offers an action-packed experience for players, and we can’t wait to see the reception.”

With several states banning college player prop bets, an Arkansas casino executive cautions that those bans will drive bettors to unregulated offshore sites or to illegal bookies.

“Banning player props on regulated sportsbooks doesn’t ban player props,” Carlton Saffa said. “It simply pushes them to the illegal markets, whether they be offshore or bookies.”

“There’s an old saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he said. “If you want to know what’s going on with something, you don’t ban it. You regulate it.”

Saffa, chief market officer at Saracen Casino Resort in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, expressed his views on this topic and more while being interviewed on Gambling.com’s “The Edge.” The chief market officer title is the equivalent of a chief executive officer position at other casinos.

Saffa believes sports betting options should be transparent and monitored, not banned.

Arkansas does not ban college player prop bets, but its neighbors with legal sports betting already either ban those bets or, in the case of Louisiana, will implement a ban this summer before football season begins. In three of Arkansas’ neighboring states — Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas — sports betting is illegal.

Charlie Baker, a former Massachusetts governor serving as NCAA president, has called on states to ban college player prop bets, saying they could threaten the integrity of games and lead to harassment of players.

Betting Line Fluctuates With Calipari Hire At Arkansas

Also during the recent interview on “The Edge,” Saffa, a University of Arkansas graduate, noted that the hiring of John Calipari to coach the Razorback basketball team generated not only excitement in the state but also a fluctuation in the betting line.

Calipari took over at Arkansas in early April after coaching for 15 years at the University of Kentucky, which, like Arkansas, is an Southeastern Conference school.

On the morning of the Calipari announcement, Saracen had Arkansas at +4000 to win the national championship. By dinnertime, the line was at +3000, Saffa said.

“It moved that fast that much,” he said, adding that the announcement created an “unbelievable amount of enthusiasm.”

Hotel, Events Center Under Construction At Saracen

In addition, Saffa discussed an expansion project underway at the Saracen property, which will add 320 hotel rooms and a 1,600-seat events center.

Saffa said he expects the project to be completed in 2025.

“Frankly, it’ll be the nicest hotel in the state,” he said.

On April 10th, 2024, the Danish Gambling Authority has issued three orders to Mr. Green Limited for breaching the Anti-Money Laundering Act, on risk assessment, on procedures for internal controls and for failing to ensure that controls are carried out.

On April 10th, 2024, the Danish Gambling Authority has also given Mr. Green Limited a reprimand for breaching the rules on notification in the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

The reactions have been given in connection with the Danish Gambling Authority’s inspection of Mr. Green Limited’s materials that Mr. Green Limited has provided for compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Order for insufficient risk assessment

Order (a) is issued because Mr. Green’s risk assessment is insufficient, as no separate risk assessment has been made of the individual identified risks associated with Mr. Green’s business model, including payment solutions, and the risk factors associated with it. It follows from section 7(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act that undertakings subject to the Act must identify and assess the risk that the undertaking may be misused for money laundering or terrorist financing. The Danish Gambling Authority’s assesses that the risk assessment must include a separate assessment of the risk of the individual payment solutions and delivery channels, as well as a separate risk assessment of the risk factors associated with these. Thus, Mr. Green did not comply with the risk assessment obligation.

Order for insufficient and lack of business procedures

Order (b) is issued because Mr. Green Limited does not have adequate procedures for internal controls, as these do not describe the interval at which controls should be performed. The order has also been given because Mr. Green Limited does not have written procedures on how to monitor that controls are carried out. It follows from section 8(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act that undertakings subject to the Act must have adequate written business procedures, which must include internal control. The business procedures should describe how the listed areas are handled in practice. The requirement for internal control also means that there must be controls of whether the controls are being carried out – in other words, that the controls are being checked. Mr. Green Limited has not sufficiently complied with the commitments on business procedures for controls.

Order for lack of documentation of controls

Order (c) is issued because Mr. Green Limited has not documented that controls have been carried out to verify that the internal controls have been performed. It follows from section 8(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act that undertakings subject to the Act must document the controls that have been carried out. Thus, Mr. Green Limited has not complied with the obligations to perform controls to ensure that the internal controls are performed.

Reprimand for not making an immediate notification

Reprimand (a) is given because Mr. Green Limited has in two cases not complied with the requirement for immediate notification to the Money Laundering Secretariat. According to section 26(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, an undertaking must immediately notify the Money Laundering Secretariat if the undertaking knows, suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction, funds or activity is or has been related to money laundering or terrorist financing. Mr. Green has not complied with the notification obligations, as there has been no immediate notification.

Duty to act

The orders entail an obligation to act on the part of Mr. Green Limited. Mr. Green Limited must submit a revised risk assessment within June 10th, 2024.

Mr. Green must also within June 10th, 2024, submit a revised business procedure for internal controls and submit prepared business procedures for how the implementation of controls is monitored.

Mr. Green Limited must also submit documentation within October 10th, 2024, that it has been controlled that the controls have been carried out.

The reprimand does not entail any obligation to act on the part of Mr. Green Limited as the breach no longer exists.