The NIGC has adopted preliminary fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.060%(.00060) for tier 2 for calendar year 2010.

The fees are to be sent in two semi-annual payments on June 30 and December 31. Send your payment to

Finance Department
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street N.W., Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005

Use calendar year 2009 assessable gross revenues for computing the fee payments for 2010.

Visit this link to download a copy of the NIGC Bulletin and a copy of the Federal Register notice.

eGuru.info is not responsible for any errors in the information furnished above. Be sure to contact NIGC directly to confirm the fee rates.

Source: www.eguru.info

Ghosts of Crimes Past and Present Will Haunt the Future
December 14, 2009 – Linda McGlasson, Managing Editor

“The more things change, the more things stay the same.” This old saying holds true when it comes to the different types of fraud hitting financial institutions.

In 2009, institutions were hit from every angle with fraud schemes — some were old, and some were new variations. Here is a roundup of the 10 predominant types of fraud that institutions and their customers can expect to see in 2010, according to industry experts.

1. ACH and Wire Transfer Fraud
The attacks against small and medium businesses in the ACH channel in 2009 were a wake-up call to institutions for the New Year. Businesses and institutions alike suffer when fraudsters penetrate and pilfer accounts via hacking into electronic transactions.

“It started in earnest in 2009 and will only get worse in 2010 until banks put effective controls and fraud detection in place,” says Gartner analyst Avivah Litan. “It is hard to tune fraud detection systems to detect this fraud in a timely manner — especially wire fraud, since the data in a wire transfer instruction is not structured,” she says. But good fraud detection systems can catch most of this activity.

2. Attacks on Institution Networks
The level of protection provided transaction processing networks is often overlooked by institutions when it comes to servers outside of the “protected networks,” says Mike Urban, Fraud Director at Fair Isaac, the provider of FICO credit scoring.

“I’ve seen this particularly with vendor-managed servers where their security standards may not be at the level practiced by the institution where they are deployed, including password management and patch management,” Urban says. Identifying and managing all devices on corporate networks and protected transactional networks are critical to reducing the attack surface and eliminating weak links, he stresses.

3. ATM Skimming
There have been multiple stories this year in the U.S. about ATM skimming crimes. Experts say this particular form of fraud will continue to grow, as criminals are targeting U.S. financial institutions with technologies shared from Eastern Europe. “We should also expect that other ATM frauds such as card or cash trapping and lower quality skimming devices will continue to be a problem,” notes Fair Isaac’s Urban. Criminals will also keep pressure on older point of sale (POS) terminals that are not PCI compliant, he adds.

4. Credit Account ‘Bust-Outs’
The bad economy has given rise to many types of fraud in the past couple of years, but credit “bust-outs” have been around for some time. This fraud type made the list earlier this year, but Debra Geister, Director, Fraud Prevention & Compliance Solutions at Lexis-Nexis, says the trend is still very much active in any bank she’s talking with now. “By definition, credit bust-out schemes are a combination of a credit and fraud problem, although many organizations are not always sure where the losses sit — or who might be the party responsible,” Geister says.

Fair Isaac’s Urban sees this as “first-party fraud,” where criminals create accounts and build credibility as a customer with a financial institution, and then “bust out” the accounts once they are fully leveraged. And it may spill over to financially pressured consumers, “who may get caught up in this type fraud with high unemployment and benefits starting to run out,” Urban says.

5. Variations on Phishing Schemes
There have been many phishing attacks against financial institutions in 2009, so much that the Anti Phishing Working Group cites a 600 percent increase in overall phishing attacks over 2008. But there are more insidious types of attacks hitting institutions and their customers now, say experts.

Fair Isaac’s Urban says businesses will be targeted with spear phishing and hacking efforts to compromise online banking credentials. Why they’re targeting businesses, he says, is because “Criminals can then target those accounts and initiate money transfers via wires or ACH to steal large sums of money at once or over time.” Business checks will also be targeted in counterfeit check scams, he adds.

There is a increased level of sophistication being seen in the phishing attacks, says Ori Eisen, former worldwide fraud director for American Express, now head of 41st Parameter, a fraud solution company. Eisen sees increased sophistication in phishing and use of SMShing attacks, similar to the text phishing attacks that have been circulating around the country, hitting banks and credit unions.

“Fraudsters are using more realistic emails and other points of contact to try to entice credentials from victims,” Eisen notes, including the SMS approach. SMS was considered to be a solution to unauthorized account access, Eisen says, “Since it was assumed sending a one-time use password to a cell phone would cause a challenge for fraudsters trying to gain access to accounts.” Instead, it has begun to offer them a new way to scrape credentials. “This happens because customers don’t expect to be targeted in this way and have accepted the practice as safe when they see a message that appears to be from their bank,” Eisen says.

6. Check Fraud on Rise
It seems that everyone is using debit and check cards these days, and although paper check volumes are continuing to fall, Urban says the dollar losses to check fraud continue to rise. “Online banking account compromises contribute to check fraud when criminals can see cleared check images and identify sequence numbers,” he says. One reason for the continued proliferation of this fraud is that there is easier access to check paper stock and cheaper printers and scanners to create fakes.

Eisen says one area institutions should look to lock down is the check image viewing online ability for customers. “It’s a one-stop shop for data harvesting. Online checks offer visibility to an unauthorized view the account number, personal information including the social security number (on checks in 19 states).”

7. Insider Crimes
This year has witnessed several widely publicized insider fraud crimes uncovered at institutions, and next year doesn’t look any better. Tom Wills, Security and Fraud senior analyst at Javelin Research, sees the definition of “insider” has expanded as a wider variety of parties interact with institutions via their computer network. “RSA calls this the ‘hyperextended enterprise,’” Wills notes. An insider can be thought of as anyone with authorized access to the bank’s network resources, Wills stresses, “Not only employees and contractors of the institution, but those of suppliers and partners as well.”

Internal fraud will continue at institutions and their partners, adds Fair Isaac’s Urban, “where key information is compromised and used for personal use or sold to criminals who will perpetrate fraud on the institution or its customers.” Many of these schemes will fall apart in a similar manner to the investment schemes over the last year, when financially pressured consumers are more diligent monitoring their accounts or come in looking to withdraw the money from those accounts.

8. Mobile Phones
With nearly every bank and credit union throwing their hat into the mobile banking ring, the threat of mobile phone fraud is cause for concern. This crime is still in its infancy, but experts expect the risk will increase as malware applications are designed and spread onto mobile devices. Urban sees the most likely way fraudsters will target the mobile phones are through Trojans. “These Trojans will compromise information on the phones which may include online banking account information as well as other data stored on the phone. These compromises will be similar to the attacks on computers,” Urban says. The major difference will be the sheer number of mobile devices and operating systems in the market today, as compared to a dominant computer operating system, such as Microsoft Windows. Another reason to fear mobile phone fraud is that anti-virus and anti-malware applications are not as mature on mobile devices as they are on computers.

9. Online Applications
The ease of customer applications over the web comes with another set of headaches: Application fraud, which experts see as a growing area for criminals. Lexis-Nexis’ Geister says that alternative channel application crimes, including the Internet, Kiosk and point of sale channels, “are continuing to drive nearly 50 percent of application frauds since criminals are finding ways to skirt around the even the most sophisticated controls.”

The ease of online account opening makes the creation of “cash repositories” easy and convenient for criminals, adds Eisen. Many times they will use multiple accounts to keep balances from becoming suspicious, he adds. Criminals are also using online applications to create “valid” identities for future activity.

10. Prepaid Cards
The gift card market has always been a target for criminals say, and prepaid cards will continue to be purchased fraudulently with compromised credit cards, says Fair Isaac’s Urban. “The absence of an indicator in the transaction message means a prepaid card purchase cannot be identified during authorization,” he notes. The purchase of prepaid cards with stolen credit cards is an optimal way for criminals to get their hands on what they really want – cash.

Another more recent scam is where criminals will steal prepaid cards from the j-hooks at retail stores, chemically wash off the printed card number, emboss the card with information from a compromised card, and then erase the mag stripe. “They then will use the card and have the cashier key the transaction after the terminal swipe fails,” Urban says.

Source

Leveraging the Power of Your Data to Uncover Fraud

Experts agree: data analytics has a critical role in uncovering and preventing fraud. Learn how to apply best practices to implement a strong fraud detection and prevention program that will produce fast results you can continue to build on.

Discover How To:

* Identify fraud by reviewing 100% of transactions
* Strengthen internal controls to reduce fraud and ensure compliance
* Gain access to all the relevant data you need to mitigate fraud risks
* Implement continuous auditing techniques for ongoing success using fewer resources
* Keep moving your fraud program forward for continued assurance

This session will feature actionable lessons to help you install fraud detection and prevention techniques and build a solid fraud program your organization can count on.

Visit http://www.acfe.com/webinar/acl-110509.asp for details.

Source: eGuru

Guidance Provided to Assist in Understanding Bank Secrecy Act Requirements

VIENNA, Va. – The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today published new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) developed to assist the casino and gaming industry in complying with its responsibilities under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).

“FinCEN remains committed to protecting the financial system from abuse by criminals, and one way we can achieve this goal is to engage regulated industries by providing useful information and guidance to help them focus their compliance efforts against actual risks,” said FinCEN Director James H. Freis, Jr.

“This guidance for the gaming industry is part of FinCEN’s ongoing and coordinated educational efforts to better inform the industry so that gaming interests have the latest information they need to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act, and ultimately, help law enforcement identify illicit activity,” said Director Freis.

Topics covered include, among others: which gaming establishments are “casinos” under the BSA; whether or not a casino or card club must have an internal control for chip redemptions; reporting and record retention rules governing casinos and card clubs; the treatment of floor persons, chip runners, and hosts in currency transaction reports for casinos (CTRCs); information sharing by casinos under Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act; rules governing casino and card club reporting of suspicious transactions through the filing of suspicious activity reports for casinos (SARCs); and what information a casino or card club may disclose in response to a subpoena, summons or other process issued in civil litigation. In all, FinCEN offers guidance through 25 questions and answers.

Today’s FAQs build on earlier guidance provided to the gaming industry in November 2007. FinCEN’s casino home page contains other regulatory information and news relevant to casinos and card clubs.

CLOSE OUT SPECIAL: 2008 Indian Gaming Cost of Doing Business Report for $299!

2009 CODB Coming Soon. Please contact us if you wish to participate.

JOSEPH EVE’s Indian Gaming Cost of Doing Business Report is a valuable business management aid designed as a tool for financial analysis and planning. This report is the only publication that contains detailed operating statistics for Indian Gaming operations. You will see how your gaming operation’s performance measures up to the industry standards we have developed by compiling this data from tribes around the country. Using the information in the report, you can learn what changes you can make to improve your own operation.

Title 31 Compliance Onine Exam

Our newest service is an on-line exam, which tests your employees’ knowledge of Title 31 Compliance concepts. To purchase a block of exams, click here.

An Arizona agency says Global Cash Access Inc. of Las Vegas can’t be trusted as a casino vendor because it committed theft and fraud years ago — and in recent years has lied to regulators about that scandal and other issues.

The harsh words about the company are in a June 3 report from the Arizona Department of Gaming recommending Global Cash lose its license to do business in that state, where it now contracts with about 20 Indian casinos.

Global Cash, which provides gaming credit services and ATM machines in casinos, revealed the Arizona action earlier this month and said it plans to contest the recommendation.

Source: www.lasvegassun.com

“The notice summarizes the basis for the department’s intention and alleges that GCA, its founding stockholders and certain of GCA’s management undertook actions that demonstrate that GCA is not suitable under the department’s standards to act as a provider of gaming services to Native American tribes conducting gaming in Arizona,” Global Cash said in a regulatory filing.

“The notice provides GCA with the right to an informal settlement conference as well as a formal hearing before an administrative law judge in Arizona. GCA intends to seek the holding of the informal settlement conference prior to July 15, and the holding of the formal hearing, if necessary, as soon as possible thereafter. In the meantime, absent further action by the department that prohibits GCA from doing so, GCA intends to continue its operations in Arizona in the ordinary course of business,” Global Cash said.

“GCA takes the notice and the allegations made therein very seriously. GCA believes that it has taken appropriate actions during the prior 20 months that will permit GCA to fully demonstrate that it should be considered suitable for certification by the department. Many of these actions involve the termination of GCA’s relationships with certain affiliated parties and have been previously publicly communicated and provide the basis for GCA’s belief that GCA is in fact suitable to act as a provider of gaming services to Native American tribes conducting gaming in Arizona,” the company said.

George Gresham, chief financial officer at parent company Global Cash Holdings, on Monday said Arizona operations generate about 5 percent of the company’s revenue. He declined further comment on the Arizona licensing issue.

The Arizona report said that from 1999 to 2002, Global Cash deliberately miscoded transactions involving Visa by disguising cash transactions as retail purchases, meaning it would pay a lower fee to banks issuing the Visa cards at issue.

Global Cash made $26 million with this scheme, the Arizona report says. It says the company was fined $384,000 by Visa, but otherwise never returned the stolen money.

The Arizona report says that in later years, it attempted to deceive gaming regulators in Michigan in 2004 and in Arizona in 2005 by not disclosing all the required information about the miscoding issue.

“GCA deprived a regulatory agency of material information needed to make an informed suitability determination,” the Arizona report said of the Global Cash case in Michigan.

Company founders Karim Maskatiya and Robert Cucinotta “both attempted to mislead the investigators to hide GCA’s interchange fee fraud and their involvement in it,” the Arizona report says.

And Arizona regulators say Maskatiya and Cucinotta lied to them by failing to disclose they had been questioned about the murder of Maskatiya’s wife in California in 1982.

“Police detectives questioned both Maskatiya and Cucinotta regarding the murder. Both were read their Miranda rights. The detectives felt that Maskatiya and Cucinotta gave inconsistent statements and did not cooperate with the investigation. They also felt that Maskatiya knew, but would not reveal, the identify of the murderer,” the Arizona report said. Yet both men answered ‘no’ when asked by Arizona regulators if they had ever been questioned by a law enforcement agency, the report said.

The Arizona Gaming Department said Maskatiya and Cucinotta were on the GCA board of directors until June 2008, but resigned six weeks after being interviewed by the department. It says they continue to hold more than 25 percent of the company’s stock.

In a section of the report called “ongoing matters of concern,” the Arizona regulators say:

–Global Cash has never acknowledged or taken any action in regard to its wrongdoing.

–Global Cash has continued contacts with people and companies involved in the Visa fee fraud.

–The former Global Cash principals failed to disclose information about the murder investigation to regulators in Arizona and Mississippi.

–Cucinotta and Maskatiya failed to disclose other information including their ownership of various companies.

–Global Cash continues to have problems with payments of fees to casinos and with payments to casino patrons.

–Global Cash principals had contact with gaming regulators that created an appearance of impropriety.

“GCA has committed a theft, fraud and concealment,” the Arizona report added. “It has conspired in these actions with (related company) USA Payment Systems. It has demonstrated a willful disregard for compliance with gaming regulatory authorities and has misrepresented and concealed material facts, documents and information in its dealings with the department and others.”

“Casino vendors providing electronic fund access must be reputable, honest, diligent and effective. GCA has proven itself to be none of these,” the report said. “Allowing GCA’s continued participation in gaming in Arizona damages the public’s trust in Arizona casinos and casino regulators. Casinos cannot properly operate where patrons continually suspect or assume they are being cheated, and regulators are assumed to be either involved or incompetent.”

The Las Vegas company earlier this month announced the dismissal of one of two shareholder lawsuits alleging wrongdoing by directors and executives — lawsuits mentioned by the Arizona gaming regulators.

Global Cash, based in Las Vegas, operates kiosks and other services in casinos in the United States and internationally allowing patrons to obtain credit and cash through ATM cash withdrawals, credit card cash advances, check cashing and money transfer services.

The company also owns Central Credit LLC, which provides credit information on gamblers to casinos.

In the first quarter ended March 31, Global Cash earned $8.97 million or 12 cents per share, on revenue of $181.7 million. That was up from a profit of $1.66 million or 2 cents per share on revenue of $143.5 million in the same quarter of 2008. While sales declined 9.2 percent on a same-store basis, total revenue increased because of two acquisitions, the company said.

Concerning the lawsuit dismissal, the company said that in December 2007, a “derivative” lawsuit was filed by a shareholder in U.S. District Court for Nevada.

The shareholder, seeking to sue on behalf of the company, alleged some current and former directors and a former chief executive officer and a chief financial officer violated their fiduciary duties and violated securities laws. A similar suit was filed in February 2008 and the cases were later combined.

In the other case, filed in April 2008, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed by a stockholder in federal court in New York against Global Cash, certain former directors, a former chief executive officer and certain underwriters of two public stock offerings. A similar suit was filed in June 2008 and they were combined and moved to Nevada, where the case is pending.

Court records show that shareholders in all the cases alleged the company had discovered it had underpaid commissions to casinos — but failed to promptly disclose the problem to investors.

One suit said a whistleblower had come forward in November 2007, charging the company was miscoding transactions in order to avoid paying commissions, but that this wasn’t disclosed until Dec. 7, 2007.

On that day, one of the suits charges, Global Cash told investors it would need to spend $10 million to resolve the issues and to correct its accounting problems.

This, the suit charged, caused the value of the company’s stock to fall from more than $15 per share to $5.50 per share — a $913 million loss in market capitalization. (The stock closed Monday at $6.71). Some of the defendants had sold more than $6 million of their shares while in possession of this non-public information, the suit charged.

In seeking dismissal of the derivative suits, attorneys for Global Cash said the shareholders had failed to comply with a provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring such claims to either first be presented to the company board of directors or, in the alternative, to show a majority of the board of directors were incapable of making independent and disinterested decisions regarding the grievance.

They also defended Global Cash’s disclosures, saying that in early 2006 the company auditor had found deficiencies in internal financial controls and that the company was working to correct the problems. They said that in early 2007, Global Cash also disclosed weaknesses in the calculation of commissions and that it was working to correct the problem.

Global Cash attorneys also said the company dealt promptly with the whistleblower complaint and disclosed it to investors. A probe found “no evidence of fraud or intentional misconduct,” the attorneys said. Still, GCA set aside $2.6 million of additional expense to settle commission disputes, the attorneys said.

While the shareholder class action suit remains pending, U.S. District Judge James Mahan dismissed the derivative lawsuit last month because of the plaintiffs’ failure to either first present their claims to the board of directors, or spell out why they did not.

“The court finds that the amended complaint does not allege with … facts sufficient to undermine the ability of a majority of the board of directors to consider a demand,” he wrote.

New Information Prompts Advisory

VIENNA, Va. – The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued an advisory on apparent structuring by casino patrons and personnel. Structuring is described as breaking up transactions for the purpose of evading Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

“Structuring is unlawful, and involves potential civil and criminal penalties under the BSA,” said FinCEN Director James H. Freis, Jr. “Each sector of the financial industry with BSA responsibilities plays an important role in defending our financial system from criminal abuse. The timely and accurate reporting of structuring, under the BSA, is a vital tool in law enforcement’s arsenal against financial crime.”

FinCEN recently received information from law enforcement and regulatory authorities that raises concerns about the current level of compliance with the obligations to guard against structuring.

The BSA requires casinos to implement a compliance program, file reports, and maintain certain records. A casino’s compliance program must be reasonably designed to manage the risk of illicit activity and ensure compliance with BSA requirements, including an obligation to detect and report evidence of structuring violations on FinCEN Form 102, Suspicious Activity Report by Casinos and Card Clubs. BSA reports and records are highly useful in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings.

The advisory is available on www.FinCEN.gov.

August 19-20, 2009
Seattle, WA
http://www.josepheve.com/?p=seminar&n=seminar_sched
Topics Include:

* Internal/External Auditing
* Common Casino Compliance Problems
* Tools for Proactive Asset Protection
* Tribal Casino Surveillance
* Front of House/Back of House Scams
* Challenges in Server-Based Gaming
* Player’s Club
* Methodologies for Proactive Asset Protection
* Tribal Casino Information Technology
* Common Casino MICS IT Compliance Problems

Instructors:

Barron Stringfellow, Barron Stringfellow is a Senior Consultant for JOSEPH EVE. He is a Bank Secrecy Act/Title 31 Compliance Specialist and performs risk assessments and Title 31 audits for JOSEPH EVE. Barron also writes Internal Control’s and Policies & Procedure’s. Mr. Stringfellow is well versed in IGRA, NIGC & minimum internal control standards. In the past, Barron has held Director of Surveillance and Gaming Commission positions in both Tribal and Non-Tribal Venues. Mr. Stringfellow is an expert on gaming scams and gaming cheats. He was with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s youth narcotics task force for 4 1/2 years. He has been in the gaming industry for over than 30 years.

Krishna Mandava, is an IT Consultant and auditor with JOSEPH EVE. Mr. Mandava has experience in NIGC MICS Compliance and IT auditing. Some of the clients he has worked with in the past include, Harrah’s Rincon Casino, Kwataqnuk Casino, Grey Wolf Peak Casino, Akwesasne Mohawk Casino. His current clients include Sac and Fox Casino, Lucky 7 Casino, Laposta Casino, St. Croix Casino, and Ho-Chunk Casino.

2009 CODB Coming Soon. Please contact us if you wish to participate.

JOSEPH EVE’s Indian Gaming Cost of Doing Business Report is a valuable business management aid designed as a tool for financial analysis and planning. This report is the only publication that contains detailed operating statistics for Indian Gaming operations. You will see how your gaming operation’s performance measures up to the industry standards we have developed by compiling this data from tribes around the country. Using the information in the report, you can learn what changes you can make to improve your own operation.

Title 31 Compliance Onine Exam

Our newest service is an on-line exam, which tests your employees’ knowledge of Title 31 Compliance concepts. To purchase a block of exams, click here.

Serenic Navigator Fund Accounting Software

Because of JOSEPH EVE’s expertise in tribal accounting, Serenic Software has partnered with us to act as a reseller and installer of its award-winning Navigator fund accounting software. Navigator is a comprehensive, fully integrated accounting product designed for the public sector, so it is ideal for tribal governments and organizations. It greatly increases efficiency and simplifies financial management, saving you time and money in the audit process. We can help your tribal government or organization assess its accounting and finance needs and customize Navigator to meet those needs. We provide specialized training for your staff and ongoing support after the system is installed. For more information, call our Kalispell office at (406) 752-5225 and/or click here.

Insourced and Outsourced Accounting Services

JOSEPH EVE now offers insourced and outsourced accounting services for tribal governments and enterprises. Many of our tribal clients in geographically remote areas have difficulty attracting accounting professionals. By placing JOSEPH EVE staff on-site (insourcing), or by taking advantage of technology to provide services remotely (outsourcing), we will be able to provide a client’s entire accounting infrastructure – hardware, software, and human capital – or whatever part of it they need. For more information on how we can assist your tribe, see the Tribal Accounting Services page, or call (406) 752-5225 for more information.

Today at a gaming conference in the nation’s capital, the National Indian Gaming Commission released data showing that the revenues generated by the Indian gaming industry in 2008 continued to show growth. Commission Chairman Phil Hogen, speaking at the annual conference of the North American Gaming Regulators Association, reported that 2008 gross gaming revenue exceeded the industry’s 2007 revenues by more than $500 million. Gross gaming revenue totaled $26.7 billion, an increase of 2.3% over the prior year.

More than 240 of the nation’s 562 Indian tribes engage in gaming. They operate more than 400 casinos and bingo halls spread throughout 28 states.

The industry’s growth was less than it has been in recent years. Hogen observed, “We know that the economic downturn has impacted casino and bingo hall patrons, and reports from many tribal gaming facilities reflect that. We are often told that while patrons appear to be visiting tribal gaming facilities as often as in the past, they seem to spend less per visit than before the downturn’s onset. The modest growth reflected in these numbers would seem to show that Indian gaming remains a strong and effective means of economic development for Indian nations.”

Hogen explained that the figures released were compiled from independent audits required annually of all tribal gaming operations by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The gross gaming revenues represent the amounts bet or wagered by gaming patrons, less the amounts paid out as wins or prizes. Expenses to build and operate gaming facilities must be paid from gross revenues before tribes may use the funds for other governmental purposes
Individual tribes’ revenue information is proprietary information, and thus no breakdown for particular operations is available or set forth in the data.

Hogen also pointed out that the audits are done after the close of each tribal operation’s fiscal year. Nearly half the gaming operations’ fiscal years end on September 30, another 40% end on December 31, and the remainder end on other dates. Hogen explained, “As has been the case with all the similar annual venue reports we have issued, these numbers don’t show exact results by calendar year; some tribes’ fiscal years end before the calendar year ends. As a result, some of the economic downturn’s impact may not be fully reflected in these numbers.”

Hogen also explained that while much of the industry’s growth was attributed to more business at many existing facilities, a portion of it was attributable to new facilities.

The Commission’s data also profiles revenue generated by gaming facilities by region and by sizes of the facilities.

The Commission has divided the country into seven regions. The data show that the growth occurred in the two regions that include Oklahoma (home to 31 gaming tribes), Kansas and Texas. Decreases were reflected in the regions that include California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.

The data indicate that gaming revenues are not distributed equally among the gaming tribes. Facilities with annual revenues of less than $100 million constitute over 80% of the more than 400 operations, while fewer than 20% of the operations generate about 70% of the $26.7 billion in revenues.

“It’s obvious that tribes continue to provide attractive and high-quality gaming entertainment to the public,” Hogen stated. “I’m convinced that the vigilant regulatory structure which oversees it—from the primary tribal regulators, to the State regulators participating pursuant to tribal-state compacts, as well as our federal oversight agency— contributes to the continued success of the industry and instills needed confidence that gaming is fair and that the tribal assets and revenues are secure.”

The NIGC is an independent regulatory agency established within the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.

May:

What’s New in Indian Gaming
Oklahoma City, OK

Law Enforcement in Indian Gaming
New Orleans, LA

June:

Surveillance and Gaming Scams
Las Vegas, NV

August:

IT and Other Gaming Scams
Seattle, WA

Casino Internal Controls – Best Practices
Location to be determined

September:

Fraud Detection and Prevention
Las Vegas, NV

What’s New in Indian Gaming?
San Diego, CA

November:

Asset Protection
Location to be determined

December:

Internal Auditing Boot Camp
Las Vegas, NV

Asset Protection Boot Camp
April 21-24, 2009
Treasure Island Hotel & Casino
Las Vegas, Nevada

Topics Include:

* Internal/External Auditing
* Common Casino Compliance Problems
* Tools for Proactive Asset Protection
* Tribal Casino Surveillance
* Front of House/Back of House Scams
* What Defines Identity Theft
* How Thieves Obtain and Use Personal Information
* Why Your Organization Should Be Concerned
* Credit Card Fraud
* Fraud Detection Techniques
* Link & Event The Investigators Tool Box

Instructors:

Barron Stringfellow, Barron Stringfellow is a Senior Consultant for JOSEPH EVE. He is a Bank Secrecy Act/Title 31 Compliance Specialist and performs risk assessments and Title 31 audits for JOSEPH EVE. Barron also writes Internal Control’s and Policies & Procedure’s. Mr. Stringfellow is well versed in IGRA, NIGC & minimum internal control standards. In the past, Barron has held Director of Surveillance and Gaming Commission positions in both Tribal and Non-Tribal Venues. Mr. Stringfellow is an expert on gaming scams and gaming cheats. He was with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s youth narcotics task force for 4 1/2 years. He has been in the gaming industry for over than 30 years.

Gene Turner’s background gives him a unique perspective on the topics of identity theft and personal safety. A professional magician and pickpocket entertainer, Gene has also worked in the insurance industry, for the Social Security Administration, in the advertising industry, and is an independent representative for legal services. He is a Certified Identity Theft Risk Management Specialist. He understands the methods thieves use to steal your personal information.

Kathy Arata-Ward, CPA, CFE is a supervisor with JOSEPH EVE and has over 10 years experience conducting audits of Tribal Governments, casinos, cities and non-profit entities. For the past five years, Kathy has been a senior auditor and technical reviewer at JOSEPH EVE. Some of Kathy’s prior audit clients include Four Bears Casino, Thunderbird Wild West Casino, Gold Country Casino, Lucky Bear Casino, Sycuan Casino, Grand Traverse Band, Leech Lake Band, Santa Rosa Rancheria, and the Little River Band. Most recently, Kathy has been the lead auditor on numerous fraud engagements for JOSEPH EVE clients.

• Attendee Registration rates are at ’08 pricing!
• Platinum Plus – NEW registration level – cost saving bundled package!!
• Discount Pricing – $50 per person for groups of 5 or more!
• NEW in Workshops, Certifications, Trainings, and Roundtables
» Level 1 Commissioner Certification – 1st time held in conjunction with
Trade Show! Attend two great events at one location!! An abundance of
information!
» Responding to Recession Track
» Basic and Advanced Sessions – a customized training experience
» Private Sector Counterterrorism Awareness Workshop
» Casino Department Roundtables
» Success Stories Track – What is working at tribal properties!!
• Chairman’s Welcome Reception – Featuring Crystal Shawanda
• Jam on the Rez – Wild Horse Pass Casino at
Gila River Featuring Gladys Knight
• Beautiful, new Phoenix Convention Center!
• Great host hotels: Hyatt Regency Phoenix and the New, just opened
Sheraton Phoenix Downtown

Subject: 2009 Fee Rate; Preliminary
February 24,2009
The National lndian Gaming Commission (Commission) has adopted preliminary annual fee rates of 0.00% for tier 3 and 0.058% (.00058) for tier 2 for calendar year 2009. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation under 25 CFR part 518, the preliminary fee rate on class II revenues for calendar year 2009 shall be one-half of the annual fee rate, which is 0.0290% (.000290).

The fees are due in four quarterly payments. Please remit payment to:
Finance Department
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street N.W., Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005

Please be sure to use calendar year 2008 as the base period for determining 2009 fees payments. Also, please provide the following identifying information: name, address and telephone number of the gaming operation; name of licensing tribe; name, telephone number, and email address of contact person.

e-CFR Data is current as of March 17, 2009

Title 25: Indians
PART 514—FEES

§ 514.1 Annual fees.
(a) Each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission shall pay to the Commission annual fees as established by the Commission. The Commission, by a vote of not less than two of its members, shall adopt the rates of fees to be paid.
(1) The Commission shall adopt preliminary rates for each calendar year during the first quarter of that year (or as soon thereafter as possible), and, if considered necessary, shall modify those rates during the second and third quarters of the calendar year.
(2) The Commission shall adopt final rates of fees for each calendar year during the fourth quarter of that year.
(3) The Commission shall publish the rates of fees in a notice in theFederal Register.
(4) The rates of fees imposed shall be—
(i) No more than 2.5 percent of the first $1,500,000 (1st tier), and
(ii) No more than 5 percent of amounts in excess of the first $1,500,000 (2nd tier) of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
(5) If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation, the rate of fees imposed shall be no more than .25 percent of assessable gross revenues from self-regulated class II gaming operations.
(6) If a tribe is determined to be self-regulated pursuant to the provisions of 25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(2)(C), no fees shall be imposed.
(b) For purposes of computing fees, assessable gross revenues for each gaming operation are the annual total amount of money wagered on class II and III games, admission fees (including table or card fees), less any amounts paid out as prizes or paid for prizes awarded, and less an allowance for amortization of capital expenditures for structures.
(1) Unless otherwise provided by the regulations, generally accepted accounting principles shall be used.
(2) The allowance for amortization of capital expenditures for structures shall not exceed 5% of the cost of structures in use throughout the year and 21/2% of the cost of structures in use during only a part of the year.
(3) Example:
Gross gaming revenues:
Money wagered $1,000,000
Admission fees 5,000
1,005,000
Less:
Prizes paid in cash $500,000
Cost of other prizes awarded 10,000 510,000
Gross gaming profit 495,000
Less allowance for amortization of
capital expenditures for structures:
Capital expenditures for structures made in—
Prior years 750,000
Current year 50,000
800,000
Maximum allowance:
$750,000×.05 = 37,500
50,000×.025= 1,250 38,750
Assessable gross revenues $456,250
(4) All class II and III revenues from gaming operations are to be included.
(c) Each gaming operation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission and not exempt from paying fees pursuant to the self-regulation provisions shall file with the Commission quarterly a statement showing its assessable gross revenues for the previous calendar year.
(1) These quarterly statements shall show the amounts derived from each type of game, the amounts deducted for prizes, and the amounts deducted for the amortization of structures;
(2) These quarterly statements shall be filed no later than—March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, of each calendar year the gaming operation is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, beginning in September 1991. For calendar year 1998, the quarterly statement for the first quarter shall be filed no later than April 13, 1998. Any changes or adjustments to the previous year’s assessable gross revenue amounts from one quarter to the next shall be explained.
(3) The quarterly statements shall identify an individual or individuals to be contacted should the Commission need to communicate further with the gaming operation. The telephone numbers of the individual(s) shall be included.
(4) The quarterly statements shall be transmitted to the Commission to arrive no later than the due date.
(5) Each gaming operation shall determine the amount of fees to be paid and remit them with the statement required in paragraph (c) of this section. The fees payable shall be computed using—
(i) The most recent rates of fees adopted by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section,
(ii) The assessable gross revenues for the previous calendar year as reported pursuant to this paragraph, and
(iii) The amounts paid and credits received during previous quarters.
(6) Each quarterly statement shall include the computation of the fees payable, showing all amounts used in the calculations. The required calculations are as follows:
(i) Multiply the previous calendar year’s 1st tier assessable gross revenues by the rate for those revenues adopted by the Commission.
(ii) Multiply the previous calendar year’s 2nd tier assessable gross revenues by the rate for those revenues adopted by the Commission.
(iii) Add (total) the results (products) obtained in paragraphs (c)(6) (i) and (ii) of this section.
(iv) Multiply the total obtained in paragraph (c)(6)(iii) of this section by the fraction representing the quarter for which the computation is being made: 1st quarter—1/4; 2nd quarter—1/2(2/4); 3rd quarter—3/4; and 4th quarter—1 (4/4). For the purpose of making these computations in 1991 only, the third calendar quarter is the first quarter and the fourth calendar quarter is the second quarter. There will be no third or fourth quarter in 1991.
(v) Subtract the amounts already remitted by the operation for the current year and credits, if any, which are due for any previous year’s overpayment from the amount determined in paragraph (c)(6)(iv) of this section.
(vi) The amount computed in paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section is the amount to be remitted.
(7) Examples of fee computations follow:
(i) Example 1: Where a filing is made for the first quarter of the calendar year, the previous year’s assessable gross revenues are $2,000,000, the fee rates adopted by the Commission are 2% on the first $1,500,000 and 4% on the remainder, and a credit of $2,000 is due from the previous year, the amounts to be used and the computations to be made are as follows:
1st tier revenues—$1,500,000×2%= $30,000
2nd tier revenues—500,000×4%= 20,000
Annual fees 50,000
Multiply for fraction of year— 1/4 or .25
Fees for first quarter 12,500
Deduct credit due 2,000
Amount to be remitted $10,500
(ii) Example 2: Where a filing is being made for the third quarter, the previous year’s assessable gross revenues are $5,000,000, the fee rates adopted by the Commission are 1% on the first $1,500,000 and 1.5% on the remainder, and $35,000 has already been remitted, the amounts to be used and the computations to be made are as follows:
1st tier revenues—$1,500,000×1%= $15,000
2nd tier revenues—3,500,000×1.5%= 52,500
Annual fees 67,500
Multiply for fraction of year— 3/4 or .75
Fees for first three quarters 50,625
Deduct amounts already remitted 135.000
Amount to be remitted $15,625
1This amount may be other than $33,750 ($67,500×.50) because the assessable gross revenues may have been adjusted, the fee rate may have changed, a credit for the previous year’s overpayment may have been received, or a clerical error may have been discovered.
(iii) Example 3: Where a filing is being made for the third quarter of 1991, the previous year’s assessable gross revenues are $5,000,000, the fee rates adopted by the Commission are 1% on the first $1,500,000 and 1% on the remainder, and nothing has already been remitted, the amounts to be used and the computations to be made are as follows:
1st tier revenues—$1,500,000×1%= $15,000
2nd tier revenues—3,500,000×1%= 35,000
Annual fees 50,000
Multiply for fraction of year—1/4 or .25
Fees for first quarter 12,500
Deduct amounts already remitted -0-
Amount to be remitted $12,500
(8) Quarterly statements, remittances and communications about fees shall be transmitted to the Commission at the following address: Office of Finance, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, N.W., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005. Checks should be made payable to the National Indian Gaming Commission (do not remit cash).
(9) The Commission may assess a penalty for failure to file timely a quarterly statement.
(10) Interest shall be assessed at rates established from time to time by the Secretary of the Treasury on amounts remaining unpaid after their due date (31 U.S.C. 3717).
(d) The total amount of all fees imposed during any fiscal year shall not exceed the statutory maximum imposed by Congress. The Commission shall credit pro-rata any fees collected in excess of this amount against amounts otherwise due at the end of the quarter following the quarter during which the Commission makes such determination.
(1) The Commission will notify each gaming operation as to the amount of overpayment, if any, and therefore the amount of credit to be taken against the next quarterly payment otherwise due.
(2) The notification required in paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be made in writing addressed to the gaming operation.
(e) Failure to pay fees, any applicable penalties, and interest related thereto may be grounds for:
(1) Closure, or
(2) Disapproving or revoking the approval of the Chairman of any license, ordinance, or resolution required under this Act for the operation of gaming.
(f) To the extent that revenue derived from fees imposed under the schedule established under this paragraph are not expended or committed at the close of any fiscal year, such funds shall remain available until expended (Pub. L. 101–121; 103 Stat. 718; 25 U.S.C. 2717a) to defray the costs of operations of the Commission.
[56 FR 40709, Aug. 15, 1991; 56 FR 57373, Nov. 8, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 12316, Mar. 12, 1998; 69 FR 2505, Jan. 16, 2004]

Source: NIGC.GOV