US federal court dismisses action against Bloomberry Resorts Corporation subsidiary

In the United States and a federal court has reportedly dismissed a civil case filed by Bangladesh Bank against a subsidiary of Manila-listed casino operator Bloomberry Resorts Corporation regarding the 2016 theft by cyber hackers of approximately $81 million.

According to a report from Inside Asian Gaming, the action from the Asian nation’s state-run bank was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in late-January of last year in hopes of recouping at least some of the funds it believes were lost to an alleged ring of North Korean hackers some 35 months previous.

Vanishing wealth:

Inside Asian Gaming reported that Bangladesh Bank had filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act action claiming that about $101 million had been electronically pilfered from an account it held with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It purportedly alleged that most of this cash was subsequently routed through the Philippines’ Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation before disappearing for good via at least two Manila-area casinos including the Solaire Resort and Casino property run by Bloomberry Resorts Corporation’s local Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Incorporated subordinate.

Fraud facilitation:

Although Bangladesh Bank managed to recoup around $20 million of the stolen money after tracing it to accounts in Sri Lanka, its legal action was reportedly seeking recompense for the remaining amount from a range of other assorted individuals and companies including Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Incorporated. The financial institution’s petition purportedly alleged that a portion of the pilfered funds had been used to buy chips for use in Solaire Resort and Casino’s junket-run VIP gaming rooms.

Restricted release:

However, in dismissing Bangladesh Bank’s action, the federal court reportedly asserted that the plaintiff had failed to establish a sufficient RICO claim or conspiracy, which meant that it was unable to exercise jurisdiction over other state law claims. It did, nevertheless, purportedly refuse to grant a subsequent motion from the defendants that had called for a dismissal based on a ‘lack of subject matter jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.’