An alleged gambling conspiracy has rocked U.S. basketball, throwing the sport into turmoil.
It's a wide-sweeping criminal enterprise that envelops both the NBA and La Casa Nostra.
It's the most significant gambling investigation I think the NBA has dealt with.
This is a very dangerous situation for the league as a whole.
This is World Business Report from the BBC World Service.
I'm Ed Butler, and today we're going to be looking at those.
FBI claims that it has uncovered a multimillion dollar criminal gambling conspiracy involving current and former basketball players as well as the mafia.
What does this mean for US gambling rules?
And while we're at it, what do US sanctions mean for Russia's bottom line?
So let's look at this story.
The FBI says it has uncovered an illegal gambling conspiracy which involves current and former basketball players and also involves the mafia, the American mafia or Cosa Nostra.
34 people have been arrested, including the Miami Heat star, Terry Rozier, who I should say has denied those allegations against him.
Also charged, the Portland Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups.
The FBI director, Kash Patel, made the announcement.
Today we are here in New York to announce a historic arrest across a wide-sweeping criminal enterprise that envelops both the NBA and La Casa Nostra.
But, as you now know, individuals such as Chauncey Billups, Damon Jones and Terry Rozier were taken into custody today former, current NBA players and coaches.
What you don't know is that this is an illegal gambling operation and sports rigging operation that spanned the course of years.
The FBI led a coordinated takedown across 11 states to arrest over 30 individuals today responsible for this case, which is very much ongoing.
Not only did we crack into the fraud that these perpetrators committed on the grand stage of the NBA, but we also entered and executed a system of justice against La Casa Nostra, to include the Bonanno Gambino, Genovese and Lucchese crime families.
The FBI director on those charges.
And it is a long rap sheet involving dozens of individuals.
Our correspondent, Nada Taufik, is in New York and she's been explaining why some of these big names have now been arrested.
Miami Heat guard, Terry Rozier, was investigated by the NBA and cleared, and yet here we have these allegations from prosecutors that he, along with a former NBA player, Damon Jones, and others, shared private information about NBA players to then place bets worth tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, to enrich themselves.
And they alleged that there was one particular game where Terry Rozier was playing at the time with the Charlotte Hornets against New Orleans and faked an injury.
And separate to that they allege and prosecutors arrested an NBA Hall of Famer, a well-known coach, Chauncey Billups.
And that was over allegations that he worked alongside the mafia to rig high stakes poker games.
And Miriam.
They allege that this group used sophisticated technology like rigged card shufflers and x-ray tables after nabbing what they called fish high net worth individuals to then scam them.
And they said that the mafia would then use extortion to get unpaid debts paid back, that they would use money laundering to kind of wash and clean their money, including through cryptocurrency.
So this was a sweeping criminal enterprise, according to prosecutors.
And they say that these NBA stars eroded trust in American sport by turning basketball into a criminal operation.
Nada Tawfiq.
Well, those sentiments have been echoed by the Democrat House leader, Hakeem Jeffries, who described this as a stain on the conscience of NBA fans.
Part of the context, many will argue, is an increasingly liberal sports gambling industry within the United States.
In 2018, a Supreme Court ruling legalised sports betting nationwide.
Since then, at least 23 professional players or coaches have been suspended or have been permanently banned from their leagues forever for sports betting violations.
Jonathan Cohen, the author of the book Losing Big America's Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling, now joins me.
Jonathan is the evidence.
You think that the legalisation of sports gambling since 2019 laid the groundwork for scandals like this?
Hi, Ed, and never have I been so relieved not to get invited to fancy poker games in New York.
I would say yes, I think specifically because of one word in the title of the book which is reckless, which is not the fact that sports gambling itself is inherently corrupting or necessarily leads to violations of league integrity, but the United States opened up so quickly And with so few guardrails and with so few educational efforts directed at sports players and professional athletes and fans, that I think we were sort of asking for it in terms of the rapidity, the alacrity with which it was rolled out, that something like this basically, was inevitable as a result.
What guardrails are missing?
Well, from the league's perspective, I think the NBA especially could do a lot more to be educating its players.
But I'm actually more concerned and I'm sort of trying to use this opportunity to spotlight the lack of guardrails to protect the gamblers themselves, the sort of regular average Joe's who are able to sort of gamble multiple mortgage payments in a matter of a few seconds online on a check table tennis tournament if they want to.
OK.
Also with us is Jason Russell.
He's the managing editor at the Reason Foundation, which has a slightly different take on this, I think.
Jason, I mean, your thoughts.
Do you think there's just too much legalised sports betting and that has just laid the groundwork for the Cosa Nostra, the mafia, to get involved and to corrupt players?
No, I think the opposite actually.
I think we have – if anything, we need more sports betting legalization.
Really?
If we didn't have this legalized sports betting, I think these kinds of things would still be happening anyway.
And I share the concern with fans, right?
They want to know that every player is trying their best in every single game.
Nobody wants match fixing.
But when we have legalized sports betting, when sports betting is happening in transparency in the daylight, then we have sportsbooks that are able to say hey, we've found some suspicious bets on this player or on this game and we think we want to investigate match fixing or game rigging or whatever you want to call it.
Jonathan?
I would say the sports leagues have a long track record of monitoring illegal casinos and monitoring Las Vegas casinos when it was confined to Las Vegas.
They were doing a perfectly fine job at monitoring match-fixing and other nefarious activities when sports gambling was illegal.
And it is not only because it is legal, and only because it is regulated, that the sports leagues are able to monitor and protect it safely.
And, if anything, the rapidity with which it was rolled out was so heedless and so reckless that we sort of raised the profile and raised the volume of sports betting to such a degree that no wonder it's not just professional basketball players who are getting in on it.
It's these basketball players at these small colleges and universities who are betting on themselves.
Who never would have thought probably, about sports gambling but for the fact that every five seconds on American TV there's a commercial enticing them to play and promising they can win big if they bet on sports.
It is extraordinary, isn't it, the increase?
I mean, this is just the hard numbers of the betting numbers in America.
I've seen suggesting US households are on average gabbling around $1,000 a year.
That's an average figure.
So I guess some are... doing a lot more, some a lot less.
Well, yes.
Six years ago, it was basically non-existent until now.
There are still some big states like California and Texas where it's still illegal.
But at the same time, this is a way that people are viewing entertainment.
They're sitting on the couch with their friends.
They're putting $5 on an admittedly dumb parlay that is not going to win.
But for most sports bettors not all of them, but the vast majority of them the sports betting is just a way to have fun.
It's not something that they are addicted to or getting into trouble with.
I think Jonathan, some will argue I mean people in Europe, for instance, we have, and in Asia there are many, many scandals, particularly on other sports, particularly the ones where they're less lucrative.
So I guess players are more vulnerable to the bookmakers coming in and trying to corrupt them.
And they say, well, you know, it's not surprising.
Perhaps it's surprising it's taken so long for U.S. sport to get involved.
Perhaps it's just that the US sports personalities are generally paid so well that they don't need to go to the underworld.
And of course we're the United States.
So, God forbid, we learn from a different country and the models and the examples and the mistakes that they've made.
We just need to rush headlong into the market heedlessly, recklessly again.
And Kingdom is, of course, currently rolling back and adding some of the regulations that we're now in the process of taking down.
Do you think we need any changes, Jason?
No, I mean, I think big states like California and Texas should be granting their citizens the same freedom to bet and have fun on sports betting that all the other states but 38 other states have.
OK, two pretty different views there.
This on the day that the FBI has uncovered, or allegedly uncovered, an illegal gambling conspiracy within the NBA.
My thanks to Jonathan Cohen and to Jason Russell.
You're with World Business Report from the BBC World Service.
The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has described this week new sanctions from the US on Russia's two biggest oil companies as an unfriendly act.
It sounds like an understatement, doesn't it?
The US has announced new sanctions targeting Russia's two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil which, between them, export 31 million barrels of oil per day, more than half of all Russian exports.
This is what Donald Trump had to say today.
The only thing I can say is, every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations and then they don't go anywhere.
They just don't go anywhere.
So Donald Trump thinks that these sanctions may push Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table to bring peace to the war in Ukraine.
Well, the stated aim is that peace, but...
Will it really work?
Taxes from the oil and gas industries account for about a quarter of Russia's federal budget.
Most of the nation's overseas income.
The EU, of course, has also added its own measures today, banning Russian liquefied natural gas imports.
But Russia was already one of the most heavily sanctioned nations in the world.
And the Kremlin says that these measures will not have a substantial impact on its economy.
Will they?
I'm joined by Nigel Kushner.
He's the chief executive of W Legal, a law firm specialising in sanctions compliance.
Hi, Nigel.
Thanks for being with us tonight.
I mean, is this a game changer, as some in the White House are claiming?
It might be a game changer is the answer, because there's been a giant hole in the international sanctions regime against Russia since 2022.
And I'm not saying it's not been meaningful.
Yes, it's been harsh.
But the giant hole has been the billions that has been paid to Russia in respect of oil sales and energy sales, including LNG.
A lot of it has come from the EU.
Now, if that tightens up, then it will have an impact.
But actually I think this is a fight with China, Turkey and India, because they're the ones who have been buying all the oil that no one else is buying.
China's importing 109 million tons of Russian crude in the last year.
India, 88 million tons of crude oil.
And I can tell you that's 88 times the crude oil that they were buying in 2021.
So if we want to stop the Russians receiving billions and billions in revenue, then it's those countries who need to be attacked.
And what these sanctions do?
They allow Donald Trump, the US, to go around the world, to the banks in China, in Turkey and India and say right, you are no longer going to have access to the US financial system.
They're going to ban you, and China's largest refineries say they are looking at curbing imports of Russian oil.
This is what we heard today.
India's reliance industry said on Thursday it would recalibrate its imports in line with government guidelines.
Chinese state oil majors have suspended purchases of seaborne Russian oil.
It does sound, doesn't it?
There's been a chilling effect, even if there isn't a direct threat to those industries, those importers, that they're worried potentially of blowback from the United States.
Yeah, there's certainly a chilling effect.
And yes, they are worried.
But we only need to look at how Iran reacted.
And we saw a similar thing. in 2013 and 2014.
But jack in the boxes pop up again.
Front companies will buy the oil.
We will see lots of use of fake certificates of origin when people are buying Russian oil, knowingly or unknowingly.
And it'll all go through the system.
And there are tried and tested ways of transacting without using the U.S. dollar.
So we'll wait to see.
But the big question is will the US implement this option to punish the banks around the world who are financing this?
A lot of it depends on shipping, doesn't it?
And I spoke earlier to Ami Daniel.
He's the CEO of Wynwood, a maritime air company that specialises in the movement of international shipping.
These were his thoughts about the sanctions.
Well, I think it's going to make a big difference, because out of about 90 million barrels daily in the world of oil, Russia produced about 10 of crude and about one more of clean products.
Luke oil and Roseneff together are about 4 million out of these 10.
So you're talking about 4 million barrels a day that's probably sanctioned.
Today they're not sanctioned.
You're allowed to buy and sell them as long as it's under the price cap.
So it's allowed, but this makes it not allowed.
So it's a pretty big difference.
It's going to change markets.
It's going to change shipping.
It's going to change the price because the oil market is pretty saturated as it is.
Up to now, of course, we have said some restrictions, haven't we, on Russian oil?
Oil transfers and that's what led to the Shadow Fleet developing and all of these C2C kind of transfers out in the middle of the ocean.
Are we going to see a lot more of that, with oil that's coming from Lukoil or Rosneft going under a different flag, under a different company name?
I think, first of all, we see a gigantic leap in all metrics of Dark Fleet.
Much more false flags, as you mentioned.
Much more ship-to-ship transfers.
Much more spoofing.
Much more everything.
However...
This is the first time that you're seeing a very clear regulation that says you are not allowed to buy Russian oil.
The question is, who is going to buy sanctioned oil?
Is Russia going to buy sentient oil?
I think we're seeing reports and some data that India is pulling back on a trade with Russia because of the tariffs, the American tariffs on India.
So I think it's very interesting to see what will happen with the demand to that oil.
That's Ami Daniels, CEO and co-founder of Wynwood AI.
So back to you, Nigel.
Nigel Kushner.
We've seen Europe pass measures, of course, against more individuals and entities, ranging from Chinese refiners and Central Asian banks.
Today as well.
The big thing that they're also discussing, which they haven't yet passed, is what to do with Russia's 200 billion of frozen assets currently held in Belgian banks.
President Zelensky thinks there have been good results about talks over this.
Many would say that would be a game changer.
It would be a game changer, but I think that will be a negotiation if there is a resolution.
And the next discussion on the table will be who is going to pay for reconstruction.
I don't think it's going to be taken at this time.
Right.
It's going to wait.
You obviously represent sometimes clients, people under sanction, people whose companies are under sanction.
Tell me this.
How do they react when they get news like this that they have been placed under sanction from the EU or the State Department?
Well, if it's individuals, they just throw their hands in the air.
They feel frustrated.
And in general, certainly the individuals I have acted for, they comply.
Much more of my work is dealing with companies who are impacted.
And they sanctioned these two large Russian entities last week.
But the next day they issued a general license saying it doesn't apply to all the German subsidiaries of Rosneft, because a lot of the petrol stations and the airports are taking fuel.
And if the banks aren't transacting, no one can trade.
We're going to have to watch that one.
Thank you very much, Nigel Kushner of W Legal here in London.
Quick view of the markets now.
Quang Nguyen is with us.
She's the Chief Investment Officer of Equity Strategies of a Research Affiliates based in New York.
Hi there.
Oil prices surging around this news, aren't they?
5% to a two-week high.
What do we make of this?
I think that they could surge more.
I mean, if you take a look at where oil prices started, I mean it's not really that high to begin with.
It started in the 50s.
Now we're surging into the 60s.
When Russia first invaded Ukraine, oil surged all the way up above 100%.
Yeah, I mean, it's still way lower than it was at the start of the year, isn't it?
Absolutely.
And part of it's because sanctions have been in place for a while, right?
It's not like you're having refiners in the US and Europe buying a lot of Russian oil.
And the supply from Russia has been more constricted.
And so the marginal impact, while it's material, is not nearly as shocking as it was in 2022.
Right.
Not such a shock for the global economy then and for all the other economies looking at this.
Let's move to some of the other stories in the news today.
Intel and Ford have both produced market figures on Wall Street.
What have we learned from them?
So Intel was one of these companies where it was a darling in 1999, early 2000, only to fall out of favor pretty significantly and just – fall by the wayside.
I mean, at one point, Intel was actually considering buying Nvidia, if you can believe it.
But Intel is really benefiting from the broadening of interest in AI and all things technology.
The whole AI revolution, I think really has room to broaden even more and lift even more technology companies.
Right.
So good news for them.
I mean, what about Ford carmakers?
They've had troubled times in recent years.
What are they saying?
Well, car companies have had difficult times in recent years, not just because of the tariffs, but also changing tastes, right.
So, And the pullback in the US in terms of EVs, for example, really caught a lot of these car companies wrong-footed.
And I think Ford is just responding to that.
Why do they need to deal with battery supplies and all the complexities of that when clearly consumers aren't necessarily all that enthused about EVs?
OK, thank you very much, Kuei Nguyen, there in New York.
Thanks very much.
Those priceless items from the Louvre Museum.
It was a brazen heist this week and it could have been worth well.
The artefacts themselves could be worth up to 100 million, according to the latest estimates.
But unlike precious household items...
You may be surprised to learn that jewels are not usually privately insured when they're in a museum.
Under French law, museums like the Louvre are, in fact, prohibited from insuring artefacts, except when they are part of a collection that is being moved or loaned to another institution.
Some might call that, well, criminal.
No insurance?
What's the story?
Erin Thompson is with us.
She's a professor of art crime at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Hi, Erin.
Tell us, being uninsured is standard.
Yes.
For many museums, including most museums in the U.S., have no insurance on their collections.
And why?
Because insurance can be incredibly expensive.
All those premiums on millions of dollars of arts.
And they're sort of besides the point.
You can't exactly replace that Rembrandt.
And they're a liability because sometimes in Europe when insurers offer a reward for return for a painting, people will steal it to claim that reward.
Right.
So it's literally an inducement to the thieves.
Exactly.
Amazing.
I could take your point because I was trying to do the sums in my head, thinking about, you know, my visits to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or or the National Gallery, or the Louvre, or the Prado or any of those other big museums.
They are absolutely wall to wall with grandmasters.
And Lord knows, if you aggregated, what the actual value of all of that would be in the current art market.
It is gigantic.
It is trillions.
And that's just what's on display.
They have storerooms full of 10 or 100 times as many pieces.
Yeah.
So other stories this week in the news.
Around 2000 gold and silver coins worth around 90000 euros a relatively smaller figure were stolen during a raid at another French museum this week, just hours after the audacious theft at the Louvre.
We don't know, of course, if these two things are connected, but I think art experts are warning, aren't they?
That copycat thefts can be expected in the next few weeks.
Such has been the publicity around what the thieves got away with in Paris.
Right.
And museums are relatively soft targets.
Your average high-end jewelry shop has a whole lot more security than a museum.
Right.
So copycats, though, I mean, is that how jewel thieves work?
Because you can imagine that the inducements for actually trading these hot items is pretty tricky.
Well, if anybody is tempted to be a copycat, I will say that historically, the guys who actually go into museums on this type of job are hired to do so.
They're usually career criminals with a record that allows them to be caught fairly quickly.
So they are almost all arrested.
So don't be the guy who does that dirty work.
Why would you copycat, though?
I mean, it sounds almost childish, doesn't it?
It's like, are they looking at these other guys and thinking they got to show off?
It's kind of bragging rights in the underworld.
No, it's just good money.
Gold is at historically high prices.
Museums are easy to steal from.
Right now.
They're much easier than even a private home in a lot of cases, because they're in historic buildings that are hard to secure.
So why not?
Seems like a good idea.
Really?
But the Louvre has, I suppose, been the showcase that even the biggest, toughest institutions are not impregnable.
Well, no museum is impregnable, because the point is that anybody off the street can buy a ticket and go in.
The thing that's most surprising to me about the Louvre heist is that the thieves bothered to break in when the museum was open.
Usually smash and grab thieves in museums just buy a ticket like everybody else and then run out.
So a museum can't have armed guards breathing down your neck.
What are they going to do, get into a shootout in front of the Mona Lisa and damage onlookers, both painted and in the flesh?
No, they have to have lesser security than any other place where you could expect multimillion dollar artifacts.
Erin Thompson, professor of art crime at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Marvellous to talk to you.
Thank you very much for your time.
And thank you out there for listening.
That's it for this edition of World Business Report from me and the rest of the team here in Salford.
Thank you very much for listening.
