US Gambling Scandal: Supreme Court Upholds Revocation of Casino License

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling, upholding the revocation of Andy Sanborn’s gambling license. This ends a long-standing legal battle between the casino operator and state regulators as of October 28, 2026. The justices agreed with the regulators' finding that Sanborn was unsuitable to be associated with charitable gaming after serious allegations surfaced regarding the misappropriation of government funds. The ruling not only affects Sanborn's current operations but also blocks his planned exit through a sale of the business.

A key point of the ruling is the court's support for denying the sale to an out-of-state buyer. Sanborn intended to sell his shuttered Concord Casino and plans for a new site in East Concord. However, authorities suspected an attempt to bypass sanctions. Since the purchase agreement stipulated that Sanborn would lease the premises to the new owner and receive percentage-based earnings for years, the court saw a continuing personal association. Such a connection with an individual deemed unsuitable is incompatible with legal requirements for integrity in the gaming sector.

Numbers and facts

At the heart of the investigation was a sum of nearly $1 million. Specifically, it concerns funds from the federal Small Business Administration's COVID relief program, which Sanborn reportedly "unlawfully obtained." Instead of using the money to support his business during the pandemic, the funds were spent on personal luxury items. This included high-end race cars for himself and his wife. This financial breach of trust regarding government aid ultimately led to the Lottery Commission's determination of unsuitability.

Attorney General John Formella expressed relief after the verdict, supporting the regulatory stance. The decision is seen as a crucial step in ensuring that all charitable gaming operators meet the strict requirements of New Hampshire law. In their written opinion, the justices emphasized that it was neither unlawful nor unreasonable to negatively assess the planned business entanglements following the sale. Sanborn would have maintained significant influence over the financial structure of the buyer and his Win Win Win (WWW) LLC through the lease and future revenue sharing.

"We are pleased the Supreme Court has affirmed the Commission’s decisions in this matter, as those decisions were made in furtherance of the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that all charitable gaming operators meet the requirements of New Hampshire law." - John Formella, Attorney General of New Hampshire

Background

The Sanborn case is a prime example of the importance of "personal suitability" in gambling law. In the United States, particularly in states with a strong focus on charitable gaming like New Hampshire, great care is taken to ensure that proceeds actually benefit charitable causes rather than disappearing into private pockets. Andy Sanborn, a formerly influential figure in local politics and business, ultimately stumbled due to greed. The attempt to use state emergency aid for private race cars is now considered one of the most blatant cases of subsidy fraud in the industry.

The ruling clarifies that a license is not a lifelong right but remains tied to constant standards of conduct. Once an operator is flagged for criminal acts or deceiving authorities, they lose the privilege of offering gambling services. The fact that the sale was also blocked serves as a clear signal against "straw man" constructions, where tainted individuals continue to draw money from the regulated market via rents or consulting contracts.

Why it matters for German players

In Germany, the situation is even more strictly regulated by the State Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021). For German players, such a case primarily means security through regulation. Anyone playing with a provider licensed by the Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL) can trust that the operators have undergone a rigorous reliability check. Unlike illegal offers from Curacao or Malta, where oversight is often patchy, the GGL in Germany monitors every cent and every transaction via systems like LUGAS.

German rules stipulate that providers can lose their permit at the slightest doubt regarding financial integrity. Players benefit here from the monthly deposit limit of 1,000 euros and the stake limit of 1 euro per spin on online slots. These measures serve not only player protection but also prevent criminal energies—as shown in the Sanborn case through subsidy fraud—from infiltrating the market. A German operator misappropriating company funds for private luxury cars would be removed from the GGL whitelist in no time, resulting in an immediate stop of all payments and offers.

What it means for GGL-licensed casinos

For operators with a GGL license, the US ruling is a reminder of the need for absolute transparency. The German authority checks not only during initial licensing but continuously monitors the economic capability and reliability of the persons involved. In Germany, all managing directors and ultimate beneficial owners must disclose their financial affairs. Any form of money laundering or subsidy fraud leads to immediate license revocation. The Sanborn case shows that even long-term market participants fall if they violate the rules of state integrity. This strengthens trust in the legal market and effectively isolates bad actors from the competition.