How to Steal 8 Million CAD and Get Away With It?

“How to steal 8 million CAD and get away with it” might sound like clickbait. But it’s also disturbingly accurate. A vulnerable player was misled. A powerful family enriched itself. A supplier turned a blind eye. And a system built on supposed fairness looked the other way. Let’s have a look at what this “clickbait” is about…

The silence of Playtech, the greed of Mansion and the cost to a Canadian nurse…

On paper, it was dream comes true: a Canadian player hits the jackpot on Jackpot Giant, a progressive slot game by Playtech and wins nearly 16 million CAD. But what followed reads less like a fairy tale and more like a financial misappropriation buried within corporate silence.

At the centre of this story is Mansion Group, an online gambling operator that, at the time, was closely linked to the Sampoerna Family, the ultra-wealthy Indonesian dynasty known for its tobacco fortune and charitable foundation. Also in the spotlight is Playtech plc, one of the world’s most prominent gambling software providers, whose executives were contacted about the incident and remained silent.

According to former Mansion CEO Karel Manasco, the player (a retired nurse named J. K. – user name Cosbydog01) was never paid her full jackpot. Although Playtech transferred the full 16 million CAD (around USD12.4 million) to Mansion in 2018, internal decisions led to the player receiving only half the amount.

The other half? Quietly siphoned off, labelled a “dividend,” and distributed to Mansion’s shareholders.

The email Playtech never acknowledged

In January 2024, Manasco emailed the highest levels of Playtech’s leadership. The message was direct and detailed. It named the player, the jackpot amount and the mechanism by which Mansion allegedly misled the winner to justify a reduced payout.

“Mansion… opted to give instructions to receive 50% as a dividend. In order to do so the player has been defrauded to believe that… she could get 8M immediately,” Manasco wrote. “I strongly urge you to investigate this transaction further.”

The email was sent to Playtech CFO Chris McGinnis, with CEO Mor Weizer and COO Shimon Akad copied in. None of the three responded. The silence raises a fundamental regulatory question: if a supplier is informed that a licensed operator has withheld half of a progressive jackpot, is there not a duty to act?

A structure built to benefit the house

Progressive jackpots are supposed to be safeguarded by software providers. In this case, Playtech complied with its contractual obligation by transferring the full payout to Mansion. The issue arose immediately after.

Mansion reportedly proposed to pay the full jackpot (totaling USD 12.4 million) in monthly instalments of $20,000. At that rate, the player would have had to wait over 51 years to receive the total amount.

In the meantime, Mansion would retain the full funds and, had they invested them at a modest 4% interest rate, would have earned nearly $500,000 annually. With only $240,000 going to the player each year, this would leave Mansion with a profit margin exceeding $250,000 annually, entirely derived from withholding the player’s winnings.

Such a payout model violates clear UKGC, GGC and MGA rules, all of which prohibit unjustified delays in jackpot payments and require winnings to be disbursed promptly and in full.

The player was persuaded to accept 8 million CAD (6.797.533 USD) immediately. The remaining 8 million CAD was subsequently allocated to an affiliate with 10% of the amount and as a dividend: not to the player, but to internal stakeholders.

An internal audit email (now in the public domain) offers further insight. In a communication from Mansion’s Controller (initials MR – we do not want to name her publically as she was just a junior controller) to Karel Manasco, the Controller confirms receiving approximately $12.4 million, but admits she could not explain to auditors why two jackpot amounts existed or why more than $5.6 million remained unaccounted for in Mansion’s accounts.

“I can’t explain the difference between those 2 Jack Pots? Can you help?” “We did receive $12M for the progressive win. I believe we negotiated a settlement with the player and agreed to send $6.8M.”

This was part of a 2018 audit query related to Onisac/MGIB. No red flag appears to have been raised by Mansion’s external auditors. No internal investigation was initiated. This, despite the clear discrepancy between the jackpot received and the amount paid to the winner.

Playtech’s response and refusal to engage

When approached by Malta Media for comment, Playtech responded through Headland, a UK-based PR agency. On 16 May 2025, Dominic Fitches issued the following on-the-record statement attributable to a Playtech spokesperson:

“Playtech can confirm that it is comfortable that it has fulfilled all of its legal, contractual and regulatory obligations associated with this matter.”

When further questions were raised at the same day, Dan Mahoney, another representative from Headland, followed up with this background clarification:

“As regards this matter, Playtech is a B2B software supplier and its customer is Mansion, the regulated operator. As you rightly noted, Playtech fulfilled its contractual obligations to Mansion and paid the jackpot in full to Mansion. We note your email and, as we made clear, in addition to its contractual and legal obligations, Playtech is comfortable that it also fulfilled its regulatory obligations and, as you will no doubt appreciate, the nature of any communications between Playtech and regulatory bodies are of course confidential. Please note that Playtech reserves all of its rights.”

In effect, Playtech declined to confirm whether they:

• Ever followed up with Mansion after the whistleblower email
• Requested proof of payment to the player
• Reported the matter to regulators
• Conducted any internal investigation

This approach (of acknowledging payment to Mansion but disclaiming responsibility beyond that point) raises legitimate concerns under the regulatory frameworks of the UK Gambling Commission, Malta Gaming Authority and the Gibraltar Gambling Commission. These bodies expect licensees to act proactively when credible evidence of consumer harm arises.

Where were the regulators?

Notably, no action was taken by the Gibraltar Gambling Division nor the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission. No inquiry was made into why the $5.6 million surplus remained in Mansion’s account. No questions were raised about the additional monthly payments (reportedly averaging $500,000 per month) sent to Kathleen Chow Liem Sampoerna during this period.

These payments, according to internal documents, were treated as shareholder distributions. This was not a minor operator. It was a regulated business, overseen by multiple gambling authorities. And yet, not one regulatory body initiated a formal investigation, despite the glaring gaps in payout, the absence of transparency and the testimony of the group’s former CEO.

The Sampoerna family connection

Court documents and corporate filings confirm the influence of the Sampoerna family over Mansion Group. Kathleen Sampoerna is identified in multiple records as a UBO (Ultimate Beneficial Owner) and was allegedly a recipient of internal dividends tied to the jackpot balance.

Other family members (including Putera Sampoerna and Michael Sampoerna) appear in company documentation across Gibraltar, Malta and other jurisdictions.

The issue is not merely that the family benefited financially. It is that these funds originated from a jackpot prize that was not fully delivered to the winner. Whether this was a breach of contract, a deception, or merely poor corporate governance, it remains deeply problematic, both ethically and potentially legally.

What should happen next?

Several steps should now follow:

• Regulatory scrutiny: The UK Gambling Commission, MGA, FIAU, FINTRAC and Gibraltar authorities should investigate both the transaction and the inaction that followed.
• Operator accountability: Mansion Group’s audit history and payout policies should be examined for other irregularities.
• Supplier oversight: Playtech should be asked to explain what due diligence it performs when jackpot anomalies are reported.
• Transparency for the player: J. K. deserves to know the full truth about what happened to the money she won.

This was not an isolated software bug or accounting oversight. This was a chain of decisions (to pay less, to justify it with terms and to distribute the rest internally) that left a player cheated and the system unchallenged.

FAQs

What is the central issue in the Playtech and Mansion jackpot case?
A Canadian player won nearly 16 million CAD on a Playtech slot game, but only received half. The rest was allegedly diverted internally by Mansion Group.

Who is the affected player in this case?
The player is a retired Canadian nurse known as J. K. (username: Cosbydog01), who reportedly received only 8 million CAD from her 16 million CAD jackpot.

How did Mansion Group justify paying only half the jackpot?
Mansion proposed a misleading settlement, persuading the player to accept 8 million CAD immediately while internally labeling the remaining amount as shareholder dividends.

Did Playtech fulfill its obligations in this case?
Playtech claims it fulfilled its contractual and regulatory obligations by transferring the full jackpot amount to Mansion but took no further action despite whistleblower warnings.

Was there a whistleblower involved in this incident?
Yes. Former Mansion CEO Karel Manasco emailed Playtech executives detailing the alleged misappropriation and urging an investigation. Playtech did not respond.

What regulatory concerns does this case raise?
The case raises concerns about regulatory failure, including lack of intervention from UKGC, MGA, and Gibraltar authorities despite credible evidence of consumer harm.

What role did the Sampoerna family allegedly play?
Members of the Sampoerna family, particularly Kathleen Sampoerna, were linked to Mansion Group and allegedly received dividends derived from the withheld jackpot funds.

Why are progressive jackpots supposed to be protected?
Progressive jackpots are governed by strict rules requiring full and timely payments to winners, without unjustified delays or internal diversion of funds.

Has any regulator launched an investigation so far?
As of now, no formal investigation has been initiated by any of the major gambling regulators despite the serious allegations and documentation available.

What outcomes are being demanded by critics of this situation?
Critics are calling for regulatory investigations, transparency for the player, supplier accountability, and stricter oversight of gambling operators and software providers.

---

🚨 Have you experienced similar treatment?

If you or someone you know has experienced issues with jackpot payments or questionable operator conduct, you can report it via our secure whistleblower form: https://lnkd.in/dhDt8Hz5

🟡 Note: Malta-Media accepts advertising partnerships from licensed, regulated and fully compliant operators, studios and B2B providers. If that’s you, reach out via info@malta-media.com or view our visitor statistics: https://lnkd.in/d8t8viXT

---

Legal Disclaimer:

The information presented in this article is based on publicly available records, internal communications, whistleblower testimony and reasonable journalistic interpretation. While care has been taken to ensure factual accuracy, all individuals and entities named are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless determined otherwise by a competent authority.

This article is intended for informational and public interest purposes only and does not constitute a formal accusation, legal opinion or financial advice.