Former William Hill Staff Accused of Embezzling $70,000 from Betting Terminals

Several employees at the betting company William Hill have been dismissed following an investigation into an alleged embezzlement scheme involving the company’s kiosks in Nevada. The investigation was initiated in December 2022 by the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB).

Three individuals suspected of participating in the embezzlement were terminated by William Hill, while four others are believed to have been involved as well. The illicit activity reportedly led to losses of over $70,000 for the company, which operates more than 100 sports and race books across the state.

According to documents from the gambling regulator, KLAS confirmed that one of the alleged perpetrators was a supervisor with the initials M.B., and the other was identified by the initials T.R. In addition to these individuals, there were other co-conspirators involved in the fraudulent scheme.

The NGCB’s investigation revealed that the suspects used software programs to add money to various kiosks. They would then print fraudulent receipts from the kiosks and exchange them for cash, resulting in illicit gains of over $70,000.

The suspects’ activities raised suspicion when they made unusual monetary adjustments to the kiosks. The NGCB stated that the suspects were caught making singular adjustments of varying amounts, ranging from $100 to $2,500.

One of the suspects, T.R., was allegedly responsible for nearly half of the fraudulent adjustments in a single month, while the supervisor M.B. completed the other half.

This case is not the first instance of such fraudulent activity involving William Hill employees. A similar incident occurred last year, resulting in charges against two former employees who employed a comparable fraudulent method. These employees pleaded guilty to five charges and were ordered to pay over $200,000 in restitution.

Both cases involved supervisors or customer service agents tampering with kiosks and then redeeming altered vouchers for cash. The similarity between the two cases suggests a pattern of fraudulent behavior within the company.