Big Bounty Bill Boom Boom

How to play Big Bounty Bill Boom Boom

“Looking back over the past two years, the regulation has achieved its primary objective: creating a safer and more transparent market. It has established common standards for all licensed operators, particularly around KYC, AML and responsible gaming, ensuring that customers receive a more consistent experience regardless of the platform they choose.”

Atucha praises the regulation and the regulators themselves for making entry into the market easy, as well as allowing them to be competitive against illegal operators. But the market hasn’t been without its challenges.

A 1% selective consumption tax (ISC) on the value of every online bet has been in force since 1 July 2025, after the original policy was scrapped from proposed regulations in July 2021.

What is Big Bounty Bill Boom Boom?

Last year, the DRC’s Minister of Finance Doudou Fwamba estimated iGaming operators generated around $1.7 billion in annual revenue, yet contributed approximately $1 million in taxes.

A CEO of a prominent operator in the DRC last year told iGB the tax system largely operates on a declaration basis of how much operators report to the government.

“Operators do pay, yes, but they pay whatever suits them,” they said. “In other words, we effectively pay what benefits us. All the while, the state has no means of monitoring its regulatory policies.”

How to play Big Bounty Bill Boom Boom

“A proceeding aimed at impairing a single creditor is not the collective administration Chapter 15 contemplates, and the mismatch is not a technicality. It is part of the Debtors’ bad faith effort to forum shop for the most advantageous tool to use against their litigation adversary,” Skillz attorneys alleged.

The Debtors here deployed an insolvency statute against the one creditor whose judgment they wished to defer and compromise, left every ordinary-course creditor untouched, preserved their own equity, and sought releases for the insiders who directed the conduct that produced the judgment—then asked this Court to treat that machinery as proof that their affairs are centered in Israel,” the petition continued.

“The Court should refuse the relief requested by … because it is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States based on the Debtors’ well-documented and pervasive bad faith conduct,” the petition said. “The Debtors are using the Israeli Action—a limited action which lacks many of the core characteristics of a collective insolvency proceeding—as a strategic tool to evade responsibility for their deceptive conduct.”