- with readers working within the Construction & Engineering industries
On or around May 5, 2026, Nevada state prosecutors charged Samuel Silverman, a former sportsbook trader for DraftKings, with two felony counts arising from an alleged scheme to profit from manipulated college basketball player-proposition wagers that Silverman made while he was a DraftKings employee.1 The charges—the commission of a fraudulent act in a gaming establishment and conspiracy to cheat at a gambling game—stem from an investigation that the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) conducted into suspicious betting activity in connection with a January 7, 2025 men's basketball game between Fresno State and Colorado State.2 Nevada authorities allege that Fresno State forward Mykell Robinson intentionally underperformed so that a parlay wager placed on his statistics would yield a large payout, and that Silverman transferred funds to facilitate the bets on Robinson.3 Silverman has pleaded not guilty.4
Sports betting integrity investigations are not new, but this case is notable because it involves a former employee of a major regulated sportsbook. The allegations underscore that integrity risks do not arise solely from athletes and bettors—they can also originate from those who otherwise have industry knowledge and access.
Background
According to investigators, Silverman worked as a sports trader in the DraftKings Las Vegas office in 2025.5 DraftKings stated Silverman was not responsible for setting college basketball odds while with the company.6 Before joining DraftKings, Silverman served as the manager for the Fresno State men's basketball team during the 2022-23 season.7
Investigators allege that this was not the first time Silverman engaged in this type of betting misconduct. An agent for the NGCB found that Silverman also placed a $100 parlay on Robinson's statistics with Caesars Sportsbook on January 11, 2025.8
The Betting Scheme
The NGCB conducted a state investigation into the January 7, 2025 basketball game and betting, which relied on phone and financial records, as well as independent investigations by the NCAA and Fresno State.9 Based on the NGCB's investigation and records obtained by ESPN, investigators contend that Silverman engaged in a coordinated scheme with three other individuals: former Fresno State forward Mykell Robinson; Robinson's former teammate and roommate during the 2023-24 season, Steven Vasquez; and Silverman's former roommate and colleague at DraftKings, Matthew Martin.
Specifically, investigators allege that Robinson intentionally underperformed during the January 7 game, consistent with the "under" proposition bets placed on his behalf, and that Martin placed three parlay bets, totaling $2,200, that Robinson would finish under various statistical categories, including Robinson's points (10.5), assists (2.5), rebounds (5.5), and three-pointers (1.5).10 Investigators further allege that Martin's wagers generated nearly $16,000 in profits, which Martin immediately deposited into his bank accounts and subsequently transferred to Silverman, who not only facilitated movement of the funds used to place the bets, but also later distributed the proceeds to Vasquez and Robinson.11 The investigation revealed that approximately $200 was traced from Robinson's mother, who had contributed to the bet and the subsequent payout that was split among Silverman and the others.12 In total, the investigation found that Martin received $11,325, Silverman received $3,000, Robinson received $1,425, and Vasquez received $200.13
While BetMGM's sportsbook flagged Martin's parlays as suspicious betting activity shortly before the January 7 game, the extent of the operation was only revealed through the NGCB's investigation.14
Fresno State ended up losing the game 91-64, with Robinson playing only 21 minutes and having only three points, two rebounds, and no assists.15 Two days following the game, Fresno State coach Vance Walberg received an anonymous tip from the parent of a player regarding Robinson's potential involvement in betting.16 According to the NGCB records, Walberg stated that during the Colorado State game, Robinson appeared "checked out."17
The investigation uncovered text messages between Robinson and Vasquez before the January 7 game, where Robinson indicated his intent to place a $200 parlay bet on his unders, and stated that he would be "playin lil first half may get couple stats" and "then sitting."18 In additional text messages, Robinson stated that his "roommate [S]teve from last year called me and put me on, he placed it for me."19
Based on the evidence uncovered, investigators concluded there was a "clear conspiracy" to bet on and profit from "the altered play of Mykell Robinson."20
DraftKings was not implicated in the alleged scheme (and does not offer sports betting in Nevada21). DraftKings cooperated with investigators, and a DraftKings spokesperson clarified that none of the wagers at issue were placed through its platform.22 Silverman and Martin are no longer employed by the company.23 DraftKings conducted an internal review of the case, which found no evidence that its internal "information was improperly used or that customers were impacted."24 The company further "strongly condemn[ed] the alleged conduct of these former employes" and reaffirmed its commitment "to protecting the integrity of sports and sports betting."25
The NGCB further confirmed that the investigation remains ongoing, "several additional suspects remain outstanding, and criminal charges are being actively pursued."26
Separately, the NCAA concluded that Robinson and Vasquez violated its sports wagering and gambling rules through their involvement in the betting scheme, and as a result, the NCAA ruled both permanently ineligible to compete.27
What This Means for Sports Betting and Prediction Markets
These charges are the latest in a growing series of betting integrity scandals affecting the sports betting and prediction market industries. The allegations here highlight the integrity risks that arise when sportsbook employees or other individuals with access to confidential industry information exploit that knowledge for profit. As a result, this case could shape how gaming regulators and prosecutors pursue future enforcement actions involving employees and individuals who otherwise have access to nonpublic information, particularly in the context of the NCAA and college sports. Further, this case underscores the importance of regulatory oversight, specifically the increasing role of regulators, such as the NGCB, in identifying, investigating, and prosecuting insider manipulation of sports outcomes for betting purposes.
The case exposes the absence of a well-developed regulatory framework focused on preventing sportsbook employees from manipulating betting. The NGCB, the American Gaming Association, and other oversight bodies have not issued standalone guidance governing the internal controls that sportsbooks should have in place to prevent employees from exploiting access to game or player information. But some states have implemented regulations to address these risks indirectly, and other states are beginning to implement explicit statutory bans.28
In response to these emerging concerns, this case serves as a reminder that regulators and companies operating in this space should maintain robust controls designed to identify not only suspicious customer activity, but also misconduct by employees, players, and those with insider or specialized market knowledge. For instance, operators should ensure they have strong policies governing employee conduct, conflicts of interest, access to confidential information, employee wagering, and relationships with athletes, teams, and other market participants. Companies should also evaluate whether their surveillance and monitoring systems are capable of identifying anomalies and other suspicious activity involving both customers and employees. But all this surveillance can create a lot of noise. Equally important is whether they are leveraging artificial intelligence to ensure that they can meaningfully identify signals, so that they can efficiently take a risk-based approach to reporting, escalation, and remediation of problematic behavior. As regulators continue to intensify oversight of wagering markets to protect the integrity of sports, sports betting, and the broader gaming industry, companies that strengthen their internal monitoring and leverage technologically driven safeguards will be better positioned to protect this burgeoning and important industry.
Footnotes
1. Ziv Chen, Former DraftKings Trader Charged in Fresno State Basketball Betting Scheme, Sportsbook Review (July 8, 2026), https://www.sportsbookreview.com/news/former-draftkings-trader-charged-in-fresno-state-betting-scheme-july-7-2026/.
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.; David Purdum, Former DraftKings trader charged in Fresno State hoops betting plot, ESPN (July 6, 2026), https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/49288129/former-draftkings-trader-charged-fresno-state-hoops-betting-plot.
5. Purdum, supra note 4.
6. Sean Treppedi, Ex-DraftKings trader arrested for Fresno State hoops betting plot, New York Post (July 7, 2026), https://nypost.com/2026/07/07/betting/ex-draftkings-trader-arrested-for-fresno-state-hoops-betting-plot/; see also https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/ex-draftkings-trader-arrested-for-fresno-state-hoops-betting-plot/ar-AA27qd7S?ocid=BingNewsSerp.
7. Purdum, supra note 4.
8. Id.
9. Id.; Chen, supra note 1.
10. Purdum, supra note 4; Chen, supra note 1; Treppedi, supra note 6.
11. Id.
12. Chen, supra note 1.
13. Purdum, supra note 4.
14. Purdum, supra note 4.
15. Treppedi, supra note 6.
16. Purdum, supra note 4.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.; Treppedi, supra note 6.
21. Purdum, supra note 4.
22. Id.
23. Purdum, supra note 4; Treppedi, supra note 6.
24. Id.
25. Purdum, supra note 4.
26. Id.
27. Treppedi, supra note 6; Chen, supra note 1.
28. See Nevada Regulation 22 (suspicious-transaction reporting requirements); Nevada Regulation 6.090 (requiring licensees to file and maintain internal control systems); NRS 463.335-463.337 (allowing the NGCB to revoke a gaming employee's registration for cheating or misconduct). See also Massachusetts G.L. c. 23N, § 11(a) and North Carolina G.S. 18C-910(9) (requiring operators to use "commercially reasonable" efforts to prohibit their own directors, officers, owners, and employees from placing bets with that operator, and to prohibit their athletes, coaches, referees, team owners and staff, and employee of a sports governing body from betting on their own sport). See also April 22, 2026 New York Executive Order No. 60 (banning state employees from engaging in insider trading on prediction markets); July 8, 2026 Arizona Executive Order 2026-02 (prohibiting executive branch employees from using nonpublic government information to profit on prediction markets).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
