Licensing question for Rep's

[Rusty]

To all Reps

With which Licensing authority is your Casino registered and on what basis did your Casino choose this Licensing authority over others?

Thanks

[Ed Ware]

Hi Rusty

Providing a good spread of operators decide to contribute to this thread, you should get some interesting answers to your question.

As far as 32Red is concerned, we have always seen the licensing jurisdiction as very much part of the overall proposition to the player and not just a means to an end (to doing business). We believe that being a licensee in a creditable and regulated jurisdiction says a lot of about the quality of the operation and should be something a player researches before joining a casino. In 2002 the choice for operators basically consisted of some Caribbean locations, Kahnawake and Gibraltar.

Gibraltar has always operated a very strict and controlled approach to licensing online gaming operators and it is clear that not every applicant has been able to attain a licence in Gibraltar. We regard this as a sign of a strong licensing regime and while the reasons for refusals aren’t known, it is clear that Gibraltar has set out to establish itself as home to blue chip companies including Ladbrokes, Bwin and Coral Eurobet. We have always believed that this sends a clear and positive message to those prospective players who feel licensing jurisdiction is important when making their choice of casino.

Gibraltar has a structured licensing and regulatory environment which serves to protect the player (and thus the reputation of Gibraltar and the operators based here). The Government continues to apply a great deal of resource to regulating the operators and upgrading various parts of the legal framework. In essence, the enterprise is taken extremely seriously by the Authorities and not just as a way of getting money into central coffers. This is important to 32Red.

Additionally, with our interest in the UK player, Gibraltar offers unfettered access to that market basically through its status as British Overseas Territory. Being in the European Economic Area is also important in this regard and the physical proximity to the United Kingdom is an obvious logistical advantage for us. This has become even more important since the passing of the 2005 Gambling Act which prohibits advertising in the UK by online gambling firms, unless they are licensed in particular jurisdictions. Gibraltar’s position, thanks to its status and heritage is rock solid.

Since 32Red opened its virtual doors, the United Kingdom and Malta have become viable alternatives. However, from our perspective both still have some areas to attend to before they can be considered serious alternatives to Gibraltar.

I hope that’s of some use.

Best wishes

Ed.

[Pinababy69]

Malta have become viable alternatives. However, from our perspective both still have some areas to attend to before they can be considered serious alternatives to Gibraltar.

I don't know much about the UK alternative Ed, but your comments re: Malta are putting it mildly. They could start with taking less time than six months to answer a player complaint. That's if they ever do. Honestly, they are useless, and IMO, nothing more than window dressing for some casinos to post on their websites.

Gibraltar is about the only licensing jurisdiction I have any faith in whatsoever. The Lucky Ace (888 whitelabel) issue comes to mind....that got cleared up pretty quickly once the Commissioner got wind of it, and the complaints were sent in.

You made a wise choice.

[Rusty]

Hi Rusty

Providing a good spread of operators decide to contribute to this thread, you should get some interesting answers to your question.

As far as 32Red is concerned, we have always seen the licensing jurisdiction as very much part of the overall proposition to the player and not just a means to an end (to doing business). We believe that being a licensee in a creditable and regulated jurisdiction says a lot of about the quality of the operation and should be something a player researches before joining a casino. In 2002 the choice for operators basically consisted of some Caribbean locations, Kahnawake and Gibraltar.

Gibraltar has always operated a very strict and controlled approach to licensing online gaming operators and it is clear that not every applicant has been able to attain a licence in Gibraltar. We regard this as a sign of a strong licensing regime and while the reasons for refusals aren’t known, it is clear that Gibraltar has set out to establish itself as home to blue chip companies including Ladbrokes, Bwin and Coral Eurobet. We have always believed that this sends a clear and positive message to those prospective players who feel licensing jurisdiction is important when making their choice of casino.

Gibraltar has a structured licensing and regulatory environment which serves to protect the player (and thus the reputation of Gibraltar and the operators based here). The Government continues to apply a great deal of resource to regulating the operators and upgrading various parts of the legal framework. In essence, the enterprise is taken extremely seriously by the Authorities and not just as a way of getting money into central coffers. This is important to 32Red.

Additionally, with our interest in the UK player, Gibraltar offers unfettered access to that market basically through its status as British Overseas Territory. Being in the European Economic Area is also important in this regard and the physical proximity to the United Kingdom is an obvious logistical advantage for us. This has become even more important since the passing of the 2005 Gambling Act which prohibits advertising in the UK by online gambling firms, unless they are licensed in particular jurisdictions. Gibraltar’s position, thanks to its status and heritage is rock solid.

Since 32Red opened its virtual doors, the United Kingdom and Malta have become viable alternatives. However, from our perspective both still have some areas to attend to before they can be considered serious alternatives to Gibraltar.

I hope that’s of some use.

Best wishes

Ed.

Thank you for taking the time to reply with such a detailed answer and addressing the question directly.
It would be unfair to press you for an opinion on other LGA's but I assume the issue with the UK is not with the regulations or credibility as such but rather a tax issue?

I hope more Reps will respond to this thread.

[Ed Ware]

Thank you for taking the time to reply with such a detailed answer and addressing the question directly.
It would be unfair to press you for an opinion on other LGA's but I assume the issue with the UK is not with the regulations or credibility as such but rather a tax issue?

I hope more Reps will respond to this thread.

Thanks Rusty and I think you are right on the UK....

[Simmo!]

Gibraltar’s position...is rock solid.

Impossible to argue that

Gibraltar is about the only licensing jurisdiction I have any faith in whatsoever.

Alderney just gets my vote ahead of Gib but I don't think it was an option until the past 3 years or so. The only ones I feel I really trust are Gib, Alderney and the Isle Of Man. Good topic Rusty.

Jurisdiction is important to me when deciding where to play but more when deciding where *not* to play. I wouldn't play any in Costa Rica, it used to be I'd only play a Kahnawake operator if it was Microgaming, but now I have less confidence in Microgaming's backup, I probably wouldn't play Kahnawake period unlesss the casino had a good history behind it.

[Pinababy69]

Alderney just gets my vote ahead of Gib but I don't think it was an option until the past 3 years or so. The only ones I feel I really trust are Gib, Alderney and the Isle Of Man. Good topic Rusty.

I had high hopes for Alderney until that PKR.com case....maybe a year or more ago? I'd have to go back and find the thread, but I'm pretty sure they initially ruled against the player....who, as far as I can remember, hadn't done anything wrong. There were also some pretty serious implications of the casino accusing the player of fraud to Moneybookers and having their account closed there. To be fair to Alderney, I believe they reversed their decision and that the player did get paid. I guess the most important thing was that they eventually made the right decision...it just wasn't the best first impression for me.

EDIT: Just for reference, as Alderney was quite involved with this one.....thought maybe some might like to read it.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...no-reason.html

[Rusty]

Quite disappointing that only One Rep has responded to this thread thus far.
I have to wonder why so many are reluctant to participate.

Licensing Authorities are increasingly coming under the scrutiny of the player and we currently have an ongoing high profile case in the hands of LGA of Malta.

Malta has already had its integrity questioned over recent (none)actions so some players and no doubt Casinos will be looking very carefully at their findings over the disputed Jackpot win at Casino club.

Which ever way they rule they need to show that they have approached this case objectively and taken into consideration all the available information and evidence at their disposal and acted accordingly.
Any failure to address any of the arguments in this manner will result in the assumption that they are incompetent or even prejudice in some way.

We have already seen previously respected (because they never had to make an important ruling) Kahnawake Gaming commission fall over themselves to appear as corrupt and inept as possible with their handling of the Absolute poker Scandal.
Without dragging up the well publicised details of the case again I think it fair to say anyone who is aware of them would never trust Kahnawake Gaming commission to make a fair judgment on a case again and this of course has big implications for the Casinos who are licensed under them.

Also as PinaBaby mentions Alderney have not exactly covered themselves in glory recently either.
What is really concerning is that these were Two of the more respected licensing authorities, there are a whole plethora backwater jurisdictions that this sort of behaviour could be expected from.

All these Licensing authorities demand fees from their clients and for many this seems to be where there responsibilities end.
The Casinos that pay these fees and the players should both demand much more.
It is in the Casinos best interests as well as the players that the authority they are licensed by are proactive and seen to be fair.

Casinomeister has a wealth of information with which the player can educate themselves and this includes some references to gaming authorities.
Perhaps though it is time to draw up a list such as the Ones for Casinos that players can easily reference.
I would personally nominate Kahnawake for the rogue section along with many others and Alderney and Malta in the not recommended but this would be for Casinomeister to judge.
There is no reason not to have a positive list such as recommended either.

What are your feelings on such a list Bryan?

[Casinomeister]

Quite disappointing that only One Rep has responded to this thread thus far.
I have to wonder why so many are reluctant to participate.

Because most reps are focused on the complaints section - and there are a number who are licensed in Kahna-haha-wake

They may be reluctant to be slam-basted .

I would personally nominate Kahnawake for the rogue section along with many others and Alderney and Malta in the not recommended but this would be for Casinomeister to judge.
There is no reason not to have a positive list such as recommended either.

What are your feelings on such a list Bryan?

Licensing is a tricky subject - mainly because there are a number of variables that come into the decision making process when it comes to licensing. A lot of it has to do with costs - how much money a start up operation can dictate where they choose to go. It could be Cowboy Town - it could be the Isle of Man/Gibraltar - or somewhere in the EU.

There are some crapholes of casinos operating out of Costa Rica - and yet there are some excellent ones as well. Same thing goes for Kana-haha-wake. There are pros and cons for each jurisdiction and I feel that a jurisdiction can reflect on a casino, it can't reflect on it 100%. That's why I don't rogue jurisdictions.

I do write about them though. These write-ups can be found here:
http://www.casinomeister.com/bestwor...php#disappoint
http://www.casinomeister.com/bestworst2007.php#sitting

Edited to add: What is frustrating for me is that most licensing entities are set up primarily to serve the operator. Players have a difficult time trying to contact a real person who can resolve a complaint. This industry is over ten years old, and most jurisdiction fail when it comes to dealing with player issues effectively. It's truly amazing.

[Pinababy69]

I do right about them though.

You mean you write about them...tsk, tsk.