1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

32Red hit with £2m UKGC penalty (RG/ML regulations)

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by jasonuk, Jun 20, 2018.

    Jun 20, 2018
  1. jasonuk

    jasonuk Experienced Member

    Location:
    UK
    UKGC Link: You must register/login in order to see the link.

    The following quote is taken from the findings section (emphasis mine):
     
  2. Jun 20, 2018
  3. shadow123

    shadow123 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    programmer
    Location:
    midlands
    Sounds like they deserved it offering bonuses instead of help
     
  4. Jun 20, 2018
  5. Jono777

    Jono777 Meister Member CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    Self- Employeed
    Location:
    Wolverhampton
    Can't say that without knowing the full story, minus the media hype!

    Yes here I go again defending them but it could be something as innocent (or at least partly innocent) as a staff training issue, if that was the case 2M is a tad OTT.

    Newspapers, TV coverage etc etc love to add their twist to these instances, Mr and Mrs "general public" will never know the true in's and out's of these situations, including the recent Leo Vegas fine also.

    I feel there is a HUGE problem with the new UKGC guidelines, the first and foremost being that they themselves do not fully understand what they are asking for????
     
    PaaskeDenmark likes this.
  6. Jun 20, 2018
  7. Glassheart

    Glassheart Experienced Member MM

    Occupation:
    Management
    Location:
    Leeds
    7 figure win instantly replayed. :eek: .Just think of all the hookers that could have been kept in work.
     
  8. Jun 20, 2018
  9. jasonuk

    jasonuk Experienced Member

    Location:
    UK
    @Jono777 I deliberately picked the UKGC report rather than media coverage for the reason you mentioned - avoid the hype, misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

    I doubt "staff training" would be a suitable defence given there are systematic concerns over at least a three year period (regulated by UKGC)

     
  10. Jun 20, 2018
  11. slotter999

    slotter999 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Player
    Location:
    UK
    I was going to reply with something similar. There is no sensationalism in this story. To suggest otherwise is daft.
     
  12. Jun 20, 2018
  13. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Might be worth keeping in mind that the UKGC has its own axe to grind. Their spin on the story will be exactly that, their spin.
     
  14. Jun 20, 2018
  15. theapple

    theapple Senior Member

    Occupation:
    eh
    Location:
    far far away
    yeah i also refuse to believe casinos would do such a thing! I also feel sorry for casinos because now they have rules to follow. BOOO UKGC. Down with them. I agree how casinos are in odd situation right now because for past decade rules were there for players to follow, and casinos were able to make their own rules so now having to follow UKGC or other comission rules must be a nightmare for them.

    #freecasinos
     
    Jono777 likes this.
  16. Jun 20, 2018
  17. colinsunderland

    colinsunderland Experienced Member MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    affiliate
    Location:
    uk
    RG rules aren't new though, and don't forget 32Red were widely criticized, both here and elsewhere, when they changed their policy regarding RG matters a while ago. I noticed in another thread recently they have been praised for making the changes so it's easier to SE again, wonder how many would give that same praise knowing now they probably only did it with the prospect of a £2m fine hanging over them.

    If it was staff training, thats no excuse, in fact to me, it would make it worse, as thats something that should have been done properly from the start.

    Don't forget there were 22 instances that the UKGC looked at that could have indicated problem gambling, but also there were many more before that. This isn't a customer who got pissed off and sent an email once cos he lost, it was someone who showed numerous signs that he could have a problem over a number of years. 32Reds RG solution was to give him a bonus.

    He also supplied payslips showing his net monthly income as £13k, whereas his deposits were £45k, and his actual income was £2150, something that could have easily been checked further by googling the average salary for his type of job.

    Not sure how this can be defended to be honest, especially considering the fact 32Red fully admitted they were wrong. Maybe they should have listened to the members on here :)
     
  18. Jun 20, 2018
  19. Jono777

    Jono777 Meister Member CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    Self- Employeed
    Location:
    Wolverhampton
    Ok all who have quoted me, points taken and yes I only briefly read and didn't fully digest the UKGC related post in the OP before making the post above.

    Partially defending, no one is truly innocent, including these "problem gamblers" - I've said before part of a problem gambler solution lies in the problem gamblers hands yet the casino (in general not just this instance) always cops the full brunt of the blame not to mention the fines etc etc etc.

    Maybe 32 Red for all their positives are not entirely blameless and I am not entirely perfect either. As I say we will only ever truly know what they WANT us to know, whether direct from the UKGC or from the media.

    It is for what it is worth only my opinion, Maybe I am made of stone at times and this will come across as very harsh to some but I have very little time for these "problem gamblers" when I have been slotting online since 2003, gambling in general since 1990 and managed to know where to draw the line all this time. Especially for those who won't help themselves, maybe this is the case in this particular instance, maybe not?
     
    theapple likes this.
  20. Jun 20, 2018
  21. colinsunderland

    colinsunderland Experienced Member MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    affiliate
    Location:
    uk
    Surely the fact 32Red admitted it is a clear indication they were wrong? Mark can easily come on and refute the UKGC claims if its not true.

    As far as the customer is partly to blame, well yes, in a perfect world, but the rules are there to protect problem gamblers, people who have problems controlling their gambling. If I nip to the shop and leave my window unlocked, come back and find I've been burgled, that isn't my fault. There are laws there to protect householders, if someone breaks them, they get punished, it isn't the householders fault, just as in this case, the rules are there to protect gamblers, if the casino breaks them, they get punished.

    There are obviously cases where a gambler is trying it on, trying to get deposits back when circumventing policies to stop them playing somewhere, but in this particular case, there seems to have been clear indications that something wasn't right. Even forgetting the average salary was massively lower than the (presumably fake) payslips showed, he was depositing £30k a month more than the affordability checks showed.
     
    Mouche12, dkh09 and SpinUk like this.
  22. Jun 20, 2018
  23. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    The UK is a nanny state that encourages people to blame others for their own problems. Like Max mentioned - the UKGC has an axe to grind and this is a clear example of this. This is the UKGC's version - protecting players from themselves. I just wish they would spend more time and efforts on tracking down operators who are taking UK bets without a UK license. It doesn't take a super sleuth to figure out who these rogues are; 15-20 minutes of Google searches will pretty much lay these out bare. That is where the real dodginess lies - not with the likes of 32Red and Kindred.
     
  24. Jun 20, 2018
  25. BrianGhattas

    BrianGhattas Where's My Handpay?!?

    Occupation:
    Freelancer
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    I find it pretty sad that casinos would rather be fined for allowing “self-excluded” gamblers to continue playing on their sites than be fined for a lesser thing such as allowing Canadians to play slots they shouldn’t. Just shows you how ridiculous it all is.
     
    Mouche12 and deepsky2 like this.
  26. Jun 20, 2018
  27. colinsunderland

    colinsunderland Experienced Member MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    affiliate
    Location:
    uk
    Not saying there aren't failings elsewhere, but are you saying there shouldn't be protection for problem gamblers?
     
  28. Jun 20, 2018
  29. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Of course that's not what he's saying. You should -- and I'm sure you do -- know better than to suggest such a thing.

    Look at this case in relation to all the other BS that is going on out there. 32Red is and always has been fully legit, legal, above board and straight-forward in their dealings. Like most people I'm not in love with some of their policies but BFD, overall they are a good and trustworthy shop.

    They are also very much a sitting duck for the UKGC because the UKGC knows damn well that the books are open and that 32Red will be fully cooperative with anything the UKGC wants of them. So who better to nail than a casino you know won't fight you and will comply with whatever you say?

    If I had the time I'd love to go over this case with a fine toothed comb because I'll bet you a dollar to a pocketful of bent nickles that the UKGC has presented this case in a manner that shows themselves in the best possible light: proactive, fighting to protect the little guy, safeguarding vulnerable citizens, etc etc.

    Yeah, sure, maybe that's the small print but the large print is that they benefit greatly by spinning a case this for all it is worth, perhaps making 32Red look like a predator caught in the hen-house when the reality is that there are MANY casinos who have done much worse to UK citizens, repeatedly, and are not being pilloried because the UKGC can't or won't lay hands on them.

    And dare I mention a certain political motivation the UKGC obviously has to make themselves, and their political masters, look good. Like it or not we live in a highly volatile political situation here in the UK and the UKGC serves an administration that needs all the good press it can get. The bold actions we've seen from them in recent months are very much NOT a coincidence. Again, who better to take a well-publicized kidney punch than someone like 32Red who is guaranteed not to fight back.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  30. Jun 20, 2018
  31. brianmon

    brianmon Meister Member webby mm4

    Location:
    uk
    What could the UKGC do about that?
    I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, just curious.
     
  32. Jun 20, 2018
  33. colinsunderland

    colinsunderland Experienced Member MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    affiliate
    Location:
    uk
    No I genuinely didn't understand the meaning, if there should be protection then surely any casino flouting the rules are being dodgy, so surely to suggest any casino isn't dodgy when they have just been hit with a massive fine is going against that principle. I don't think at all Bryan was suggesting that, but I don't understand the last part of the post.
     
    maxd likes this.
  34. Jun 20, 2018
  35. colinsunderland

    colinsunderland Experienced Member MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    affiliate
    Location:
    uk
    Presumably they could block the domain usinga court order, along the lines of what FACT do for sites like thepiratebay. Not foolproof but would stop most people using them. Obviously easy enough to get round using a VPN etc, but I think most people searching for somewhere to play would be put off easily enough by getting an ISP block page with a warning from the UKGC. I've never understood why they don't do that either.
     
  36. Jun 20, 2018
  37. nutnut

    nutnut 30 day suspension - flaming

    Occupation:
    IP consultant
    Location:
    england
    2 million is a small fine should have hit them hard. Allowing someone to lose over half a million without any sort of checks on how they earn that much or can lose that much? Pathetic.
     
    Mouche12 and PatrickNess like this.
  38. Jun 20, 2018
  39. nutnut

    nutnut 30 day suspension - flaming

    Occupation:
    IP consultant
    Location:
    england
    It costs on average £30,000 per court order to block domains, who is going to pay that as every week you would need to make a new court order to block new ones.
     

Share This Page