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

[jasonuk]

UKGC Link:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Online gambling business 32Red has been penalised for not protecting a consumer from gambling-related harm and money laundering failures.

The Gambling Commission investigation focused on 32Red’s dealings with a customer who, between November 2014 and April 2017, they allowed to deposit £758,000 without carrying out social responsibility or money laundering checks.

It was revealed that during that time there were at least 22 incidents which indicated the customer was a problem gambler - but instead of checking if they needed help, 32Red gave them free bonuses.

The following quote is taken from the findings section (emphasis mine):

A review of the account was only performed in January 2017, as a result of unusual play suggestive of possible problem gambling (a seven-figure win, instantly replayed). The life time deposits (from November 2014) were now nearly £500,000. Following the review, a disclosure was made to the nominated officer and source of wealth requests were made of Customer A, but information was not received for a further 5 weeks despite continued play. The documentation supplied did not support the level of deposits but 32Red took no further action until the account was suspended in April 2017, by which life time deposits (from November 2014) were £758,000.

 

[shadow123]

Sounds like they deserved it offering bonuses instead of help

 

[Jono777]

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????

 

[Glassheart]

7 figure win instantly replayed. .Just think of all the hookers that could have been kept in work.

 

[jasonuk]

@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)

32Red established a business relationship with Customer A from September 2011 and they were a top customer, with VIP status from February 2013.

... until the account was suspended in April 2017, by which life time deposits (from November 2014) were £758,000.

 

[slotter999]

@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)

I was going to reply with something similar. There is no sensationalism in this story. To suggest otherwise is daft.

 

[maxd]

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.

 

[theapple]

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????

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

 

[colinsunderland]

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????

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

 

[Jono777]

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?

 

[colinsunderland]

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?

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[BrianGhattas]

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.

 

[colinsunderland]

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.

Not saying there aren't failings elsewhere, but are you saying there shouldn't be protection for problem gamblers?

 

[maxd]

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.

 

[brianmon]

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.

What could the UKGC do about that?
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, just curious.

 

[colinsunderland]

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.

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.

 

[colinsunderland]

What could the UKGC do about that?
I'm not disagreeing with you or anything, just curious.

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.

 

[nutnut]

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.

 

[nutnut]

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.

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.

 

[SpinUk]

I think its quite a big fine tbf, how much do they make net profit (circa £6m in 2016). So 30% of profits -> they will feel the pain on that one.

 

[colinsunderland]

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.

My understanding is that its around half that, and much less to add extra domains at a later point. Presumably they could block a few from the revenue from the 32Red fine!

 

[maxd]

I think it's important to note that they HAVE NOT been fined, they've agreed to pay a "penalty package". It may sound like the same thing but a full-fledged fine kicks off a formal review and compliance verification process that a "penalty" payment does not. In other words a proper fine means the UKGC will be messing with your business for some time to come, not so with the penalty process.

And not to be picky but compared to some of the other UKGC penalty payments recently -- 888 = £7.8M, WillHill = £6.2M -- it's not particularly large.

 

[colinsunderland]

I think it's important to note that they HAVE NOT been fined, they've agreed to pay a "penalty package". It may sound like the same thing but a full-fledged fine kicks of a formal review and compliance verification process that a "penalty" payment does not. In other words a proper fine means the UKGC will be messing with your business for some time to come, not so with the penalty process.

Also, this was before Kindred too them over, so probably shouldn't be taken as a negative against them, the breaches were done by 32Red.

 

[maxd]

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.

Nobody is saying that 32Red was without fault. It's whether their real and actual fault equates meaningfully to what's being publicized that is the question.

And if you imagine that 32Red can say what they like about this then I think you've well misunderstood how this works. The UKGC holds 32Red's fate in their hands, more or less, so how much latitude do you imagine that equates to in terms of criticizing the UKGC's statements or actions? My bet is that 32Red does not find itself in the position to test that to find out.

Allowing someone to lose over half a million without any sort of checks ...

Not at all the case I'm afraid. As I understand it there were checks made throughout the time in question in keeping with standard industry practice at the time. It was not a big fat money hoovering operation the way it's being made to sound. By today's standards maybe 32Red could and perhaps should have been more diligent. Years ago things were very different and it's important to recognize that this case did stretch over a number of years.

Another thing that's important to take into account is that high-roller players often drop that amount in a month -- or less! -- and demand the freedom to do so. The casinos have always had a balancing act to perform with such players and it's only very recently that the UK or anyone else has had anything to say about it (Source Of Income checks and all that). In days gone by it was simply and plainly left to the casinos to manage the situation as they thought best. In my experience 32Red has been much more mindful of their social responsibilities in this regard than many, Many, MANY other casinos.

 

[theapple]

i also like 32red, well mostly because of Mark but to say they are or were without faults is really pushing it.

for years they had that odd system of self exclusion where you had to fill a form and send it to them for them to "approve" your self exclusion, which is as ridiculous as it sounds.

Even now you have to go through 3 or 4 popups just to set up your deposit limits. And thats if you know how to find it

you have to go to your profile, then open banking page -> responsible gaming which in turn leads to another window opening with lots of text and tiny link that says you can set up your deposit limits here, which leads to another popup where you have to login again and only then you are able to change your limits. Its not exactly hidden but to have it set up like that in 2018 is ridiculous really.

of course there will always be people praying on casinos and trying to abuse everything, from bonuses to self exclusions system, but in many ways casinos are just as predatory and were able to do whatever they felt like for way too long so i for one dont mind some regulations to start with.

Not really talking about 32 red here because in that regard they are great, as there are no hidden terms and stuff but there are 100's of casinos with 98 pages of T&C, people getting their money confiscated because of the stupidest of the reasons. Someone made 9000 spins, and one of those was $5,4 spin and max bet is $5 so naturally casinos hands were tied and they had to take players winnings away.

My point being, casinos were so strict and pretty much abused their rules for way too long, no matter how stupid rules were, final word was always "its in our T&C, bye". Now we should feel sorry for them because they cant follow rules someone else came up with? yeah, no

 

[maxd]

Nobody is saying that 32Red was without fault.

... to say they are or were without faults is really pushing it.

 

[theapple]

it wasnt aimed at you or your post

its just feels how general opinion here is that 32red can hardly do anything wrong, but i really think most people are still loyal to them only because of mark It was one of best casinos out there, thats true but in past few years they havent really made any improvements. If anything 5 yrs ago, it was a better place to play because of lack of competition, quick pays and being MG only casino wasnt such a bad thing. Now they take ages to process cashouts, still have only one provider and have no real races/tourneys (100 rebuys tourneys, or wallet races dont really count).

Afterall, its a business and "problem gamblers" is relatively new term so casinos always had profits in mind, and i dont blame them for it at all. Hell i dont even think there were RG tools 5 yrs ago, were there? Well it became popular topic in past few years anyways.

I do feel 32red is being singled out unfairly because im 100% sure there were 1000's of similar, if not worse cases in other casinos but maybe this is just a start and other fines will follow.

I said unfairly in a sense it would be unfair if they were the only one to get this fine, but they were definitely not without faults in this case.

I do have a question for people defending casinos saying stuff like "its players responsibility to use rg tools and keep their gambling in check", or "if i can do it everyone else can". If you know someone is an alcoholic, you would call him to ask if he is ok with being alcoholic and if he says yes, you would be like.... great, have a free bottle of scotch on the house?

 

[Jono777]

I do have a question for people defending casinos saying stuff like "its players responsibility to use rg tools and keep their gambling in check", or "if i can do it everyone else can". If you know someone is an alcoholic, you would call him to ask if he is ok with being alcoholic and if he says yes, you would be like.... great, have a free bottle of scotch on the house?

In a state of confusion here now lol, you're the only one who liked my post, now your calling me out over the point in bold

I've said numerous times its sometimes so, so hard to get a point across in "text talk" on these message boards, In this case I did not mean if I can do it so should everyone else, I meant is If I can do it then I take a much harder stance and little sympathy towards those that can't.

It did not mean that the problem did not exist or the player is at fault, it meant I have little interest or time, which I said earlier also may seem harsh but its just the way I am, Mr Nice Guy only some of the time!

I have read the thread thru again and think (although not directly) some can see my point. I'll take it now that maybe I should have stayed out of the thread having not being armed with the full facts of this matter and will bow out gracefully.

No disrespect or hard feelings towards anyone. If ever I make the Meister Meet, I'm confident I'll get my point(s) across so much better in "real life"

 

[Harry_BKK]

I said this a few times: Caring where the money is coming from is not in the DNA of any casino.

My total deposits between 1999 - 2004 were in the same region and the vast majority at one casino group. Not once was i asked where the money was coming from, how much I made in a month, neither did they ask for KYC, hell, there was not even a RG logo or link on the sites, neither links to Gambleaware or the like. And I am sure, it would still be the same were it not for regulations that came into effect over the years, be it RG or AML related. Plus, I experienced exactly the same, a little moan and groan and "abacadabra" 1 or 2K in bonuses (1x wagering or cash at the time) were in my account.

Worth noting is that with the increased popularity and hence, amount of online casinos, comes also the pressure to retain your existing customers. That is by far the most important issue for a casino. Getting constantly new players is expensive, keeping existing ones is the most profitable.

Now, how long does it take to change the DNA? Certainly not from one day to another, one just has to look how long it took us humans to walk straight. IMO, it will take the years until the generation, who started the early online casino groups, is leaving the business and you have only those left who only know the time of RG and AML regulations.

I don't fault 32RED in such that they accepted the deposits without much asking, after all the player could have been a multi-millionaire. It is their business DNA, get customers in to spend money. Maybe the player indicated in his interactions with 32RED that he can easily afford the amount of gambling. I have been to a quite few player events and you wouldn't believe how most come across that they can afford big losses without as much as blinking with an eye. But when you sit down and talk a little longer and maybe use some "catch22" questions, you find out rather quickly that most of it is just a facade.

However, where I fault 32RED is the lack of action when it became apparent that the player actually had a problem. One would think the last few years of constantly added regulations would have sensitized them as much that after a player throws more than half a mil into the drain and starts strange discussions with support, that they should maybe ask a few questions instead of throwing another bonus into his account.

Casinos operators have to learn that the times of "Wild Wild West" for online casinos is all but over. Some will do it without hick-ups, some will have to learn it the hard(er) way.

 

[theapple]

In a state of confusion here now lol, you're the only one who liked my post, now your calling me out over the point in bold

I've said numerous times its sometimes so, so hard to get a point across in "text talk" on these message boards, In this case I did not mean if I can do it so should everyone else, I meant is If I can do it then I take a much harder stance and little sympathy towards those that can't.

It did not mean that the problem did not exist or the player is at fault, it meant I have little interest or time, which I said earlier also may seem harsh but its just the way I am, Mr Nice Guy only some of the time!

I have read the thread thru again and think (although not directly) some can see my point. I'll take it now that maybe I should have stayed out of the thread having not being armed with the full facts of this matter and will bow out gracefully.

No disrespect or hard feelings towards anyone. If ever I make the Meister Meet, I'm confident I'll get my point(s) across so much better in "real life"

i liked your post because i agree with most of it and because you explained yourself better in that post than you did in your first one

and yeah sometimes its hard to get your points across via text msg, or forum posts, especially if people cant read between the lines and it happens to everyone every now and then

 

[dunover]

"The Gambling Commission said 32Red should have reviewed the customer's accounts in August 2016 but one was only conducted in January 2017, when a win of more than £1m was instantly gambled again."

Did the reverse withdrawal period have anything to do with this fact? I hope not....

 

[dealer wins]

What is a "social responcibility check" ffs. Who comes out wih this BS

 

[nikantw]

Did everybody read this carefully?

They say 22 indications of a problem gambler. I had a feeling it would be cases he asked live chat for a bonus and it was!
"“I have had enough of the site not performing well”, “I’ve deposited quite a sum”, “all I seem to do is deposit”, they were each met with a bonus being applied to the account."
Everybody does that! It doesn't mean we are problem gamblers! It is only 22 times in years of playing?! OMG.

They say total deposits over the years, and they say 45k average deposits per month. What about cashouts? No cashouts in all these years?
They could use "net deposits", but they didn't. So UKGC intentionally mentions only deposits and not "losses" or "net deposits" or withdrawals.

Another thing, they say average deposits. That is not the same as 45k deposited every month. Probably biggest part was deposited right after a big cashout, making the "average deposits" comparison with monthly income completely pointless.

Another small thing about AML. UKGC says "high risk situations, such as VIPs". Do they mean big deposits with low risk play and big cashouts? Or they have no idea what they are talking about?
And they didn't mention any cashouts from this player, what kind of ML was that?

Or should I go to their guidelines "go well beyond any triggers and don't wait for suspicious behavior" meaning for UKGC everybody is considered guilty.


All the above doesn't mean 32red couldn't do better, or that the player doesn't have a problem.
It rather proves what Max and others said. UKGC is more about what makes them look good than what actually protects players.

 

[SpinUk]

"The Gambling Commission said 32Red should have reviewed the customer's accounts in August 2016 but one was only conducted in January 2017, when a win of more than £1m was instantly gambled again."

Did the reverse withdrawal period have anything to do with this fact? I hope not....

I thought that too - if so the regression to non-weekend cashouts seems an expensive mistake...

 

[slotter999]

"The Gambling Commission said 32Red should have reviewed the customer's accounts in August 2016 but one was only conducted in January 2017, when a win of more than £1m was instantly gambled again."

Did the reverse withdrawal period have anything to do with this fact? I hope not....

How do you suppose the person managed to win more than 1 million? Do you think it was a single bet? High rolling on roulette perhaps?

@nikantw I applaud UKGC for their strong action. Hopefully other casinos will take note that exploiting problem gamblers will not be tolerated.

 

[colinsunderland]

Did everybody read this carefully?

They say 22 indications of a problem gambler. I had a feeling it would be cases he asked live chat for a bonus and it was!
"“I have had enough of the site not performing well”, “I’ve deposited quite a sum”, “all I seem to do is deposit”, they were each met with a bonus being applied to the account."
Everybody does that! It doesn't mean we are problem gamblers! It is only 22 times in years of playing?! OMG.

They say total deposits over the years, and they say 45k average deposits per month. What about cashouts? No cashouts in all these years?
They could use "net deposits", but they didn't. So UKGC intentionally mentions only deposits and not "losses" or "net deposits" or withdrawals.

Another thing, they say average deposits. That is not the same as 45k deposited every month. Probably biggest part was deposited right after a big cashout, making the "average deposits" comparison with monthly income completely pointless.

Another small thing about AML. UKGC says "high risk situations, such as VIPs". Do they mean big deposits with low risk play and big cashouts? Or they have no idea what they are talking about?
And they didn't mention any cashouts from this player, what kind of ML was that?

Or should I go to their guidelines "go well beyond any triggers and don't wait for suspicious behavior" meaning for UKGC everybody is considered guilty.


All the above doesn't mean 32red couldn't do better, or that the player doesn't have a problem.
It rather proves what Max and others said. UKGC is more about what makes them look good than what actually protects players.

All your points are valid, except it was more than 22 indications, that was just in the period the UKGC looked at. However, if any of the points you raise hold water, why did 32Red admit it? People can defend them and say it could be this or that, but ultimately, if I owned a casino and was facing a fine/penalty of a third of my annual profit, you can be sure I would fight it if the allegations weren't true.

It would be like a burglar pleading guilty in court then loads of people saying, well it probably wasn't his fault, he might have just found the tv he was seen running away with on his way to a fancy dress party with a bag over his shoulder with SWAG written on it.

 

[danchop]

Maybe he never or very rarely made a withdrawal?
Maybe it was common for him to win big,only to keep going till bust,then ask for a bonus?
Does a high roller depositing those amounts need to ask for bonuses when bust?
We can't see the nitty gritty but a problem gamblers game play isnt hard to read

 

[colinsunderland]

Just to remind people of 32Red's attitude to RG issues around the time this was going on

32RED downgrades TAB/SE

 

[PatrickNess]

2 million is nothing. au contraire this publicity with bring much more than that.
Regulators and Casinos walk hand in hand anyway

 

[dunover]

I'd say the biggest indication of a problem gambler is a large amount of depositing and never withdrawing. This means that the player is in the 'zone' and bestows no value to the money being spent, it is simply a means to keep playing.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I'd say the biggest indication of a problem gambler is a large amount of depositing and never withdrawing. This means that the player is in the 'zone' and bestows no value to the money being spent, it is simply a means to keep playing.

Did everybody read this carefully?

They say 22 indications of a problem gambler. I had a feeling it would be cases he asked live chat for a bonus and it was!
"“I have had enough of the site not performing well”, “I’ve deposited quite a sum”, “all I seem to do is deposit”, they were each met with a bonus being applied to the account."
Everybody does that! It doesn't mean we are problem gamblers! It is only 22 times in years of playing?! OMG.

They say total deposits over the years, and they say 45k average deposits per month. What about cashouts? No cashouts in all these years?
They could use "net deposits", but they didn't. So UKGC intentionally mentions only deposits and not "losses" or "net deposits" or withdrawals.

Another thing, they say average deposits. That is not the same as 45k deposited every month. Probably biggest part was deposited right after a big cashout, making the "average deposits" comparison with monthly income completely pointless.

Another small thing about AML. UKGC says "high risk situations, such as VIPs". Do they mean big deposits with low risk play and big cashouts? Or they have no idea what they are talking about?
And they didn't mention any cashouts from this player, what kind of ML was that?

Or should I go to their guidelines "go well beyond any triggers and don't wait for suspicious behavior" meaning for UKGC everybody is considered guilty.


All the above doesn't mean 32red couldn't do better, or that the player doesn't have a problem.
It rather proves what Max and others said. UKGC is more about what makes them look good than what actually protects players.

I might add to my post that I never made a withdrawal from December 1998 to August 2006, not once!!! Although my deposits reduced significantly after 2004, but overall I would say about EUR1Mil down the LARGE drain without a single withdrawal!

Hence, it could well be this player never attempted a withdrawal or was seriously thinking about it.

Now, losing a win of GBP1Mil, be it pending as withdrawal or not, should have had all bells and whistles going off even in the most untrained support staff. Boggles me though, how you would lose 1Mil in a matter of a day or two. The highest my balance went up, was around 120K betting EUR45 - 125 and it took about 2 weeks to lose it all again.

 

[mack341]

I remember over a year ago making a jokey comment to william hill live chat, when the assistant asked me how I was doing today, I replied that I could do with some luck, the customer assistant didn't say anything to me but when I tried to log in 30 mins later my account was frozen.

I went back onto live chat and they said my account had been frozen because they thought I might be a problem gambler, I informed them that I didn't have a gambling problem and was joking about my luck, and they reopened my account for me, bearing in mind my deposits at will hill had always been under £100 and not that often it shows some customer assistants are more proactive than others. [and will hill have also been fined by ukgc]

 

[mack341]

An idea that keeps reappearing in my head is this: could the UKGC itself create an offshoot organisation/company that solely deals with responsible gambling and money laundering, whereby every customer's account transactions [deposit, withdrawal, playing time etc]are automatically relayed to their system and they then flag up the customers they want to look at further. the casinos could pay UKGC an annual fee based on their size.

 

[Harry_BKK]

An idea that keeps reappearing in my head is this: could the UKGC itself create an offshoot organisation/company that solely deals with responsible gambling and money laundering, whereby every customer's account transactions [deposit, withdrawal, playing time etc]are automatically relayed to their system and they then flag up the customers they want to look at further. the casinos could pay UKGC an annual fee based on their size.

Would you really like it that your government gets that much info on you?

 

[mack341]

Would you really like it that your government gets that much info on you?

In the ideal world no, but I think the company could run as a private entity, I mean if you take lloyds bank the govt still owns a big chunk of that and also a 60% stake of RBS, but they don't pry into everybody's bank accounts [at least I don't think they do ].

The UKGC keeps issuing rules and guidance to the casinos about AML and RG , so I think to myself if its that easy why don't UKGC take it over. They can follow their own guidance to stop all the money laundering taking place and spot the problem gamblers.

Initially the company, which could be kind of like the gambling equivalent of experian or equifax, would just receive the basic information about a customer of the casino e.g. daily deposits, withdrawals and playing time. They would have to use a computer system/program to analyse the data, and then any warning signs that flag up regarding a particular customer could be investigated further in coordination with the casino.

If I have to I would rather send my bank statements and financial information to an arm of ukgc than say to an online bookie [betfair, coral etc..] where I have accounts.

I know this idea will never happen but I think it could work, really all it requires is a daily data transfer from the casinos to the specialist company UKGC have set up and the AML and RG system for the industry could be centralised. If a customer does a SOW check tomorrow for one casino and then deposits more money at another casino the following week, then his income figure the casino worked out for responsible gambling is now of date. Whereas if all the data is centralised in one location, responsible gambling calculations for the customer could be checked more accurately.

Just as I write this I realise It smacks of Big brother and the nanny state, but If you read the UKGC guidance it seems thats where things are heading anyway.

 

[nikantw]

...I never made a withdrawal from December 1998 to August 2006, ...

Wow!!

My bigger point there was that I am confident UKGC would have mentioned it (make a big deal out of it actually) if the player never had a withdrawal all this time.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Wow!!

My bigger point there was that I am confident UKGC would have mentioned it (make a big deal out of it actually) if the player never had a withdrawal all this time.

TBH, the player in this case sounds a lot like me in those years. E.g. maybe he left the balance in his account as I did. Had quite a few times balances of 20, 30K and more, and still wouldn't hit the withdraw button but was thinking I might be on a roll and will try to increase it further the next day. I was adamant that one day I would make it to a massive 500K withdrawal, which of course never happened.

 

[pinnit2014]

The only balance Ive ever seen of 30k plus is the outstanding one on my mortgage

 

[bowki]

I might add to my post that I never made a withdrawal from December 1998 to August 2006, not once!!! Although my deposits reduced significantly after 2004, but overall I would say about EUR1Mil down the LARGE drain without a single withdrawal!

Wow Harry! Have you ever considered writing a book about your life? You have so many exciting stories to tell. And I’m sure we haven’t heard the most exciting ones.