WARNING Affiliates Who Target Problem Gamblers

[mack341]

2 September 2019 /igaming

The GB Gambling Commission believes further improvements to the online self-exclusion system GamStop are needed before it becomes mandatory for all licensees to integrate with the solution.
While the majority of UK licensees have partnered the system, the Commission told iGamingBusiness.com that more work must be done for signing up to GamStop to be a key licence condition.
‘’We welcome the establishment of GamStop and the ongoing steps they have been taking to continually develop and improve the scheme,” the Commission said of the solution. “We are pleased to see that a large number of people are already getting protection through signing up and we hear directly from people about the benefits it has provided.
“However, the scheme has not yet reached the point where we are satisfied to trigger the requirement for all operators to become members," it added. "We will continue to support GamStop’s work to ensure the further developments and improvements are made.’’

Is this still the position today, that it isn't a requirement yet?

NB: the front page of gamstop still says "In due course, all online gambling websites will be required to join by the Gambling Commission. "

I thought the non-gamstop casinos we were discussing were based in places like curacao not the uk?

Is this going to complicate matters if the ukgc haven't yet made it mandatory?

 

[ThePOGG]

The rogue operators in question are located in Curacao and not subject to UKGC regulations. The affiliates that have been highlighted are likewise unlikely to be based in the UK and not beholden to UKGC regs.

However, the UK licensed operators who work with these affiliate are subject to UKGC regs and this is where they UKGC should be acting.

These operators have to comply with the LCCP which states:

"Licensees should follow any relevant industry code on advertising, notably the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising."

Reviewing the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising it states:

"8. Although the Industry Code provides a benchmark for the Industry, operators can and often do go beyond its requirements. The gambling industry has a responsibility to ensure that it takes all reasonable steps to minimise the extent of problem gambling and to prevent underage gambling from taking place. Socially responsible advertising is essential if that is to be achieved."

"General Principles

18.Before the Industry Code moves on to address a number of specific issues, the following list contains general principles that gambling operators should take particular care to adhere to when they are developing and placing advertisements:

- care must be taken not to exploit children and other vulnerable persons in relation to gambling activity; and "

I think it can be reasonably argued that retaining a relationship with an affiliate that has engaged in practices contrary to "minimising the extend of problem gambling" and "exploit[ing]... vulnerable persons in relation to gambling activity" supports these activities and as such is actively contrary to these provisions.

Setting aside the Social Responsibility provisions that are part and parcel of accepting a license one of the UKGC's 'Licensing Objectives' is as follows:

preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder, or being used to support crime

The rogue operators in question are breaking UK law. Money that they make is going directly to support crime. The affiliates promoting these operators are facilitating this criminal activity.

It seems reasonable to conclude that these affiliates could be considered 'accessories' to the crime:

"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a

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

, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime. The distinction between an accessory and a

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

is a question of fact and degree "

-

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

(and this doesn't necessarily account for the fact that the affiliate is acting on their own outside of the operator's criminal activity, directly facilitating it and that they are profiting from the actions. It may be that accomplice would be a more reasonable definition)

So what we have here are UK operators choosing to partner with businesses that could reasonably be viewed as accessories to activities that breach UK law.

In my opinion, allowing licensees to partner with affiliates that are breaching UK law seems fundamentally contrary to "preventing gambling from being a source of crime" and "being used to support crime". But even if we don't want to accept that UK licensees are directly facilitating crime in this sense there is zero reasonable question that their actions do result in gambling "being associated with crime". These affiliates are facilitating actions that breach UK law and UK operators are clearly 'associated' with them.

It seems to me that if the regulator wants to take action to prevent this activity, there are sound grounds for them to do so.

TP

 

[Team.Videoslots]

Hello @colinsunderland

Thanks for the heads up, we have passed this on to our Affiliate Team and they are taking further action.

Br,
Team Videoslots.

 

[Nicola]

Had a quick look through Twitch this evening, Christ there are so many casino streamers promoting dodgy casinos nowadays.

Even @Chipmonkz has resorted to promoting the crappier Aspire and Netkan brands in the past few days!

 

[CleanMyShoes]

I'm sorry for the likes of Dazza who made occasional videos and they were entertaining ie his bonanza vids esp

But I wont be sorry to see most of the others go. Chip has said above is now resorting to promoting rubbish casinos, he's a smaller streamer who still afford to lose 2k a month?. I wont even bother ranting about Roshtein because its just not worth the hassle. A lot of these streamers need a kick up the backside, and having to go out and find actual work might be a massive shock to them.

 

[EkJR]

2 September 2019 /igaming

The GB Gambling Commission believes further improvements to the online self-exclusion system GamStop are needed before it becomes mandatory for all licensees to integrate with the solution.
While the majority of UK licensees have partnered the system, the Commission told iGamingBusiness.com that more work must be done for signing up to GamStop to be a key licence condition.
‘’We welcome the establishment of GamStop and the ongoing steps they have been taking to continually develop and improve the scheme,” the Commission said of the solution. “We are pleased to see that a large number of people are already getting protection through signing up and we hear directly from people about the benefits it has provided.
“However, the scheme has not yet reached the point where we are satisfied to trigger the requirement for all operators to become members," it added. "We will continue to support GamStop’s work to ensure the further developments and improvements are made.’’

Is this still the position today, that it isn't a requirement yet?

NB: the front page of gamstop still says "In due course, all online gambling websites will be required to join by the Gambling Commission. "

I thought the non-gamstop casinos we were discussing were based in places like curacao not the uk?

Is this going to complicate matters if the ukgc haven't yet made it mandatory?

They wont make it mandatory until it is fool proof. It is still very easy to get round at this stage as has been proven numerous times over. I haven't spoken to the UKGC for a couple of months now, but I understand the date where is going to be mandatory could be the end of next year as Gamstop are still developing improvements and having a robust system in place for checking(there have been anomalies).

The point is it's very obvious what Gamstop is and who it is intended for. For affiliates to deliberately setup to advertise Curacao bullshit to problem gamblers is absolutely unacceptable and as @ThePOGG says, criminal.

 

[dunover]

Had a quick look through Twitch this evening, Christ there are so many casino streamers promoting dodgy casinos nowadays.

Even @Chipmonkz has resorted to promoting the crappier Aspire and Netkan brands in the past few days!

But not bCasino, no?

 

[mack341]

They wont make it mandatory until it is fool proof. It is still very easy to get round at this stage as has been proven numerous times over. I haven't spoken to the UKGC for a couple of months now, but I understand the date where is going to be mandatory could be the end of next year as Gamstop are still developing improvements and having a robust system in place for checking(there have been anomalies).

The point is it's very obvious what Gamstop is and who it is intended for. For affiliates to deliberately setup to advertise Curacao bullshit to problem gamblers is absolutely unacceptable and as @ThePOGG says, criminal.

No I've got the gist of it now after reading the Pogg's reply, I wasn't trying to deter the issue from being addressed, I just wondered if some uk casinos were not on gamstop whether this would complicate things, but if they do exist they are obviously not going out of their way to advertise and promote that fact [that they are not signed up to the gamstop system] unlike these rogue ones.

 

[Nicola]

But not bCasino, no?

Can't say I saw any to be fair.

 

[pinnit2014]

Whooshhh.....head.....over......

 

[colinsunderland]

Can't say I saw any to be fair.

you promoted them, long after they were rogue on here.

 

[Nicola]

you promoted them, long after they were rogue on here.

Oh that. I was a partner in that business (50/50 share) and it wasn't my personal choice to add them back at a later date.

As there was no concrete link between claims here, it was added back.

The business has been sold on, but I can say that bCasino was well liked, no complaints and affiliate payments were always paid by the third working day of the month - just behind Trada.

 

[colinsunderland]

nope, none at all

 

[dunover]

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

Nope, none at all...

Pause video at 1:33 (seems pretty 'concrete' to me!)

Plus the research done at the time via their bogus UK address and Companies House names, Google them as we did back then when they appeared.

Hope you felt it was all worth it.

FTR this was why the member in question had her website link privileges removed from her posts.

Whether the UK arm of this 1668/JAZ fraud was 'liked by players' or not, the evidence it was funded by money sourced from ripped-off players, unlicensed deposits etc. was pretty irrefutable and always was. The bitter irony is that she was spot-on in the first place, originally posting the image Oceanbets incriminating image above in Colin's post and later removing it. This was what led people to uncover the rest of the negative information in the first place.

Sadly, ultimately I guess money spoke louder than ethics and this great spot in that image was moot.

 

[colinsunderland]

Just had a look at casinomir, and I can see every UKGC licensed casino have now been removed, so well done to those who were listed for taking action. Well apart from (surprise surprise) the MTST/GIG casino, Cashmio @GiG_Alex @Cashmio Affiliate who are still listed and still have a full page review.

https:// casinomir . com/gambling-sites/cashmio-casino/

The affiliate link is working fine, so that says it all.

 

[Nicola]

Hope you felt it was all worth it.

Very much so

 

[colinsunderland]

Very much so

Well, as this thread shows, promote scum and you make plenty of money.
If 'your' site was sold, why does it still show the same ltd company as the owner on there and that company still have the same single director it did when you co owned it? Some sort of tax fraud going on or something?
Tom Defty is the only shareholder listed too, and has been since the company was started. The company only issued one share, and it belongs to him.

Plus you keep mentioning you aren't in the business any more, yet are still getting commissions, as recently as this month.

Anyone might think someone was attempting to distance themselves from something.

 

[EkJR]

 

[Nicola]

Plus you keep mentioning you aren't in the business any more, yet are still getting commissions, as recently as this month.

Anyone might think someone was attempting to distance themselves from something.

Whilst I can't speak for other people you have named, I would like to know more on the commission I earn't last month. Evidence please sir

Thanks to NetEnt, I have 112,983 reasons not to be bothered continuing this conversation this evening.

 

[Supababe]

Whilst I can't speak for other people you have named, I would like to know more on the commission I earn't last month. Evidence please sir

Thanks to NetEnt, I have 112,983 reasons not to be bothered continuing this conversation this evening.

Trying to guess from your posts today....
Is it a divine reason? Or a more modern twist on divine perhaps?

 

[colinsunderland]

Whilst I can't speak for other people you have named, I would like to know more on the commission I earn't last month. Evidence please sir

Thanks to NetEnt, I have 112,983 reasons not to be bothered continuing this conversation this evening.

And I'm sure companies house would like to know that Tom Defty had a partner who owned 50% of the shares, contrary to his filings at companies house.

You are either Tom, or you have breached the companies act, or have lied about owning 50% of the company.

Before I give you the evidence you ask for (which I'm sure you know I can do or I wouldn't have stated what I did), does Tom take part in discussions on here, as I know you stated in the past he didn't? Maybe he could chime in?

Aside from that, congratulations on your win

 

[goatwack]

F***ing hell will people stop winning Jackpots please, it's really triggering

 

[Nicola]

And I'm sure companies house would like to know that Tom Defty had a partner who owned 50% of the shares, contrary to his filings at companies house.

You are either Tom, or you have breached the companies act, or have lied about owning 50% of the company.

Before I give you the evidence you ask for (which I'm sure you know I can do or I wouldn't have stated what I did), does Tom take part in discussions on here, as I know you stated in the past he didn't? Maybe he could chime in?

Aside from that, congratulations on your win

He isn't active on here but on GPWA and AskGamblers AFAIK. My employment/association ended on August 31st 2019. Mishcon de Reya LLP were the company lawyers. It's been covered elsewhere that the brand, affiliate accounts and assets etc were brought for £1.65m by a London-based firm.

As I said a few months back, I'm glad to be out of the affiliate industry. It has turned toxic and is on a downhill slope with constant input from the UKGC.

There are many affiliates who I still know, most successful who are at the Aff conference in Malta as we speak doing business. I have nothing against the good guys, only the scum who prey on problem gamblers.

I think we all want whats best for the player and we need to work together to eradicate these low-life setting up phoney sites with non-licenced casinos.

 

[sufferinsilence]

F***ing hell will people stop winning Jackpots please, it's really triggering

Jackpots are never triggering for me

 

[colinsunderland]

Your employment? But you have stated on here you owned 50% of the company?
You got a link to the coverage about the sale as I can't find it anywhere. Do the london based firm have links to Betfair by any chance?

So is it the new London based firm posting on GPWA as casinodefence now, as that was you wasn't it?

What I don't understand is, if it was sold, why does the website still state its owned by iGaming Analysis Corporation Limited, still has its Marble Arch address. Even the privacy page, taht was updated end of October, states that too. If Tom sold his share then companies house should have updated well before now, so presumably he still owns the single share there, so why would he let his company name be used if he has nothing to do with it.