Your Input Please Betat warned by UKGC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,

Sorry i couldn't reply right away, it was a hectic day. part of UKGC condition is to have separate PML (personal Management Licence) holders fulfilling relevant roles. For example, mine is overall strategy. A dedicated person is supposed to hold a Compliance role.

Their job was to submit quarterly returns and audit forms within 21 days of them falling due. This was not done by them and UKGC contacted me to rectify the situation. I have rectified it by letting go of the person and taking on interim responsibility to ensure all paperwork is filed. This was done within 30 days stipulated and hence we didn't have any imposition on the licence, baring the fact that for 12 months we will have a warning listed on our UKGC page for breaching the timeline stipulated.

Personally, i think it's amazing that a regulator took such diligent stance and it made us ensure all bureaucratic and administrative process was dully followed. Thank you to all players who kept their cool head with this and have not fallen into a temptation into making mountains out of molehills.

Fun4all, you stated that reading the warning is "funny". This last "inside information" post is just so far off the button, its not worth debating. I frankly would not consider potential breach of regulation funny in any respect, for any brand as in the end - its there to protect you players. I'm not sure what vested interest you have to belittle the brand but even if you do so, try do it with respect and tact other players of this industry deserve.

UKGC demands their paperwork is filed in a timely manner without fail, and in order to achieve this, they created an amazing online system to do so and digitalised the whole process and i, for one, take my hat off to them.

As for our relationship with the regulators, both Max and Bryan can attest from fist hand experience just how close and proactive such relationship is.

If this causes some players to not play with my brands, it's the repercussion we must accept.

That's all i have to say on this topic.

Thank you

Igor
 
That is hugely significant. That means they did not have their security (around your KYC documents, passport, and payment details as well as your password) approved. I do not trust them with any of this stuff.

This is completely inaccurate. Security audit is performed to ensure that all policies and procedures are in place, ensure staff signed the correct "clean desk and mobile use" policy and a billion things you need to ensure are covered from an administrative perspective. IT has sweet nothing (or lets say very very little) to do with KYC documention, passwords, etc. What yo uare referring to is a Compliance audit and is done less frequently and is far more intrusive.

Your person "in the know" sounds very much a mediocre guesswork on your part i'm sorry to say.


If the casino is open and running then someone who holds a licence should be there, the same as a place serving alcohol etc. You do not let an unlicenced person run a casino where significant funds change hands and extremely sensitive data is held, that is what BET AT were doing from what this says.

Actually, it does not. We are licenced. Our licence stands. Commission felt we should be warned to submit the documentation in time. Throughout the thread your posts seem strangely... purposeful? I dont mind purposeful and factual, that breeds a healthy debate and is educational. What you are doing is twisting information, on the basis of guesswork at best and i'm left wondering...

Did we not give you freespins at some point?


And that is just insane. They clearly made the commission angry by failing to address any concerns with them when they were prompted to in private. Dumb and how cowboys operate in my opinion.

?? what? We breached a condition, we failed to state it. We had to correct it within stipulated time. Had we not done so, licence would be in breach and suspended/revoked. We have done so and got a warning. Again... you are running on pure fabrication here. Why?

There are plenty of casinos who DO take compliance and regulations seriously. 32Red for example. I trust them completely, why would you give your money to someone who does not take their responsibilities seriously?

Considering i have idolized 32 red for decades, i cant disagree.

Have a nice day sir, i will not be entertaining fabricated information further.

Thank you

Igor
 
Oh P.S

Would have loved to blame DDoS and cry wolf but it really wasn't. Bad employment of a key person which was corrected, but truly had nothing to do with the mess at the time, baring the fact i was.... distracted, to put it mildly :)
 
Fun4all, you stated that reading the warning is "funny".

It is funny because finally the UKGC is standing up to operators who do not take their responsibilities seriously. This is something we have not seen in the online industry for a long time. For too long operators have hid behind sham jurisdictions who side with them no matter what.

This last "inside information" post is just so far off the button, its not worth debating.

I did not ever use the phrase inside information so your quote marks are putting words in my mouth I did not use. What I said was I got somebody to translate it for me who has experience and that is true. Nobody has any extra information except what we get from the official UKGC warning.

I frankly would not consider potential breach of regulation funny in any respect, for any brand as in the end - its there to protect you players.

If you take security seriously and protect players then that's great, the warning states you were doing the opposite.

Have a nice day sir, i will not be entertaining fabricated information further.

The text from the UKGC is clear and published for all to read. I suggest you take regulations a bit more seriously in future. Laters
 
"If the casino is open and running then someone who holds a licence should be there, the same as a place serving alcohol etc. You do not let an unlicenced person run a casino where significant funds change hands and extremely sensitive data is held, that is what BET AT were doing from what this says".


"Actually, it does not. We are licenced. Our licence stands. Commission felt we should be warned to submit the documentation in time. Throughout the thread your posts seem strangely... purposeful? I dont mind purposeful and factual, that breeds a healthy debate and is educational. What you are doing is twisting information, on the basis of guesswork at best and i'm left wondering..."

To be honest I'm prefty neutral on the whole thing, and certainly never been concerned about this Casino's general honesty/integrity.

But im confused with this section, if it doesnt mean the licencee needs to be physically present where the casino is run what does it mean exactly?
 
To be honest I'm prefty neutral on the whole thing, and certainly never been concerned about this Casino's general honesty/integrity.

But im confused with this section, if it doesn't mean the licencee needs to be physically present where the casino is run what does it mean exactly?

I'm sorry, I don't think i understand the question? RE-location issue brought up was in relevance to BET10 (not us).. and whereas the servers do not need to be physically present on the ground of the licence (UK) any change no matter how big or small needs to be notified to UKGC.

That however, is not the topic of our warning. We have ours as in September we were late to submit the quarterly documents within 21 days from when they fell due.
 
I'm sorry, I don't think i understand the question? RE-location issue brought up was in relevance to BET10 (not us).. and whereas the servers do not need to be physically present on the ground of the licence (UK) any change no matter how big or small needs to be notified to UKGC.

That however, is not the topic of our warning. We have ours as in September we were late to submit the quarterly documents within 21 days from when they fell due.

Yes, that was the 10bet issue, as well as their failure to have lawful delays before raising deposit limits. Nothing to do with Bet-at. Yours was for tardiness in regard to security submissions, a separate warning. Sorry if some posters are confusing the two. I simply posted the 10bet warning as I thought it would demonstrate there is more than 1 casino affected in the accredited section.:thumbsup:
 
I'm sorry, I don't think i understand the question? RE-location issue brought up was in relevance to BET10 (not us).. and whereas the servers do not need to be physically present on the ground of the licence (UK) any change no matter how big or small needs to be notified to UKGC.

That however, is not the topic of our warning. We have ours as in September we were late to submit the quarterly documents within 21 days from when they fell due.

Hi - I was talking about the second point on your warning from the UKGC website:

The reason for this decision was because the Licensee had breached conditions of its licence by failing to submit a security audit and regulatory returns when required, and also by failing to comply with a condition of its licence relating to specified management offices as it had failed to ensure that holders of personal management licenses (PMLs) occupied the specified management offices.

So -
1. Late submission of docs.
2. The location of specified managment licencses needs to be present on the premises. I just wondered what that meant in the real world and why the UKGC would be concerned about it.
 
Hi - I was talking about the second point on your warning from the UKGC website:

The reason for this decision was because the Licensee had breached conditions of its licence by failing to submit a security audit and regulatory returns when required, and also by failing to comply with a condition of its licence relating to specified management offices as it had failed to ensure that holders of personal management licenses (PMLs) occupied the specified management offices.

So -
1. Late submission of docs.
2. The location of specified managment licencses needs to be present on the premises. I just wondered what that meant in the real world and why the UKGC would be concerned about it.

Ah, no - that part related to the first sentence of my initial reply. I had adopted both strategic and compliance PML position to remedy the breach. While we corrected the breach, a single person cannot occupy two PML positions (specified management office is related to a personal management licence). Part of our condition was for myself to find a suitable Compliance replacement. This has of course been dealt with since (within 30 days),

the highlighted part relates to the occupation of a specific responsibility. i hope that clarifies it
 
Ah, no - that part related to the first sentence of my initial reply. I had adopted both strategic and compliance PML position to remedy the breach. While we corrected the breach, a single person cannot occupy two PML positions (specified management office is related to a personal management licence). Part of our condition was for myself to find a suitable Compliance replacement. This has of course been dealt with since (within 30 days),

the highlighted part relates to the occupation of a specific responsibility. i hope that clarifies it

Thanks Igor for explaining in detail about the whole situation

Just for clarity I did not start this thread to malign/badname Betat/slotty as i stated before I trust your brand completely and this was more of a shock at no one picking up on this here as CM members are normally very quick with picking up on things like this

But personally, I'm grateful that you took time out to explain it in great detail and I don't think there's anything left unsaid

And also applaud your honesty for not blaming this on ddos attacks that you suffered as that was my first thought, many a casino could/would have used that as an excuse
 
Thanks Igor for explaining in detail about the whole situation

Just for clarity I did not start this thread to malign/badname Betat/slotty as i stated before I trust your brand completely and this was more of a shock at no one picking up on this here as CM members are normally very quick with picking up on things like this

But personally, I'm grateful that you took time out to explain it in great detail and I don't think there's anything left unsaid

And also applaud your honesty for not blaming this on ddos attacks that you suffered as that was my first thought, many a casino could/would have used that as an excuse

The thread was not malicious at any point. At least i have never seen it that way for the most part. These are all valid concerns and it is our responsibility to stand by our success and failure alike. :)

Happy to have helped clear things up.

igor
 
As I see the scenario, I find no fault on the part of Betat. I have been transacting with Betat in the past I did not encountered any problem with them. I just wish their name can be cleared again because many online casino patrons really had a good impression with Betat. I believe this is just a simple technicality out of the strictness on the government policies.
 
Ah, no - that part related to the first sentence of my initial reply. I had adopted both strategic and compliance PML position to remedy the breach. While we corrected the breach, a single person cannot occupy two PML positions (specified management office is related to a personal management licence). Part of our condition was for myself to find a suitable Compliance replacement. This has of course been dealt with since (within 30 days),

It appears not? BETAT have been warned again by the UKGC on 25th April 2016 - UKGC text
"The reason for this decision was because the Licensee had breached conditions of its licence by failing to ensure, by 30 November 2015, that the specified management office for Gambling Regulatory Compliance was occupied by the holder of a Personal Management Licence (PML) and by failing to ensure that each individual who occupied a specified management office held a PML"

New public warning against NRR Entertainment 25th April 2016
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Also the UKGC say, explicitly this time,
The Licensee also failed to comply with an ordinary code of practice as it did not, on several occasions, work with the Commission in an open and cooperative way
.
I do not trust any casino with so many warnings from the UKGC. Or one that tells us something was dealt with within 30 days when it was not.

UKGC links don't work well, go to
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
then click "Find Licencees" top right and user operator search to see NRR Entertainment
 
Last edited:
Questions about Betat

Hello.

Im a bit new in this online casino world, but been playing in few places recently and bumped into betatcasino when my friend recommended it.

Found some threads here from casinomeister and seems that players like it, but didnt find any recent comments. Then i found this:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Seems that they got 2 warnings from UK gambling commissioner within very short period of time.
And on their page there is also this:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
apparently they are the only ones who has been warned twice?

Is this still safe place to play?

Cheers for the answers and sorry if this is posted to some wrong thread.

-Brad-
 
Hello.

Im a bit new in this online casino world, but been playing in few places recently and bumped into betatcasino when my friend recommended it.

Found some threads here from casinomeister and seems that players like it, but didnt find any recent comments. Then i found this:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Seems that they got 2 warnings from UK gambling commissioner within very short period of time.
And on their page there is also this:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
apparently they are the only ones who has been warned twice?

Is this still safe place to play?

Cheers for the answers and sorry if this is posted to some wrong thread.

-Brad-

Hi Brad, next time just start a new thread rather than posting in an old thread:) Bet at is a very good place to play in my opinion as long as you play by the T&C's. I also suggest that you get your account verified before you play there or anywhere else for that matter. It makes getting paid faster and easier.

Have fun and enjoy playing there.:)
 
Hi Brad, next time just start a new thread rather than posting in an old thread:) Bet at is a very good place to play in my opinion as long as you play by the T&C's. I also suggest that you get your account verified before you play there or anywhere else for that matter. It makes getting paid faster and easier.

Have fun and enjoy playing there.:)

THANKS Osulle!
Oh so thats how this works, ok next time ill start a new one :cool:
Is the betat.co.uk different from the .com ? Im living 50/50 in Netherlands and in UK. So could it be that .com is safe and .co.uk has problems due to the warnings. Never head of the other places on the list so guess those are a quite small and betat is the only one with 2 warnings..



-Brad-
 
It appears not? BETAT have been warned again by the UKGC on 25th April 2016 - UKGC text

New public warning against NRR Entertainment 25th April 2016
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Also the UKGC say, explicitly this time, .
I do not trust any casino with so many warnings from the UKGC. Or one that tells us something was dealt with within 30 days when it was not.

UKGC links don't work well, go to
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
then click "Find Licencees" top right and user operator search to see NRR Entertainment

Was posting about this to some old thread.. Will be interesting to see what are the stories this time... And will the people still believe those.
Having 2 DDOS attacks in short period of time, means that nothing was learned from the first one and the IT department is clearly not on top of their tasks. Which makes this casino even more suspicious.

"I can't understand why anyone would get upset by a warning.
It simply mean that ukgc are doing their job checking the casinos, and it keep them on their toes.

I will react when a license is removed."

Tirilej... It might be a bit too late at that point if you have money in :) Also if you check that list of the operators and operators who got the warnings, you cannot find any descent casino from that list with warning. Im sure the commission doesn't give these out without serious concerns, nor discussing with the operator first and trying to solve the problems.

-Brad-
 
Was posting about this to some old thread.. Will be interesting to see what are the stories this time... And will the people still believe those.
Having 2 DDOS attacks in short period of time, means that nothing was learned from the first one and the IT department is clearly not on top of their tasks. Which makes this casino even more suspicious.

"I can't understand why anyone would get upset by a warning.
It simply mean that ukgc are doing their job checking the casinos, and it keep them on their toes.

I will react when a license is removed."

Tirilej... It might be a bit too late at that point if you have money in :) Also if you check that list of the operators and operators who got the warnings, you cannot find any descent casino from that list with warning. Im sure the commission doesn't give these out without serious concerns, nor discussing with the operator first and trying to solve the problems.

-Brad-

Absolute rubbish comment there mate. You can do NOTHING against DDOS attack if they decide they want to take you down no matter what. Yes you can put up heavy security measures but the more also means a lot more costs and that is or can get very expensive. Bit like when you pay for a travel insurance. Are you going to go for full cover and pay for all the extra. 1 trip can easily cost several £100's or €100's. But after your holiday it could look like a waste. Bit the same setting up heavy defence against DDOS.

But for you to state they did not learn from the 1st DDOS attack is a absolute rubbish comment and silly way to behave as a new member here.

Sorry to say so, I am normally a nice person, but not when i see a comment like that! :rolleyes:

To add as well it was already commented on by BetAT that the 2nd attack was much much worse and heavy.
 
It appears not? BETAT have been warned again by the UKGC on 25th April 2016 - UKGC text

New public warning against NRR Entertainment 25th April 2016
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Also the UKGC say, explicitly this time, .
I do not trust any casino with so many warnings from the UKGC. Or one that tells us something was dealt with within 30 days when it was not.

UKGC links don't work well, go to
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
then click "Find Licencees" top right and user operator search to see NRR Entertainment

It doesn't look good. One warning, yes an error or a one-off minor transgression. But 2?? I can see them dumping their UK License TBH. It's obvious they are having difficulty for some reason in fulfilling the conditions. Hopefully this won't have any effects that filter through eventually to affect players negatively.
 
Yeah cheers. What I find ridiculous is that Igor explicitly stated in this thread he had personally dealt with it within 30 days, yet the UKGC new warning quite clearly shows otherwise.

Also note the UKGC getting more explicit about what they hinted at in the first warning.

September 2015 warning UKGC says (their text from the commission website)
In reaching its view, the Commission took account of the action the Licensee had taken to address the Commission’s concerns throughout the review.

Clearly they had some sort of problem with the way BETAT actually addressed this issue with them but did not outright say as much.

This time however they made it clearer and did spell it out (Text from new UKGC warning issued 25th April 2016)

The Licensee also failed to comply with an ordinary code of practice as it did not, on several occasions, work with the Commission in an open and cooperative way. In reaching its view, the Commission took account of the actions the Licensee had taken to address the Commission's concerns during the review.

This time quite clearly stating BETAT in reality did not give a toss, despite what they claimed on here.
 
The warning is about having a PML holder in each company office that is dealing with regulatory stuff. Nothing to do with the casino operations!!!!

Nothing to show that they are not trustworthy, have not paid players, didn't handle RG correctly or the likes, which would be indeed worrying if that would be the issues.

So please, no elephant out of a mole!!! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Was posting about this to some old thread.. Will be interesting to see what are the stories this time... And will the people still believe those.
Having 2 DDOS attacks in short period of time, means that nothing was learned from the first one and the IT department is clearly not on top of their tasks. Which makes this casino even more suspicious.

"I can't understand why anyone would get upset by a warning.
It simply mean that ukgc are doing their job checking the casinos, and it keep them on their toes.

I will react when a license is removed."

Tirilej... It might be a bit too late at that point if you have money in :) Also if you check that list of the operators and operators who got the warnings, you cannot find any descent casino from that list with warning. Im sure the commission doesn't give these out without serious concerns, nor discussing with the operator first and trying to solve the problems.

-Brad-

I saw your posts yesterday and I can clearly see that you signed up to this forum just to talk about Betat and their warnings, even though you claim to be ''new'' to the casino world:rolleyes:

I have no idea what they have done to you but I have never played there and are no fan of them. I'll still stick to my former opinion that a warning is just a warning. I'm no fan of the ukgc either. They have created a lot of mess in this industry and seems to have created a lot of rules just to have...a lot of rules.
I wouldn't be upset as a player but that's me and I'm sure others who love a scandal will see it different.
 
I saw your posts yesterday and I can clearly see that you signed up to this forum just to talk about Betat and their warnings, even though you claim to be ''new'' to the casino world:rolleyes:

I have no idea what they have done to you but I have never played there and are no fan of them. I'll still stick to my former opinion that a warning is just a warning. I'm no fan of the ukgc either. They have created a lot of mess in this industry and seems to have created a lot of rules just to have...a lot of rules.
I wouldn't be upset as a player but that's me and I'm sure others who love a scandal will see it different.

Im not new to the gambling, I just love horse and greyhound racing :D sometimes maybe a bit too much. Hopefully I wont start loving casinos as well LOL. I signed up here since it looks really interesting and active forum.

But yeah you might be right, maybe its just some delays in the commissioners side. Would not be the first time when theres delays in some government office :)


Peace

-Brad-
 
Im not new to the gambling, I just love horse and greyhound racing :D sometimes maybe a bit too much. Hopefully I wont start loving casinos as well LOL. I signed up here since it looks really interesting and active forum.

But yeah you might be right, maybe its just some delays in the commissioners side. Would not be the first time when theres delays in some government office :)


Peace

-Brad-

Hi Brad. Sorry I was very harsh in my post earlier wish you a great weekend and no matter what welcome here at casinomeister :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top