Entain could lose their license

danofthewibble

Meister Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
All the crowing about the “uk” casinos not doing SOW in the sane way as their offshore equivalents is likely to stop. Because they should have been. And have now had a massive fine, and seemingly a final warning that they have to.

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

slot_zombie

Meister Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Location
UK
All the crowing about the “uk” casinos not doing SOW in the sane way as their offshore equivalents is likely to stop. Because they should have been. And have now had a massive fine, and seemingly a final warning that they have to.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
To be fair, the examples in the article are mostly pretty extreme as per usual - blowing 5 and 6 figure sums over a short period of time, clearly there were some failings there and there should have been some checks for problem gambling and source of the funds.

But it's these minority, crazy "problem" cases that are used as justification to SOW and inconvenience Joe/Jolene Average, low rolling their £70-100 small weekly leisure deposits. Which is equally daft.
 

goatwack

No deal, tramp
CAG
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Location
Londonia
And yet I'd feel more comfortable as a casual player frequenting a UK-based bookie than being interrogated by some far-flung sunsoaked tax haven that's overzealous in their pursuit of attaining a player's highly private financial history for a £60 withdrawal.

It's as though they're purposely railroading players into the worst option of the three, with crypto clipjoints seemingly the way forward. With the UKGC throwing rose petals in the path of players wishing to defect and get away from their ludicrous choking every UK business they can, so good job on that front!

Not that it matters of course, considering the userbase Ladbrokes has on their books, the likelihood that a few will fall foul of gambling safety is considerably higher anyway, nor is it the first time they've been fined. They eat these for breakfast :cool:
 

satchnz

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2021
Location
Essex, UK
To be fair, the examples in the article are mostly pretty extreme as per usual - blowing 5 and 6 figure sums over a short period of time, clearly there were some failings there and there should have been some checks for problem gambling and source of the funds.

But it's these minority, crazy "problem" cases that are used as justification to SOW and inconvenience Joe/Jolene Average, low rolling their £70-100 small weekly leisure deposits. Which is equally daft.
This is the thing. All outlier scenarios for which SOW is meant for. Instead, this may well spook the industry and force SOW on even the lowest rollers amongst us.

I wish that the UKGC would give a clearer framework to casinos regarding SOW. But they won’t, as this would impact their bottom line.
 

Webzcas

Winter is Coming!
Staff member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Location
Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
I certainly would not want to be an operator licensed and operating in the UK market, unless I did a 'Casumo' on every withdrawal actioned and make players jump through pretty much unobtainable SoW hoops.

The regulated UK gaming industry is on its knees I fear. Those of us around back in 2006 when the UIGEA came into force in the US, thought then that no country could get as bad as the States. The UK with the UKGC are currently having their 'Hold my Beer' moment.

Not saying the findings and fines were not deserved or warranted. But the issue is, the UKGC are not providing enough clarity or transparency for operators. Thus scaring away many of the decent independent operators who have subsequently given up voluntarily their UK licenses.

What this then does, is force players to play 'offshore' at unlicensed operations, that offer no protection to UK players.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
WOW, just WOW!:

One online customer who gambled for extended periods overnight was able to deposit more than £230,000 in their account over eighteen months, but was only contacted once in an online chat. :rolleyes:

Another, who was known to live in social housing, was allowed to deposit £186,000 in six months without sufficient checks. :eek::eek:


Some customers could also create accounts with other sites in the company, even if they had racked up debt elsewhere. :axeman2:

One online customer who was blocked from using Coral because they had spent £60,000 in 12 months and failed to provide source of funds was immediately able to open an account with Ladbrokes and deposit £30,000 in a single day. :eek2:
 

Mr_Slot5

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
North West
To be honest, those deposit amounts are exactly the type that should be investigated with a SOW check…6 figures. That’s always been the case. A bit different to the deposit £20 withdraw £100 and get hit with SOW cases we’ve seen on this forum.
 

L&L-Jan

Accredited Casino Representative
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Location
Malta
To be honest, those deposit amounts are exactly the type that should be investigated with a SOW check…6 figures. That’s always been the case. A bit different to the deposit £20 withdraw £100 and get hit with SOW cases we’ve seen on this forum.
in the event an operator would only investigate 6 figures accounts/transactions, they would have not have received their license (or get license suspended) as that would be rejected through policy review by regulator.

During assesments with the UKGC customers are being reviewed against the operators set policies, and upon too many descrepancies or wrong doings found, a fine can be issued.

It is a hugo fine though, can't wait for our next assesment :)
 

goatwack

No deal, tramp
CAG
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Location
Londonia
in the event an operator would only investigate 6 figures accounts/transactions, they would have not have received their license (or get license suspended) as that would be rejected through policy review by regulator.

During assesments with the UKGC customers are being reviewed against the operators set policies, and upon too many descrepancies or wrong doings found, a fine can be issued.

It is a hugo fine though, can't wait for our next assesment :)
Ain't nothing as damning as being hit with a Hugo fine. The poor bastards
 

perunamies

Sad Little Troll
Joined
Jun 1, 2022
Location
At home
Ain't nothing as damning as being hit with a Hugo fine. The poor bastards
I'd be scared if this guy came after me.

taleofkyubiko_webclip_circle_300.png
 

L&L-Jan

Accredited Casino Representative
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Location
Malta
Ain't nothing as damning as being hit with a Hugo fine. The poor bastards
always epic mate, you are always epic!!!! hahahhha thanks for the laugh!
A colleague called Hugo made me aware!
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
in the event an operator would only investigate 6 figures accounts/transactions, they would have not have received their license (or get license suspended) as that would be rejected through policy review by regulator.

During assesments with the UKGC customers are being reviewed against the operators set policies, and upon too many descrepancies or wrong doings found, a fine can be issued.

It is a hugo fine though, can't wait for our next assesment :)
LOL...Play'n Go will be able to raise their RTP's with that cash in the bank....
 

Jeroensgambling

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2021
It just suprises me how much of profit these casino's can hoard in at the expense of players. If the games where'nt so gimped or cut back in terms of volatility / bonus triggers and what more it would actually be fun again.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top