InTouch & GIG fined £2 Million each by UKGC

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
The thing is if UKGC have had to bring in new rules etc... it shows their old guidance/approach was seen by the casinos as full of holes/half hearted. I agree the casinos exploited the situation for their own benefit, letting folk lose thousands in a short space of time with no checking and then stalling withdrawals with selfie requests so that the reverse button gets pressed... but still not sure a 100% big brother approach is warranted, that's if that is what happens..so far I haven't had to re register and verify any of my uk based accounts, which suits me fine
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Rumors are more are in pipeline... Neverending story here, when so many companies do wrong, it feels maybe the teacher is the bad one, in this case UKGC. Clearly their guidelines are not sufficient.

Rubbish, the guidelines are clear, casinos just fail to read and understand them properly. I've pointed out many failings in the past which casinos have said I was wrong about, then fines have been issued. Hire a UK lawyer to deal with UK law then you will be ok.
Use lawyers from outside the UK who don't have experience with UK courts and you are likely to fail.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Rubbish, the guidelines are clear, casinos just fail to read and understand them properly. I've pointed out many failings in the past which casinos have said I was wrong about, then fines have been issued. Hire a UK lawyer to deal with UK law then you will be ok.
Use lawyers from outside the UK who don't have experience with UK courts and you are likely to fail.

The one thing that they were unclear on was how casinos should be verifying players. Or so I thought. As it turns out the should have been checking, as a minimum, Date of Birth, Name and voters role address, as a minimum requirement for it and money laundering. The amount of cases on here where people have been able to walk past casinos with wrong details should be looking up their old case files.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
The one thing that they were unclear on was how casinos should be verifying players. Or so I thought. As it turns out the should have been checking, as a minimum, Date of Birth, Name and voters role address, as a minimum requirement for it and money laundering. The amount of cases on here where people have been able to walk past casinos with wrong details should be looking up their old case files.

It was confirmed in the new Licence Section 17 for the avoidance of doubt as a minimum requirement but casinos had got round it before because "verification" was not defined in the LCCP but that they "trusted operators to operate in the spirit of the terms" before. Clearly not though as they are now defined
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
The one thing that they were unclear on was how casinos should be verifying players. Or so I thought. As it turns out the should have been checking, as a minimum, Date of Birth, Name and voters role address, as a minimum requirement for it and money laundering. The amount of cases on here where people have been able to walk past casinos with wrong details should be looking up their old case files.

exactly, it was clear they needed to do that, but casinos decided not to, then cry when they get caught.
Like AML stuff, it's not new, its been around years, but again, casinos decided they didn't want to do it then cried when they got fined.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
The thing is if UKGC have had to bring in new rules etc... it shows their old guidance/approach was seen by the casinos as full of holes/half hearted. I agree the casinos exploited the situation for their own benefit, letting folk lose thousands in a short space of time with no checking and then stalling withdrawals with selfie requests so that the reverse button gets pressed... but still not sure a 100% big brother approach is warranted, that's if that is what happens..so far I haven't had to re register and verify any of my uk based accounts, which suits me fine

As part of investigations, we were able to open 5 accounts on William Hill in 2 days, 4 on 32red, 3 on Casumo, 2 on Betway and numerous others...completely unchecked only by altering a couple of details and depositing. We also used date of birth as the main change on it as it defined a new account but these were never picked up after 72 hours. The industry was crooked on this front and completely exploited problem gamblers and underagers. Without this move it would have kept going. After Gamstop the volume of complaints to the UKGC has skyrocketed so that's where they knew they had to do something.
 

slotter999

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Location
UK
That's an unusually bizarre conclusion.

If you read the UKGC reports there are plenty of operators who manage to be entirely compliant with the new rules and regulations, or are given 'minor infractions' that result in them being told to improve for next time, with no penalty or fine being levied.

As such, it's clearly possible, on a wide scale, to do all this stuff right and not get into trouble. Blaming the UKGC when they're on the players' side, makes no sense to me at all.

Casinos are being forced, for the first time ever, to up their game and run their businesses responsibly and ethically - if some of them can't manage that, then tough.
You literally took the words out of my mouth. Bizarre indeed.
 

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 22, 2013
Location
Cumbria
Just read this at UKGC press release. Four companies have been fined by UKGC. Two of the belonging to GIG (betit and MT secure).

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


"InTouch Games Limited will pay £2.2m, Betit Operations Limited will pay £1.4m, MT Secure Trade will pay £700,000 and BestBet Limited will pay a total of £230,972."

Rumors are more are in pipeline... Neverending story here, when so many companies do wrong, it feels maybe the teacher is the bad one, in this case UKGC. Clearly their guidelines are not sufficient.

When you look at the examples given in the case of MTST. It's basic commonsense which is needed, not a 'step by step' guide from the UKGC..

For example, Customer A deposited £134,350 over the course of the business relationship with MTST (March 2017 - August 2017) and withdrew £60,683. It was established that despite the fact that MTST’s responsible gambling flags had been triggered i.e. cancelled withdrawals, request to increase daily deposit limit, and deposits made with five different credit cards MTST had failed to identify the customer as high risk and obtain source of funds (SOF). MTST has voluntarily agreed to refund this money back to the individual involved.

Customer B deposited £78,155, during a 10-month period, (September 2015 and June 2016) and withdrew £75,960. Due to the customer not reaching the thresholds in place after migration onto MTST’s platform, the Licensee had not conducted customer due diligence (CDD) and no customer interactions had taken place. MTST acknowledged that, under the current policies and procedures they now have in place, this player would have been identified, flagged and subject to a customer risk assessment.

Customer C deposited £38,000 across four of MTST’s brands. No customer interaction took place and no source of funds or source of wealth was requested. It has been established that this was stolen money and the customer subsequently pleaded guilty to fraud. As part of the Regulatory Settlement, MTST will divest these funds for the benefit of the victims identified whose money was stolen by Customer C and then spent on gambling.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
You literally took the words out of my mouth. Bizarre indeed.

Its not that bizarre, a casino employee bringing attention to others' failings, yet didn't make a thread when his employers were fined for similar matters (a voluntary payment is a fine in another word)
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
As part of investigations, we were able to open 5 accounts on William Hill in 2 days, 4 on 32red, 3 on Casumo, 2 on Betway and numerous others...completely unchecked only by altering a couple of details and depositing. We also used date of birth as the main change on it as it defined a new account but these were never picked up after 72 hours. The industry was crooked on this front and completely exploited problem gamblers and underagers. Without this move it would have kept going. After Gamstop the volume of complaints to the UKGC has skyrocketed so that's where they knew they had to do something.

how do the underage gamblers fund their gambling, should the bank/electronic payment system have some responsibility to block gambling transactions for under 18's?

just read the national lottery age limit is only 16 :rolleyes: [incl scratchcards] shouldn't that be restricted up to 18, where's the consistency from ukgc on this :confused:

I agree re the gamstop/self exclusion flaws and well done for doing that work to expose it, but just thinking more on that, should you have had to do it in the 1st place, why didn't the ukgc get off their collective fat asses and find this out for themselves.

I'm not sure they're quite the experts and capable hands that they make themselves out to be, they say they're fighting to protect the consumer but won't generally touch consumer complaints with a barge pole.... erm :confused: why is that, possibly because the industry they're responsible for regulating, is still generating tons of complaints.

I would rate them above the MGA but that doesn't take much IMO, plenty of room for improvement for the ukgc themselves let alone the casinos.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
As part of investigations, we were able to open 5 accounts on William Hill in 2 days, 4 on 32red, 3 on Casumo, 2 on Betway and numerous others...completely unchecked only by altering a couple of details and depositing. We also used date of birth as the main change on it as it defined a new account but these were never picked up after 72 hours. The industry was crooked on this front and completely exploited problem gamblers and underagers. Without this move it would have kept going. After Gamstop the volume of complaints to the UKGC has skyrocketed so that's where they knew they had to do something.

Are you going to do a thread on this, naming the casinos and what action they and gamstop did? I was actually going to do something similar, SE with gamstop and see which casinos allowed logins and new accounts, I was holding off to see what came of yours :)
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Are you going to do a thread on this, naming the casinos and what action they and gamstop did? I was actually going to do something similar, SE with gamstop and see which casinos allowed logins and new accounts, I was holding off to see what came of yours :)

Yes definitely, just awaiting the all clear on a couple of things. Also do one on the new rules...one has already missed glaring mistakes and one has just done absolutely no check at all. I don't see that the two since the 7th of May have a leg to stand on.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
how do the underage gamblers fund their gambling, should the bank/electronic payment system have some responsibility to block gambling transactions for under 18's?

just read the national lottery age limit is only 16 :rolleyes: [incl scratchcards] shouldn't that be restricted up to 18, where's the consistency from ukgc on this :confused:

I agree re the gamstop/self exclusion flaws and well done for doing that work to expose it, but just thinking more on that, should you have had to do it in the 1st place, why didn't the ukgc get off their collective fat asses and find this out for themselves.

I'm not sure they're quite the experts and capable hands that they make themselves out to be, they say they're fighting to protect the consumer but won't generally touch consumer complaints with a barge pole.... erm :confused: why is that, possibly because the industry they're responsible for regulating, is still generating tons of complaints.

I would rate them above the MGA but that doesn't take much IMO, plenty of room for improvement for the ukgc themselves let alone the casinos.

Prepaid cards, easy way round things. The flaw is in the verification of a player more than Gamstop imo, or certainly was. A casino could simply check the voters role and see that someone is over 18 at the address so they pass it. This was evident even with a different first name, incredible some of the stuff. I will post all and the reps on here will get a chance to comment on it.

UKGC are not a consumer action group, they are the regulatory body and very much will try and avoid any chasing of isolated claims. It's when several patterns and trends emerge that they get involved. The people I have spoken to there all sound like robots at times but they are a lot more likely to pursue and punish operators than at any time in their history.
 

smart_croatia

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Location
Croatia
536cf57c191ae.jpeg
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Prepaid cards, easy way round things. The flaw is in the verification of a player more than Gamstop imo, or certainly was. A casino could simply check the voters role and see that someone is over 18 at the address so they pass it. This was evident even with a different first name, incredible some of the stuff. I will post all and the reps on here will get a chance to comment on it.

UKGC are not a consumer action group, they are the regulatory body and very much will try and avoid any chasing of isolated claims. It's when several patterns and trends emerge that they get involved. The people I have spoken to there all sound like robots at times but they are a lot more likely to pursue and punish operators than at any time in their history.

But with the prepaid cards, how do they make a withdrawal, back to the prepaid card or to a bank account/paypal etc..?
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
These examples where some years old (2015-2017 or so) so hopefully at least some operators have learned lessons to their operations. Not to say that we haven't seen failings still happening, just wondering how far UKGC will wish to dig these or are their picking one operator holding UKGC license at the time and look it backwards until certain year or so (which would explain these years)
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
These examples where some years old (2015-2017 or so) so hopefully at least some operators have learned lessons to their operations. Not to say that we haven't seen failings still happening, just wondering how far UKGC will wish to dig these or are their picking one operator holding UKGC license at the time and look it backwards until certain year or so (which would explain these years)

Appears to be last 5 years
 
Top