InTouch & GIG fined £2 Million each by UKGC

[Mr Wild]

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.

 

[Jono777]

Seemingly daft question maybe, but am I right in thinking that 100% of the funds from these fines goes directly to the UK government?

Have to agree guidelines have been far from crystal clear from the start, sort of explains why so many operators have struggled with and often misinterpreted the SoW requirements.

 

[pinnit2014]

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.

If you look at some of the detailed findings you see bread and butter issues such as the MLRO basically not being qualified for the role, lack of procedures and a monitoring regime: not sure that companies, whose responsibility it is to make sure they are competent in these areas, really need to be led down the garden path, by hand,when it comes to some of these issues. I jest, but what would the guidelines need to say? Make sure your MLRO is, er, competent for the role?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

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.

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.

 

[EkJR]

More to come..watch this space

 

[EkJR]

Seemingly daft question maybe, but am I right in thinking that 100% of the funds from these fines goes directly to the UK government?

Have to agree guidelines have been far from crystal clear from the start, sort of explains why so many operators have struggled with and often misinterpreted the SoW requirements.

No you would be wrong. A portion of fines goes to Gamcare and other organisations and also, if needed, players refunded for serious failings. These are normally inclusive within any fines.

 

[EkJR]

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.

K8 Bet...first one encountered with zero new checks. Everyone else seems to be well on top of it and it can work as you say.

 

[SpinUk]

This does not bode well at all for the Uk industry. I would be pulling my business from here too with these fines floating around. Expect many, many more Uk market withdrawals in the next 12 months.

 

[brianmon]

And, as usual it's 3 Malta based companies.
Plus one (always been a bit dodgy) UK company

 

[EkJR]

This does not bode well at all for the Uk industry. I would be pulling my business from here too with these fines floating around. Expect many, many more Uk market withdrawals in the next 12 months.

This is for past failings though, particularly around the lack of verification checks hence the money laundering aspect for all 3 mentioned. There are a lot more. You will see several others up. Daub and Casumo have already had this. I won't say who the others are likely to be at this stage but I did share some info with @dunover a while back.

Once people settle into the new rules you will find the better casinos and groups still around whilst the unethical ones will be gone.

 

[mack341]

there's a heck of a lot of jargon used by the ukgc, I got halfway down the page and gave up. I've yet to read any uk press reports of terrorists and money launderers being caught from all this due diligence and customer analysis the ukgc require, if it was such a 'huge' problem you'd think there'd be at least half a dozen cases a year where they've been caught and gone to court ??

SOWs for everyone and enhanced diligence checks reminds me of the approach by the border agency and airport police stopping and searching old age pensioners as potential terror suspects, and having them remove items of clothing like belts

 

[EkJR]

there's a heck of a lot of jargon used by the ukgc, I got halfway down the page and gave up. I've yet to read any uk press reports of terrorists and money launderers being caught from all this due diligence and customer analysis the ukgc require, if it was such a 'huge' problem you'd think there'd be at least half a dozen cases a year where they've been caught and gone to court ??

SOWs for everyone and enhanced diligence checks reminds me of the approach by the border agency and airport police stopping and searching old age pensioners as potential terror suspects, and having them remove items of clothing like belts

Money laundering cannot be proven because the systems used to detect it and properly verify people were not stringent enough. It also allowed under age gambling and self excluded/Gamstop players to circumvent rules easily. Affordability may be overkill but verifying someone is who they say they are before depositing is fairly standard practice with anything similar that involves a business relationship.

 

[mack341]

Money laundering cannot be proven because the systems used to detect it and properly verify people were not stringent enough. It also allowed under age gambling and self excluded/Gamstop players to circumvent rules easily. Affordability may be overkill but verifying someone is who they say they are before depositing is fairly standard practice with anything similar that involves a business relationship.

obviously the casino would report their suspicions to the police and they'd take it from there, I think the AML regs have been around for years, maybe tightened up in the last decade...but I still can't remember reading about any prosecutions in the press. most people who gamble probably fund it via their bank, so any laundering would have to get past the bank in the first place.

It wouldn't bother me if they raised the gambling age to 21, which would cut out 3 years of 'problems' straight out of the system, students using their loans is probably one of the problem areas so that could mostly remove that in one fell swoop as well.

 

[Mr Wild]

And, as usual it's 3 Malta based companies.
Plus one (always been a bit dodgy) UK company

I believe most UK operators actually already been fined, at least all big ones...

 

[News Hound]

This is covered here: Punch in the Guts - UKGC Issue £4.5m in Fines

 

[Nate]

This is covered here: Punch in the Guts - UKGC Issue £4.5m in Fines

'Punch in the Guts after GIG Rizked it with the UKGC'

Nate

 

[EkJR]

"After taking many Risks, the GIG is up, bestbet now is to pay up"

 

[goatwack]

I used to think the UKGC liked topping up their Christmas party/ yacht funds by dishing out huge fines, especially retroactively.

But having seen how woeful many casinos are in regards to AML/ RG, picking on small Regular Joe punters whilst pretending to follow the rules, I'm all for it. Someone hand me a glass of champagne

Casinos have been getting away with murder for bloody decades, and so now their solution is to throw the proverbial book at everyone to cover their asses instead of just applying some common sense. Yes May 7th Regulations I'm looking at you

 

[EkJR]

I used to think the UKGC liked topping up their Christmas party/ yacht funds by dishing out huge fines, especially retroactively.

But having seen how woeful many casinos are in regards to AML/ RG, picking on small Regular Joe punters whilst pretending to follow the rules, I'm all for it. Someone hand me a glass of champagne

Casinos have been getting away with murder for bloody decades, and so now their solution is to throw the proverbial book at everyone to cover their asses instead of just applying some common sense. Yes May 7th Regulations I'm looking at you

Don't think it's a particularly bad process other than the affordability part that some are applying.

You need to wonder though, why were a lot of casinos not verifying to this extent before, even with the 72 hour rules on age verification and anti-money laundering regs and how many players have they fucked over by not doing it until money is withdrawn, if ever.

 

[goatwack]

Don't think it's a particularly bad process other than the affordability part that some are applying.

You need to wonder though, why were a lot of casinos not verifying to this extent before, even with the 72 hour rules on age verification and anti-money laundering regs and how many players have they fucked over by not doing it until money is withdrawn, if ever.

Exactly....if they were confident in their vetting process they wouldn't be in a tizzy over these new regulations. This ought to have been mandatory from the outset. Lord knows how many underage players casinos have on their books - and have been paid even

 

[mack341]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [incl scratchcards] shouldn't that be restricted up to 18, where's the consistency from ukgc on this

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 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]

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]

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]

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 [incl scratchcards] shouldn't that be restricted up to 18, where's the consistency from ukgc on this

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 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]

 

[mack341]

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..?

 

[EkJR]

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

Not sure mate, there will be ways I'm sure. Unless they just never withdraw lol.

 

[Slottery]

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]

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

 

[dionysus]

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

nearly every dep I've ever made is with a prepaid card and it's always been withdrawn to my bank acct

 

[brianmon]

Appears to be last 5 years

They can only go back as far as a casino has held a UKGC license. Anything beyond that, the casino wasn't responsible to the UKGC regulations.

 

[mack341]

nearly every dep I've ever made is with a prepaid card and it's always been withdrawn to my bank acct

so if youngsters in the uk below 18 did this, theoretically the bank could spot it as a gambling transaction, but then I wonder would the bank contact the casino to tell them the player's underage or maybe reverse the payment back to the casino

 

[dionysus]

so if youngsters in the uk below 18 did this, theoretically the bank could spot it as a gambling transaction, but then I wonder would the bank contact the casino to tell them the player's underage or maybe reverse the payment back to the casino

I suppose it depends if the bank recognizes it comes from a casino, or sees it as simply as some sort of international wire transfer from 'X' company abroad; I doubt many, if any, have 'casino' in the title

 

[goatwack]

They won't have anything casino-themed in the statements, even I'm puzzled as to what half of the names on my statements are ("oh yeah, that one was Ladbrokes") but no one can seriously tell me that the UKGC and banks can't find a way to block underage gambling transactions. It's complete horseshit and could have been sorted years ago

Meanwhile I'm being given the runaround with pop-up after pop-up each time using online banking for my £20 deposit, text message alerts (thankyou) and whatever else like I'm flippin' Al Capone.

Too little too late and a half-arsed by the UKGC. They really are the BTG of governing bodies

 

[slotter999]

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)

I did not realise that was the case. Makes sense. There are quite a few members here that are very pro casino / very anti UKGC so as bizarre an opinion as it was, it wasn't entirely out of place.

 

[mikeMega]

Tut Tut MT securetrade..... with all these fines your going to lose your "highroller"s because bad press showing your underhand antics publically is enough to make a "casinopop"!!
A wise man once said.....you are always "Rizk"ing your "Guts" indulging in dodgy "Calzones"

 

[brianmon]

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)

He seems to be a rather underhanded chap, who doesn't do anything to help the credibility of his employers (or, it may even be his casino), in fact quite the opposite

 

[EkJR]

So, 45 casinos tested on the new rules post 7th of May. Happy to say all bar 1 casino has done the appropriate checks.

However, now up to 4 casinos who have checked the ID, Address, bank statement and verified the accounts fully despite the DOB being wrong....so far from perfect so far.

Not making a new post just yet on here so just tagging it on here. Have given the 4 casinos opportunity to explain the mistakes. The other, K8, who simply don't do the verification have been reported to the UKGC as they are unwilling to cooperate.

Once complete I will do posts on pre 7th of May and post 7th of May.

 

[Jj24680]

Its great they have been fined but those amounts are nothing compared to what these casino's earn daily. They probably earn more than 700k in a hour. Bigger fines might deter them in future because it would hit them where it hurts. What's a hours wage to them when they have raked in probably 10x that from behaving in unscrupulous ways. They rake in let's say 10 million pounds from screwing the vulnerable and then pay a naughty fine of 700k. They will always be in the green and carry on doing it. The UKGC needs to take back every penny a unscrupulous casino made from the vulnerable people then hit them with a tasty fine on top. That might make them think twice in future.

 

[dionysus]

Its great they have been fined but those amounts are nothing compared to what these casino's earn daily. They probably earn more than 700k in a hour. Bigger fines might deter them in future because it would hit them where it hurts. What's a hours wage to them when they have raked in probably 10x that from behaving in unscrupulous ways. They rake in let's say 10 million pounds from screwing the vulnerable and then pay a naughty fine of 700k. They will always be in the green and carry on doing it. The UKGC needs to take back every penny a unscrupulous casino made from the vulnerable people then hit them with a tasty fine on top. That might make them think twice in future.

i think your estimates are a bit high
you can actually find their quarterly reports online

 

[Jj24680]

i think your estimates are a bit high
you can actually find their quarterly reports online

I know I'm good at exaggerating I think I'm the sort of person who would hang them before they finished the outh. I still think they need to fine them more.