Labrokes/Coral fined £5.9m

[EkJR]

The new rules are a prime example of the UKGC and these 'almost but not quite' rules. So you get age verified on a casino and you can deposit. However, you cant gamble until you are identity/KYC verified. Why bother with this at all? Just do it all at once. It leaves it again open to operators exploiting it.

For example, Winstar. "We have to age verify before you can deposit and play, however we have 24 hours from then to do identity and KYC checks". That is their understanding of the rules. Just put it in black and white, it is not difficult. I wonder if they leave it open so that they can still get their fine cash in for breaches!

 

[dunover]

The new rules are a prime example of the UKGC and these 'almost but not quite' rules. So you get age verified on a casino and you can deposit. However, you cant gamble until you are identity/KYC verified. Why bother with this at all? Just do it all at once. It leaves it again open to operators exploiting it.

For example, Winstar. "We have to age verify before you can deposit and play, however we have 24 hours from then to do identity and KYC checks". That is their understanding of the rules. Just put it in black and white, it is not difficult. I wonder if they leave it open so that they can still get their fine cash in for breaches!

Indeed - the woolly terms at the UKGC are setting licensees up to fail in many cases. They seem to lack specificity and whereas they could be simplified and definitive.

 

[L&L-Jan]

Pretty funny read this discussion while being in the audit with the UKGC while we are mainly assesed for AML and RG customers

So that audit will most likely result in a fine of 3 million for L&L

No, it went pretty fine I would say. Few recommendations and feedback to consider. We are fine to apply the feedback and we will continue with the processes as we have in place today. Sorry for all the SOW request, but a license is quite important for our operations

 

[EkJR]

So that audit will most likely result in a fine of 3 million for L&L

No, it went pretty fine I would say. Few recommendations and feedback to consider. We are fine to apply the feedback and we will continue with the processes as we have in place today. Sorry for all the SOW request, but a license is quite important for our operations

Positive feedback? I know of a few operators who wont be getting that!

 

[L&L-Jan]

Well, positive feedback is out of the subject. There are always recommendations, minor or critical issues. I think we managed to bypass the last 2 terms

 

[EkJR]

Well, positive feedback is out of the subject. There are always recommendations, minor or critical issues. I think we managed to bypass the last 2 terms

Well if only minor then that's not so bad, there is mostly always room for improvement in processes.

 

[colinsunderland]

So that audit will most likely result in a fine of 3 million for L&L

No, it went pretty fine I would say. Few recommendations and feedback to consider. We are fine to apply the feedback and we will continue with the processes as we have in place today. Sorry for all the SOW request, but a license is quite important for our operations

Good that you are being pro-active with stuff, better to do it now then get hit with massive fines a couple of years later. Are you doing SoW requests at times other than the withdrawal stage? Wonder if this is why Fun wanted me to re-verify then got arsey about the stuff I provided

 

[brianmon]

I wonder if there's any connection between the fine and a sudden restructuring of the company, taking place tomorrow?

 

[colinsunderland]

Its just a name change after the merger. Coral Interactive is now Ladbroke Coral Interactive.

I had a call from the VIP team tonight that I missed when I was in the shower ffs. Last time they rang they gave me £100 bonus for nothing with a 1 x wagering!

 

[EkJR]

I wonder if there's any connection between the fine and a sudden restructuring of the company, taking place tomorrow?

View attachment 112100

This will be to do with the licences in operation. Coral and Ladbrokes had separate licences as did Gala. Excluded players on one brand could play at others. I know UKGC were reviewing this and whether it should have applied exclusions across the group rather than licence in line with basic ethics! Perhaps they have now been forced to merge these as I'm sure it would be fairly complex to apply these across multiple licences.

 

[slotter999]

Indeed - the woolly terms at the UKGC are setting licensees up to fail in many cases. They seem to lack specificity and whereas they could be simplified and definitive.

For supposedly 'woolly' terms the operators don't appear to be challenging these decisions in the courts of law which is where a definitive answer could be established. And this is not trivial amounts of money either. My suspicion is the casinos have been caught out and they know it. I don't think they would accept million+ fines if they really believed the terms were woolly i.e. not legally enforceable.

Anyone siding with the casinos or feeling sympathy for them is crackers in my opinion.

 

[dunover]

For supposedly 'woolly' terms the operators don't appear to be challenging these decisions in the courts of law which is where a definitive answer could be established. And this is not trivial amounts of money either. My suspicion is the casinos have been caught out and they know it. I don't think they would accept million+ fines if they really believed the terms were woolly i.e. not legally enforceable.

Anyone siding with the casinos or feeling sympathy for them is crackers in my opinion.

Well think about it - with the negative publicity, especially in the Guardian, would you want to be seen to partake in legal action against the UKGC? WillHill have come closest to inferring such with their recent comments regarding regulation.