Labrokes/Coral have been fined £5.9m after a customer lost £98,000 after he asked the group to stop sending him promotions.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Labrokes/Coral have been fined £5.9m after a customer lost £98,000 after he asked the group to stop sending him promotions.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Okay that sounds pretty bad, but in terms of their other high rollers is it, and what about losing £250,00...if someone can prove the funds were legit..what then?
That's the point, they didn't do any SOW to prove the funds were legit and/or could be afforded, and Ladbrokes Coral admitted that they had inadequate legacy systems in place that didn't meet the new regulatory requirements.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
View attachment 112067
The UKGC will be swimming in cash - I wonder if they're planning to open a government casino - 'Commission Casino' or 'UKGC Slots'?
It's worth pointing out that these 'breaches' were historical dating back 5 to 2 years ago. Now cast your minds back, the SoW demands were only really highlighted after that period which you can verify by checking the old threads on here and their dates when this matter really moved into prominence.
Considering we had the old Gaming Board 15 years ago and the UKGC didn't even exist until 2007?I know of SoW checks being carried out 10-15 years ago, the laws were always there, its only recently they have made headlines. Just because casinos didn't follow them doesn't mean they shouldn't have. Same as the advertising rules that everyone has to follow now, they were in place a good couple of years before any affiliate program started clamping down on them.
Considering we had the old Gaming Board 15 years ago and the UKGC didn't even exist until 2007?
I think you'll find the 2014 Gambling and Licensing Act was where proper SoW and AML began in earnest as it was the trigger for all sites taking UK players to get licensed by the UKGC. Then it became possible and far easier to enforce checks on foreign-based operators as well as UK ones. The data seems to back this idea up when you examine the dates in referred to in various UKGC monetary sanctions.
Remember, the UKGC is a typical underfunded Government organization which until recent years knew less about the industry than many of you would imagine, so things move slowly.
Legislation is one thing, being equipped with the knowledge and tools to administer and enforce it is quite another. In the case of the Financial Services industry with its resources and means this is usually sufficient - we are talking about what is essentially a QUANGO set up in haste back in 2007 and staffed primarily by ex-civil servants and Police officers who had already done 30 years government service. As a result there was little or no industry-specific expertise which (as you said yourself) meant that existing laws regarding marketing, fair contract and financial misconduct were not enforced until far later than they should have been.You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
One case there that dates back to 2008, and clearly showing they should have submitted a SAR under the 2002 act
Grosvenor also failed to properly report the suspicious nature of Ding’s play to law enforcement agencies, something required under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Legislation is one thing, being equipped with the knowledge and tools to administer and enforce it is quite another. In the case of the Financial Services industry with its resources and means this is usually sufficient - we are talking about what is essentially a QUANGO set up in haste back in 2007 and staffed primarily by ex-civil servants and Police officers who had already done 30 years government service. As a result there was little or no industry-specific expertise which (as you said yourself) meant that existing laws regarding marketing, fair contract and financial misconduct were not enforced until far later than they should have been.
Since then things are much better and the UKGC has upped its game by hiring the right people so now we see a plethora of rules and actions relevant to the industry which were previously absent. I think you and many others underestimate the complexity of the task in hand here and the history of regulatory development in the UK.
Much of the issue is down to bad communication and woolly rules specified by the UKGC - an example is the 'void bets' for dupe-account SE players. We all expect the bets to be refunded if voided and indeed voice our belief that is so on here, quite regularly. Read the wording however and nowhere does the UKGC actually state deposits MUST be refunded, they certainly infer so but don't state it outright (at least they didn't last time I checked).The rules were perfectly adequate, the UKGC has made them more complex for absolutely no reason. The 2002 act worked fine in other industries, and would have worked fine if it was enforced at an earlier point.
William Hill were, I think, the only firm who actually took proper action back then, but I know personally 3 people who had to supply SoW to them pre 2005.
Where does all this money go.
5m is serious cash, any chance I can get 100k if that will make a difference to my life! It's sad so much money washing about in casinos and none of it ever goes to the right people. Greedy getting more greedy.