|
By:
CB29 - I guess the point I was making (badly) was that in all likelihood the fine is so large because the offender was found to have no protocols/systems in place whatsoever to ensure they complied with the Gambling Act. The Act has been in place since 2004/05. So in essence they have been failing to comply and breaking the rules for 20+ years.
The very unlikely alternative is that they have had strict protocols/systems in place since 2004/05 and complied fully with the Act until about 2022. And then at that point (just as all the non-compliance issues and massive fines were hitting the headlines), they suddenly decided to abandon all of the protocols/systems that they had in place (just before the GC conducted their Compliance Assessment!). As I say, that seems very unlikely, so the size of the fine probably reflects (like many of the other huge fines dished out in the past few years law-breaking bookmakers) that the bookmaker concerned has had no regard whatsoever for the Gambling Act and has been blatantly in breach of it for about 20 years. As such the fine isn't really that much (imo). |
|
By:
The fine isn’t that much ?
Do you think any of those involved in the post office scandal,the contaminated blood scandal,the countless social workers who badly let children down in some cases ending in death and many many more will receive fines like this ? |
|
By:
The fine is a large one relative to the size of the business - bigger in relative terms than the one dished out recently to Billie's.
The problem as I see it is that the useless and malevolent Gambling Commission don't provide definitive instructions on what action bookmakers should take and then punish them when they break the "rules". Laughable if not so serious. |
|
By:
I don't know much about Corbett's specifically, there are now just too many of these cowboys (pretending to be bookmakers) out there to keep track of them all.
But you only have to look at the names of their "sister sites" (which include: Plaza Royal Casino, Queen Play, Hippodrome On-line Casino, Loot Casino, Mirror Bingo & Jackpot City Casino) to understand that they aren't actually "bookmakers" at all - they are just a front for casino games, slots and bingo. They've been fined for being in breach of the Gambling Act (and as explained above - in all likelihood they have been operating outside of the Gambling Act for about 20 years). If you can point me in the direction of an actual bookmaker (on-line) that has been operating legally for the past 20 years (adhering to the 2004/05 Gambling Act), I'll defend them to the hilt - but I know you can't! - because no such entity exists! If I'd been operating outside of the law for nearly 20 years, I'd expect to get fined more than a week's takings (imo). It probably amounts to a fraction of one percent of their illegal take. |
|
By:
Illegal take ?
|
|
By:
Read the Gambling Act - then pop back and give me the name of an on-line bookmaker that that hasn't been blatantly in breach of it over the past 20 years.
|
|
By:
I’ve absolutely no interest in reading the gambling act but what I do know is the legal bookmaking industry is been bullied by the gambling commission.
|
|
By:
jimnast25 Mar 25 10:29Joined: 03 Jan 01 | Topic/replies: 15,877 | Blogger: jimnast's blog
I’ve absolutely no interest in reading the gambling act That puts you in the same boat as all of the on-line firms that have been fined for blatantly and persistently ignoring it. Are the GC over-reacting to make up for 20 years of being asleep at the wheel? Almost certainly. But what came first and brought about the current situation is 20 years of on-line bookmakers ignoring the Gambling Act. |
|
By:
Ignoring unworkable unfair and unrealistic policies
|
|
By:
In accordance to their profits the fine is harsh imo.
In the long it is not going going to make it any easier for the average punter to deposit and bet without fear of restrictions or checks. Not what we all want, is it? |
|
By:
Were their"offences"online or also in shops?
|
|
By:
foxy25 Mar 25 10:50Joined: 26 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 13,061 | Blogger: foxy's blog
Ignoring unworkable unfair and unrealistic policies Where were you (and all the other people now claiming this) back in 2004/05 when the Act was introduced? The answer is they were nowhere to be seen! - because everybody (including the Bookmakers and the rag they sponsor - the Racing Post) saw the legislation as a massive liberalisation of the laws/rules governing the whole gambling sector, which of course it was. ffs - they were given the most industry friendly regulations in the entire world. All they had to do was comply with them. |
|
By:
Have you ever had dealings with the gambling commission the management?
|
|
By:
"Were their"offences"online or also in shops?"
Following a review of the operating licence undertaken against Corbett Bookmakers Limited (the Licensee) the Commission found that the Licensee: Breached paragraphs 1 and 2 of Licence Condition 12.1.1 - Anti-money laundering - Prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. Failed to comply with paragraphs 1a, 1b, 1c and Paragraph 2 of social responsibility code provision 3.4.1 - Customer Interaction. In addition, Officials consider the Licensee failed to fully consider Ordinary Code Provision (“OCP”) 2.1.2 paragraph 1 – Anti-money laundering - other than casino. |
|
By:
Shops will have been cash I imagine. So probable the breaches were for telephone clients? as they've long since abandoned an online sports website. Their balance sheet is very strong (and prudent) for a company of their size, although clearly less so now!
I've been trying (without success) to find a link or mention of their casino operations. I've checked Queen Play which is owned by Marketplay Ltd which lists 11 websites under it's control including Plaza Royal. Can't see anything which suggests they are linked to Corbettsports TM? Loot Casino doesn't appear to be either. Only incorporated a year ago by a bloke called Benjamin Starr. Not looked at the other two websites you mention |
|
By:
jimnast25 Mar 25 11:41Joined: 03 Jan 01 | Topic/replies: 15,880 | Blogger: jimnast's blog
Have you ever had dealings with the gambling commission the management? No. I did have a couple of close friends that (like nearly all Independent's at the time) were put out of business by the way that their fee structures massively favoured the bigger firms. I'm not a fan of the Gambling Commission - they're just the same as every other so-called regulator - utterly hopeless/impotent for decades and then needing to be seen to act (or over react) to compensate for their previous inadequacies. I'm just making the point (contrary to what the Racing Post would have you believe) that everything happening now is a direct consequence of the actions/behaviour of on-line (so-called) bookmakers. Pretending that they are the victim is laughable. If you take the p1ss or break the law for 20 years, sooner or later you pay the price - usually in the form of a backlash. |
|
By:
CB29 - Life is too short and I am too busy to do a forensic investigation on Corbett's specifically. That's the job of the Gambling Commission and when they finally bothered to do some compliance checks it didn't end well for Corbett's (hence this thread).
My take (at a glance) is that after failing on most/multiple areas of compliance in their actual bookmaking operation - they closed down their own on-line casino type operation completely and they are now (presumably for a %) redirecting such customers to some other "wheels and reels" operators. Whether those other operators are complying with the Gambling Act or not - is anybody's guess! |
|
By:
"I'm not a fan of the Gambling Commission - they're just the same as every other so-called regulator - utterly hopeless/impotent for decades and then needing to be seen to act (or over react) to compensate for their previous inadequacies."
Not many people would disagree with that. |
|
By:
The management
I do agree with most of your 102 post like your two friends they made it very difficult for the oncourse bookmakers with some ridiculous ideas and requests including allowing them the decide there own place terms . Utterly hopeless is a huge understatement |
|
By:
What I was trying to establish was whether the fines were sports betting related or casino related. If the links to casinos are affiliate links then it's clearly sports betting related fines.
|
|
By:
I get a fair few spam emails and texts, presumably mostly from illegal operators and they are prolly 100% slots and casinos, despite me never using either (other than free spins). That (aside from the research) shows me where gambling addiction mostly lies. Yet it is the sports betting side that appears to be picking up the big fines.
From my recollection the big bookies had far worse breaches than these and picked up similar fines? |
|
By:
So you consider me a halfwit for challenging you regardless of the subject and then state you never go near slots etc but wonder why you receive spam because other than free spins you never use the sites?
|
|
By:
Jimnast - when I post I do always try my best to make the distinction between actual bookmakers (taking bets on real events) and the big on-line (so-called) bookmakers that are transitioning as quickly as they can away from bookmaking into new mediums and products (primarily "gaming") as their preferred business.
I actually feel a bit sorry for genuine bookmakers - they are being tarred with the same brush because it's not in the interests of the huge on-line operators (now primarily focussed on gaming) to highlight this distinction. Then you throw in the full support of the Racing Post also doing their utmost to pretend there isn't a distinction between gaming and gambling. If the big on-line operators were trying to defend their real business (slots/casino games) on it's own merits, they know they'd be screwed. So in essence real bookmakers are being used as a protective shield by businesses that no longer have any real interest in genuine bookmaking themselves. It's a sorry mess for sure but all the power lies with the pretend bookmakers. |
|
By:
I've had over 100 different sports bookmaker accounts and I don't wonder why I get spam emails. It's a virtual certainty. The free spins would be on sports bookmaker sites like Freds or Hills, not on casino sites, of which I'd never had any accounts.
I don't consider you a halfwit because you are trolling me, that was fullset. Clearly attention to detail, or applied analysis, isn't a strong point of yours. |
|
By:
Excellent post the management could not agree more
|
|
By:
My strongpoint is highlighting where you dig yourself a hole e.g you also state the spam presumably comes from illegal operators, surely attention to detail would confirm this or otherwise?
Plenty of other examples and none of a trolling nature, you appear to hold a higher opinion of yourself than most would given the nature of your threads i.e guessing and speculation with improbable analogies etc. HTH |