Bet365 Fined £582K for Regulatory Breaches – What Does This Mean for Gamblers?

[Russlenat]

Bet365 is to pay £582,120 for anti-money laundering and social responsibility failures at its online business.

Hillside (UK Gaming) ENC, which holds a licence for Bet365’s bingo and casino products, will pay £343,035 and Hillside (UK Sports) ENC, which holds a licence to offer betting, will pay £239,085.

All £582,120 will be directed towards socially responsible causes1 as part of a regulatory settlement with the Commission.

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/bet365-to-pay-gbp582-120-for-regulatory-failures

And these are the specific violations.

Social responsibility failures included:

interactions with customers were frequently not tailored to the specific customer journey or spectrum of harm and therefore interactions were not meaningful
an Early Risk Detection System was not demonstrably effective in understanding the impact of individual interactions on a customer’s behaviour and whether further action was required
its approach to evaluation meant that it was unable to effectively ascertain whether a customer had read and understood the information or advice provided within its interactions.
Anti-money laundering failures included:

having enhanced customer due diligence and know your customer triggers that were ineffective at managing money laundering risk
failing to undertake financial sanctions checks on new customers prior to their first deposits
failing to undertake independent verification checks and over relied on customers’ annual self-verification of know your customer information, such as identification documents
its procedure document contained inadequate detail as to who would be deemed “at risk” and “not at risk” for customer risk profiling.

If we look at what's happening now, a lot of gamblers are complaining about casinos being strict with KYC requirements. Sometimes, even long-time clients are asked for more than just basic documents, like proof of income or bank statements. But this isn’t abuse, they’re just doing their job. If they don’t comply, they could face huge penalties or even lose their license.

Take Bet365, for example ....it’s a massive casino valued in the billions. You can see more about it in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Coates

Now imagine smaller casinos; they could shut down if they get hit with penalties for non-compliance. That’s why as gamblers, we should always choose reputable casinos. Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

[Hazink]

Now imagine smaller casinos; they could shut down if they get hit with penalties for non-compliance. That’s why as gamblers, we should always choose reputable casinos. Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

Them being minitored by license providers does not really make everything perfect or private. The thing there is just that if one doesn't want their information to get out, they should just completely avoid KYC casinos.
 
Even if the casino themselves don't officially share your details with others, some staff can sell those data to a third party with the company's awareness.

Secondly, we have also had cases of hacks where casinos databases were compromised and customer information was exposed to the hacker. Such data can now be sold on the dark web. How can regulators prevent this once's?

[Vaculin]

Now imagine smaller casinos; they could shut down if they get hit with penalties for non-compliance. That’s why as gamblers, we should always choose reputable casinos. Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

Them being minitored by license providers does not really make everything perfect or private. The thing there is just that if one doesn't want their information to get out, they should just completely avoid KYC casinos.

Well, you can go to that direction, however, how safe it is gambling in a non-KYC casino? is it safer than regulated casinos?

Even if the casino themselves don't officially share your details with others, some staff can sell those data to a third party with the company's awareness.

Secondly, we have also had cases of hacks where casinos databases were compromised and customer information was exposed to the hacker. Such data can now be sold on the dark web. How can regulators prevent this once's?

This really happens in real life, and it can’t be fully prevented. However, regulators have issued directives to casinos to improve their security systems to minimize these risks. In my opinion, if a casino is reputable or well-known, they’ll definitely make sure their data security is top-notch. If they fail and there’s a data leak followed by complaints, it could mean big penalties for them, or worse, they could get shut down. So, in a way, regulators are creating a deterrent, making sure casinos do their job properly since their entire business is on the line.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Anti-money laundering failures included:

having enhanced customer due diligence and know your customer triggers that were ineffective at managing money laundering risk
failing to undertake financial sanctions checks on new customers prior to their first deposits
failing to undertake independent verification checks and over relied on customers’ annual self-verification of know your customer information, such as identification documents
its procedure document contained inadequate detail as to who would be deemed “at risk” and “not at risk” for customer risk profiling.

This is what will happen in a while with cryptocurrency casinos, in years I hope. In the end they will be more controlled and it won't be enough with just a Curaçao licence, plus they will ask for full KYC from the moment of registration, before depositing a satoshi.

It is clear the direction we are going, we better enjoy the last few years of what little freedom is left in this space.

[Nwada001]

This is what will happen in a while with cryptocurrency casinos, in years I hope. In the end they will be more controlled and it won't be enough with just a Curaçao licence, plus they will ask for full KYC from the moment of registration, before depositing a satoshi.

It is clear the direction we are going, we better enjoy the last few years of what little freedom is left in this space.

Indeed, we are gradually losing it all to the regulators, just as the name implies they want to keep tabs on everyone's spending and how they make that money.
 
I thought the vision for crypto casinos from the onset was to avoid this government control.

It will come to a time when, even for one to make use of a Google search engine, we might be asked to submit our document for verification in order to state the reason for using the internet. There is nothing like privacy and freedom again, which is totally ridiculous.

[retreat]

As the gambling industry is increasingly constrained by unreasonable government regulations, it is not surprising that crypto casinos will also suffer a similar fate where users need to provide various documents just to deposit on the platform. This is unreasonable and very funny, because they are very strict with AML in the gambling industry, while in other industries such as banking or investment firms, they turn a blind eye and let them do practices that are arguably much worse.

[freedomgo]

,,,,while in other industries such as banking or investment firms, they turn a blind eye and let them do practices that are arguably much worse.

This isn’t exactly true, AMLC is way stricter in the banking and finance sectors. The thing is, we just weren’t used to it at first because crypto gambling started without KYC. In the early stages, we thought of crypto as something completely separate.. like the term “decentralized” meant no government could control it. But now, we’re seeing major changes, and slowly everything is becoming regulated. We can’t really do anything about it unless we take a risk with decentralized casinos, but let’s be real, the scam rate there is way higher.

[Oshosondy]

Now imagine smaller casinos; they could shut down if they get hit with penalties for non-compliance. That’s why as gamblers, we should always choose reputable casinos. Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

But do you not notice that the government are going for something small? Also the government do not like to do what will let a company to collapse if the company is not a scam or doing something that is very bad like a hard drug selling site for example. This is not the reason I will use a reputed casino. I am using a reputed casino because people rate them good, not because of any regulation.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I don't see any customer care here, and this is just part of the strategy that is very popular among regulators now. Take control of everything, including customer funds and a full check of their existence, as well as all casino income. Saying that someone can rely on the confidentiality of the data we provide also sounds naive. How many stories do we see about the sale of millions of people's data with their cards, addresses, and phone numbers? If someone needs someone's data, then in our time this is not a problem; the only question is who we can become interested in this.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/19/business/national-public-data-admits-hackers-stole-social-security-numbers/

[Wexnident]

~

For social responsibility it just looks (or sounds) like a bunch of gibber to me, social interaction isn't a yes/no question so I'd say trying to set a metric for it sounds meaningless, if I understood that correctly. I'm also pretty confused why they give a damn about why the casino would give interactions that aren't "meaningful". It's a casino, it's for people to have fun lol. If they don't have fun they can just leave.

As for AML, it sounds like they just went with having as light KYC as possible (and bad documentation it seems) and got hit for it. I don't really think there's any that's going to hit gamblers or change, pretty sure most casinos are already enforcing strict KYC anyway. At least I don't think anything going to change.

[Natalim]

~

For social responsibility it just looks (or sounds) like a bunch of gibber to me, social interaction isn't a yes/no question so I'd say trying to set a metric for it sounds meaningless, if I understood that correctly. I'm also pretty confused why they give a damn about why the casino would give interactions that aren't "meaningful". It's a casino, it's for people to have fun lol. If they don't have fun they can just leave.

As for AML, it sounds like they just went with having as light KYC as possible (and bad documentation it seems) and got hit for it. I don't really think there's any that's going to hit gamblers or change, pretty sure most casinos are already enforcing strict KYC anyway. At least I don't think anything going to change.

Bet365 is a billion-dollar company, yet they were only fined less than a million. With the list of violations mentioned in the OP, as found out by regulators, I’m honestly not surprised that Bet365 keeps having violations, it’s just pocket change for them. For smaller casinos, this kind of penalty would definitely hurt more, but I guess the fines also depend on the size of the company.

Also, Bet365 operates either in the US or UK, so they might have a different license provider compared to the usual ones like Curacao or Malta. I was surprised too that there’s still something called "interaction" mentioned. I’m wondering what that even means, like, is it some kind of chat where they check on how much gamblers are winning or losing? It’s not exactly clear from the details provided.

[Wind_FURY]

If we look at what's happening now, a lot of gamblers are complaining about casinos being strict with KYC requirements. Sometimes, even long-time clients are asked for more than just basic documents, like proof of income or bank statements. But this isn’t abuse, they’re just doing their job. If they don’t comply, they could face huge penalties or even lose their license.

Proof Of Income or Bank Statements? In my personal opinion, that's not OK. If the casino puts a person under a classification of "suspicious", then they should merely let the user withdraw all of his money after standard KYC and close his/her account.

Take Bet365, for example ....it’s a massive casino valued in the billions. You can see more about it in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Coates

Now imagine smaller casinos; they could shut down if they get hit with penalties for non-compliance. That’s why as gamblers, we should always choose reputable casinos. Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

That does NOT protect the user from information leaks and hacks. We users should be aware of the risks.

Social responsibility failures included:

interactions with customers were frequently not tailored to the specific customer journey or spectrum of harm and therefore interactions were not meaningful

an Early Risk Detection System was not demonstrably effective in understanding the impact of individual interactions on a customer’s behaviour and whether further action was required

its approach to evaluation meant that it was unable to effectively ascertain whether a customer had read and understood the information or advice provided within its interactions.

Anti-money laundering failures included:

having enhanced customer due diligence and know your customer triggers that were ineffective at managing money laundering risk

failing to undertake financial sanctions checks on new customers prior to their first deposits

failing to undertake independent verification checks and over relied on customers’ annual self-verification of know your customer information, such as identification documents

its procedure document contained inadequate detail as to who would be deemed “at risk” and “not at risk” for customer risk profiling.

They should probably hire those people from centralized cryptocurrency exchanges.

[Apocollapse]

Now imagine smaller casinos; they could shut down if they get hit with penalties for non-compliance. That’s why as gamblers, we should always choose reputable casinos. Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

This doesn't apply to Curacao license casinos, they only ask the application and license fees, that's all.

Is there any gambler in this forum get restricted to gamble/ limit your account from Curacao license casinos due to lose too much? I haven't find it, only gamblers who won where their accounts gets limit.

People shouldn't worry to submit KYC if they've submit KYC in centralized exchanges, both of them are the same thing.

[Dave1]

If we look at what's happening now, a lot of gamblers are complaining about casinos being strict with KYC requirements. Sometimes, even long-time clients are asked for more than just basic documents, like proof of income or bank statements. But this isn’t abuse, they’re just doing their job. If they don’t comply, they could face huge penalties or even lose their license.

Take Bet365, for example ....it’s a massive casino valued in the billions. You can see more about it in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Coates

Now imagine smaller casinos; they could shut down if they get hit with penalties for non-compliance. That’s why as gamblers, we should always choose reputable casinos. Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

If we look at it though, it comes from UK gambling, they are very strict as far as handling KYC and other pertinent documents submitted to any services under their regulatory law. So it doesn't just include gambling industry per se, but almost everything under the umbrella.

As for smaller casinos, well there have been a lot of fly by night and scammy sites already so I wouldn't be sure if they have the license in the first place or if they are really complying with the law or regulation in the first play.

Definitely, stick with the casinos that we have been playing for many years and we will all be good.

[Text]

And because the issue of gambling is still hot here with us, I rarely gamble now. For someone like me who only gambles a little, I don't prefer to go through KYC processes in any gambling platform, especially in crypto casinos, even if they say it's becoming the standard. I still don’t like it because we are here in crypto for decentralization and anonymity. So, for me, this process is still inconvenient and burdensome. That’s why I no longer play on gambling platforms that have started requiring KYC.

[swogerino]

I am happy bet365 is fined at least one time as they are very selective in how they operate, they have limited my account because one time I made it from 100 dollars to well over 3500 dollars quite some years ago. They frozen my account without a decent explanation for me only to learn soon after that they had it a standard procedure to freeze many accounts for this reason. Now in here it is another case yet this type of casino deserves the worse, I am happy that crypto casinos were open soon after and I never looked back. The crypto casinos are giving us good options as they only require KYC only when you hit it big and they frozen your account when you clearly have broken the rules in most of instances.

[Kelward]

If we look at what's happening now, a lot of gamblers are complaining about casinos being strict with KYC requirements. Sometimes, even long-time clients are asked for more than just basic documents, like proof of income or bank statements. But this isn’t abuse, they’re just doing their job. If they don’t comply, they could face huge penalties or even lose their license.

I doubt that any casino will normally want to ask their gambling customers to submit any form of KYC, they know that people don't like to submit their private details unnecessarily. So we can't blame them for making the KYC demand when they think that it's necessary because they want to protect their businesses from the regulators sanctions. It's now left for the gamblers to choose casinos that they think are reputable enough for them to submit their KYC requirements to because as it is KYC requirements have come to stay. Governments everywhere wants to monitor and control how cash flows in their economies and the gambling industry is not an exception.

[acroman08]

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

even with reputable casinos(no offense to them), I'd still be worried when submitting KYC, though it doesn't happen often there are still cases of information leaks or security breaches that expose gambler's personal information that was submitted to the casino.

[Jawhead999]

For people who scared of KYC, you can just gamble on DGbet.fun, it has no KYC rule at the moment.

When the regulator force the casino to have KYC rules, it's true the casino have no choice except to ask it in order to survive. But, sometime there would be always a new casinos/bookies popped out and didn't ask KYC.

So, for people who want to gamble on free KYC casino should follow up with the new casinos.

[Lida93]

Even if they require KYC, at least we know our private information is safe because they’re being monitored by their license providers.

So, we shouldn’t worry about submitting KYC, as long as we stick to reputable casinos, as I’ve mentioned.

I kinda not have probs passing a reputable casino's KYC but that doesn't mean I trust that my informations would be kept safe from third-party.

Because you talk with much confidence as though you're sure about how much the confidentiality of our privacy is 100% intact with these casinos. There are situations that may arise that would prove this wrong but let not go there.

As an old time gambler prior to registering an account with a centralized casino i should have had it in mind that i must pass KYC immediately or after and  shouldn't be taken to be an offense or that the casino is stepping beyond boundaries when they require certain documents from me. But this doesn't give liberty to casinos to request for KYC recurrently even for specific docs that have already been summited before. Doing that can be irksome for me.