This is why casinos prefer offshore license

[Botnake]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.

Here's the news.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Hatchy]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.
What are your thoughts on this?

What exactly do you expect from casinos? They don't really care if a player loses a huge amount of money. In fact, they would be happier if the player lost everything in one day and deposited more money just to keep playing. That is simply business for them. Casinos will never be happy with strict government regulations because they know how they make their money from players. Getting a licence in the first place already puts certain restrictions on them. They would be even happier if they were not required to obtain a licence, as that would allow them to operate freely and do whatever they wanted with players' money.

[Oshosondy]

The reason gambling sites go for offshores licensing is because the offshore license are easy to obtain, they also require small amount of fee that will be paid to obtain the license, and the annual fee is also little.

What you posted is also very true. The countries that give the license do not protect gambers.

[Coyster]

A casino cannot operate legally in Britain with an offshore license. They must be licensed by the Gambling Commission in Britain, and that would eventually bring them under these same regulations that this casino failed to comply with.

On another day we can talk about the compliance rules and if they are harsh on the casinos, but in this case i do not feel sorry for this platform, because as soon as you secure that license to operate, you have to comply with the regulatory framework that has been formed. If you must monitor players who seem to be gambling in an unsafe manner and prolly restrict their account, then you have to do it, or face the penalty.

[adultcrypto]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Every business go for where they will cut cost and protect their interest. It is not only casinos that seek for license from places where the taxes and duties are cheaper, shipping companies crude oil marketers and various business owners do that to safe cost.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.

Here's the news.

What are your thoughts on this?

Not that I'm supporting the casinos not to implement policies that will help problem gamblers but we must understand the nature of the business they are into which means the losses of the players is their win so they prefer when players lose money because that is how they smile to the bank. Assuming the player hits a jackpot, would the regulators punish the player for winning so much within a short time?

[danherbias07]

How I wish every country in the world whose gambling practices are legal, regulated, and licensed had a Gambling Commission that is strict and would fine online casinos that do not follow the rules.

For gamblers using the names mentioned in the report, it would be wise to avoid spending too much time on those platforms, as they may get back the fine money from players/gamblers so they don't feel the losses—especially those who are playing high-risk and high-volatility games like slots.

[iv4n]

What are your thoughts on this?

UK... not the rest of the world. While the UK Gambling Commission enforces some rules, protecting players there, that environment represents just a tiny part of the global industry. And that's why casinos prefer offshore licences... they have more freedom to set up their own rules.

Jurisdiction changes everything, we all know that, or at least we should know that... And just a day ago we had this thread:  

Should Crypto Casinos Follow the UK's 10x Bonus Wagering Limit? - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5596742.msg67238221#msg67238221

Long ago, someone from this forum said that the crypto gambling space is a Wild West... and in many ways it's still a Wild West. Good luck to all of us...

[Odusko]

Casino licensing comes with some regulatory requirements and operational guidelines for the operators, and when the casino commission such as the casino watch dog discover any failure to follow with the compliance and policy requirements such casino can get into trouble and mandated to pay such find.

This Case in particular is about a license none crypto casino accepting cryptocurrency deposits, that is where the whole crises comes from.

[lionheart78]

I do not think it is to evade responsibility towards gamblers why casino prefer offshore licenses.  Countries with strict gambling regulations can also make these casinos with an offshore license to bear responsibility on gamblers.

The reason why casinos prefer offshore licenses is that they are cheaper and are more flexible, like if the casino wanted to offer their services in different countries, and said to have lower maintenance and taxes like renewal fee when the casino is servicing multiple countries.

[Coyster]

For gamblers using the names mentioned in the report, it would be wise to avoid spending too much time on those platforms, as they may get back the fine money from players/gamblers so they don't feel the losses—especially those who are playing high-risk and high-volatility games like slots.

Lol, are you insinuating that they are going to rig the games? No, they cannot do that, not in a regulated industry. It is illegal for casinos to do that and there is a severe penalty if caught, this is one of the advantages of playing in regulated casinos, rather than offshore/illegal platforms. It is the duty of the regulators to ensure that casino games are fair and there is no sort of manipulation involved.

[Die_empty]

What are your thoughts on this?

Casinos prefer offshore licenses for several reasons. They are cheaper to acquire compared to others. The offshore license providers are mainly interested in the license fees and yearly subscriptions. They do little or nothing about protecting gamblers from exploitation. Casinos prefer them because they don't monitor the activities of these casinos adequately. Low taxes or tax avoidance also affect companies; not just casinos choose offshore company registrations.

Grosvenor Casinos would have to abide by the terms of agreement of the license. If regulatory authorities investigated thoroughly and found them guilty of failing to meet anti-money laundering and social responsibility duties, they would have to pay the penalty. They can also go to court if they feel that the Gambling Commission is wrong.

[Hispo]

...

What are your thoughts on this?

Sure. Offshore licenses are a manner of flexibility and more freedom for casinos and bookies to carry out their business operations without being strictly bonded to a strong regulation and jurisdiction, like the United States or the United Kingdom.

If there is more freedom for them, then they undoubtedly will prefer to have those licenses.

Though, we need to remember that those licenses do not automatically mean they can offer their gambling services to all people around the world, they would need still have regional and strict licenses in order to have access to specific markets and offer gambling games and betting books to people within the European Union, the UK, the United States and other countries with strict regulation.

Thanks for the news, by the way. That is indeed a big fine.

[ZeroVinsonN]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.
What are your thoughts on this?

What exactly do you expect from casinos? They don't really care if a player loses a huge amount of money. In fact, they would be happier if the player lost everything in one day and deposited more money just to keep playing. That is simply business for them. Casinos will never be happy with strict government regulations because they know how they make their money from players. Getting a licence in the first place already puts certain restrictions on them. They would be even happier if they were not required to obtain a licence, as that would allow them to operate freely and do whatever they wanted with players' money.

People can claim that casino are preying on them all they want but the truth they keep avoiding is that signing up with a casino is a personal choice, if you are willing to gamble then you should be willing to lose money, a person can't be careless enough to lose over $200k in gambling and then blame the casino for it, i understand why the regulators do the things they do but sometimes people should be held accountable for their own actions and maybe the world will be a better place.
I have personally never seen a casino that would force a person to deposit money onto their site, with most casinos you can even close your account if you want to, but once someone gets careless everyone wants to blame the casino, we should blame the gamblers too, I don't blame the casino when I lose money to it.

[WhoYouCantKill]

If I were to lose £250,000 in just 12 days, trust me even I would question the effectiveness of the casino’s player protection measures. It’s not possible that a casino would be promoting responsible gambling and then fail to recognize the warning signs when the customers are losing such significant amount of money. Licensing should come with the obligation to closely keep an eye on risky behaviors from the gamblers and then intervene when necessary, and not just the permission to freely operate and generate revenue.

[mak013]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.

Here's the news.

What are your thoughts on this?

Gambling is a business. They don't care about users; they care about profit. Cheaper licensing, lower taxes, fewer problems with the government. If you don't think about that, your business won't succeed.
I don't like to say it here, but casinos are doing everything right. They maximize profit and don't care that they can ruin someone's life.

[Itz-prisigold]

What exactly do you expect from casinos? They don't really care if a player loses a huge amount of money. In fact, they would be happier if the player lost everything in one day and deposited more money just to keep playing. That is simply business for them. Casinos will never be happy with strict government regulations because they know how they make their money from players. Getting a licence in the first place already puts certain restrictions on them. They would be even happier if they were not required to obtain a licence, as that would allow them to operate freely and do whatever they wanted with players' money.

I totally understand your point but then again, I'm just here wondering and asking myself some of these gamblers are they being hypnotized or something? Like on a serious note, why will someone deposit money and lose it, you'll deposit again and still lose, you'll keep repeating the same thing till it result to that kind of huge amount. Like in what point where you supposed to say enough is enough and take a break? And secondly what about not going above your limit and not playing with more than you can afford to lose?  Sometimes I feel the players are also the problem here.

Don't get me wrong, this is not me saying the casino have no fault in these situations. The casino should be able to identify if someone is constantly putting in a lot of money and losing everything at the same, it's only proper for them to take some steps to intervene or suggest that they take a break. But then again I think personal responsibility is important.

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

The reason gambling sites go for offshores licensing is because the offshore license are easy to obtain, they also require small amount of fee that will be paid to obtain the license, and the annual fee is also little.

Yes, because it's cheap.

What you posted is also very true. The countries that give the license do not protect gambers.

In this case, it is said that the operator runs a lot of casinos in England. And we all know that they have a tougher regulations as far as gambling goes. And so base on what was reported, the casino didn't do any due diligence and they just allowed someone using crypto to gamble on them at will and they didn't communicate to the person and maybe stop him from gambling huge amount of money.

And another black eye is that the individual is a student and probably this compounded the issues with the casino and so they are obligated to pay that huge fine.

[Cryptomultiplier]

This is probably one of the reasons why some casinos avoid getting licensed by strict regulators, as they might end up losing a significant amount of their capital in penalties.

Just like what happened to Grosvenor Casinos, whose owner was fined £5 million after failing to meet its social responsibility obligations including a case involving a player who lost £250,000 within just 12 days without any recorded safer intervention by the casino.

Here's the news.

What are your thoughts on this?

Gambling is a business. They don't care about users; they care about profit. Cheaper licensing, lower taxes, fewer problems with the government. If you don't think about that, your business won't succeed.
I don't like to say it here, but casinos are doing everything right. They maximize profit and don't care that they can ruin someone's life.

Well, gambling companies always want to make profit obviously and when the government doesn't get its taxes or revenue from them due to failed licenses that they refuse to comply to, they punish these offshore platforms with huge fines that would enforce their compliance in the future. So instead of saving profit by going against the required license for operations, the fines would help wipe out the profit these platforms try to save and that's a pound of huge flesh that's ripped from the perceived smartness of these offshore platforms that don't reason the expense gamblers incur nor the addiction problems they face all because the casino platforms want to make huge profit by force.

[Nwada001]

How I wish every country in the world whose gambling practices are legal, regulated, and licensed had a Gambling Commission that is strict and would fine online casinos that do not follow the rules.

Only a few countries care about protecting their players from the unfair treatment of the casino; they are more concerned about taxation and other means to earn from the casino than safeguarding their own citizens, which is why those casinos can have the mind to ignore applying safety gambling procedures.

For gamblers using the names mentioned in the report, it would be wise to avoid spending too much time on those platforms, as they may get back the fine money from players/gamblers so they don't feel the losses—especially those who are playing high-risk and high-volatility games like slots.

Or maybe the casinos listed on the report will have to behave themselves on how they treat players so that they don’t get penalized for paying another fee again. Slots are already designed to favor them, so there is no point in them.

[Sim_card]

Not that I'm supporting the casinos not to implement policies that will help problem gamblers but we must understand the nature of the business they are into which means the losses of the players is their win so they prefer when players lose money because that is how they smile to the bank. Assuming the player hits a jackpot, would the regulators punish the player for winning so much within a short time?

What about casinos that prevents gamblers from withdrawal after winning huge amount of money and put it on a glitch. One thing you should know is that, gambling addiction is real and it's the duty of the casino to make sure that their customers are safe from addiction but they don't care at all. All they're after is your deposit. Do you think that these regulators don't know their duties.