This is why casinos prefer offshore license

[Fortify]

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?

That's one of the reasons, but the major reason is that these countries are often tax havens with zero or tiny corporation taxes so they only have to pay the annual license fee. Theoretically they can still be fined by the regulator or they might otherwise be added to ISP block lists if they don't pay. Another main reason is that the company owners are more able to hide in these countries and only need a representative who is willing to be named, but even those people are kept hidden by the government of these small islands. This protects the owners from overreach by tax authorities in their homeland and also targeting by criminals who might wish to steal their wealth in various different ways. You'll find that it's primarily operators based in country and with physical locations that tend to get hit hard by such penalties, but they may consider it a worthwhile cost of doing business.

[Mia Chloe]

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?

It turns out the more scarce something is the more valuable and sought after it gradually becomes and that is the reason most casinos don't get the licence from the countries they operate. Most of the time what they do is get the licence outside the country but operate in the country.

Most of the time countries that have the strictest gambling regulations and most difficult license processes are actually the ones that have the highest influx of gamblers.

[serjent05]

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.

This case will escalate to the regulatory body if the negotiation between the casino and the player fail.  They will determine whether the glitch is true or just an excuse for a casino not to pay the winner.  Sadly, people are corruptible, more likely the casino can just "gift" the regulator to win its favor.  After all, how much is the tens of millions to hundreds of millions the poor player supposedly won.

Sure, the regulator knows their duty, but the question is, do they fulfill their duty?  Most like regulator slacks off and don't actively monitor the gambling industry, and whenever there is an issue between the gambling platform and the player, regulators are willing to receive a "gift" to side with the gambling platform.

[Mr_Brilliant$]

It's not like offshore licence are useless.  You're making it seem like that. The too perform such penalties to defaulting casinos. It's just that they operate under a different jurisdiction. So such purnishement might be mild or have little effect on the casinos. I am not implying that the purnishement are not as strict as other licenses that are not offshore, just stating how the purnishement works differently.

This is just mentioning the good part because it favours the gambler. What of in a scenario whereby money is being witheld by the casino under the same licence that you are praising. Then it would be a different story of how casino's shouldn't withold withdrawer.

[AmaGold70]

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?

There is actually need for strict regulatory system in gambling, we have had of many gambling companies operating anyhow they like because they are operating illegally without proper licensing, and this also make to operate without any rules and regulation holding them. When a casino site is regulated, the operate with caution, and would like to obey every necessary rules so that they will not be charged for violations of terms and conditions. With proper regulatory system both the gambling company and the gamblers will play responsible roles to ensure there will not be any sort of gambling abuse. Sometimes, if there is not strict regulatory system in a place, people who gamble won't be protected , and when there is regulatory violations it won't be taken very seriously.

[Felicity_Tide]

What are your thoughts on this?

This is just a case where a supposed region with customer protection regulations for gambling platforms has been able to identify platforms that have failed to put their customers interests first. Well, It's not like most of these gambling platforms are going to prioritise the wellbeing of their customers over that of their companies in the first place. I don't even think a lot of companies do that these days.

And come to think of it, I couldn't find anywhere In the article where they mentioned anything about compensating the people who the regulators identified as victims... So, it's likely that the £5M is going to the regulators, which shows how messed up the whole system is. The same customers whose experiences were used to raise the case and impose a £5M fine aren't even part of the conversation when it comes to compensation. I just want to believe there's more to the story than what's in that article otherwise, it just proves that nobody including the government and regulators, actually cares about the people they claim to protect.

[Davidvictorson]

What are your thoughts on this?

I like this very much.
This is why I would always pick strict regulations over complete ban of casinos.
From the news story, the casino really deserve what they got... to many loopholes that put customers at risk.
Casinos must do their due diligences and in as much as they want to make money as a business venture, they also have an obligation to protect their customers from gambling addiction that comes from them.
More casinos should be scrutinized.
On the other hand, i wonder what the fine money would be used for.

[JoyceBTC]

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.

Absolutely true, players loosing is one of the ways they make their money which is why some of this casinos program their site mostly to be in their favour. It is business, in as much as players keep depositing and losing, it increases their chances of making more money which is their initial aim and when players win, they lose money on that particular game since they have to pay out.

[Crypto Library]

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?

I personally wouldn't just say that casinos often prefer to get an offshore license, it can't just be because they want to avoid strict regulations. What I think here is that there are many factors that matter here, such as how much you will spend to get a license and the reputation of the license provider, etc.
And in the context of the incident you mentioned, if a person from England starts a casino and gets a license from another country and later gets involved in any wrong activity, then it is natural that the government of his own country will inevitably take action against them.

[Chibit01]

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.

At least we are gradually moving to the era where regulators are working and not just focusing on what they get from the casino, but also making sure there is some level of fairness. It will take time for casinos to adopt an effective system that can flag irresponsible gambling on a player's profile and send to warning across or block the user from playing in the same way they could easily detect and suspect a player who is winning too much or is doing a suspicious play same system can be deployed to help players.

[Silverstonez]

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.

If I’m mistaken, a thread was created a few days ago by a user named joy or something similar I can’t really recall the exact username. According to the op, they were asking how casinos treat players after they have made several deposits and lost, and whether this should be a factor when reviewing a casino.  However, some casinos generally care about their customers, especially player who have lost several deposits within a short period, by offering them support, checking on their well being and encouraging responsible gambling rather than pushing them to deposit more money.

[Cityhunter34]

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.

Blaming the casino when you are not being forced to deposit on their site is absolutely something that makes someone look irresponsible. We all know that gambling involves more losses than wins, so gamblers don't need to go the extra mile in gambling because it is very simple to understand that nothing else can put you ahead of the casino.

They are there for business, and the game has already been programmed for them to benefit more than the gamblers, so why can't we follow due process and do something that wouldn't affect us negatively, instead of blaming the casino all the time?

[Queen uloma]

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.

This is business, casino makes money when players loses and continues to deposit. That’s why majority of them don’t like strict regulations that will limit how they operate. License has rules and restrictions, just imagine if they don’t need license again. That’s why it’s very essential to protect players and make sure that casinos doesn’t play with peoples money.

[Africolo]

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?

I think the casinos should also taste from the dose of their own medicine given to players because they don't really care about the emotions of the players when they loose, I understand that we can't blame the casinos for our looses because they don't force us to bet nor gamble with them but in a way they have influence on the players due to the bonuses and advertisement they do in other for people to use their casinos.

I'm glad regulators are gradually working  and not depending on the profits that they generates from the casinos so as to stay mute when things go wrong, all the casinos has been programmed for them to make profits more than the players so we shouldn't be greedy to play and forget to control ourselves. I think casinos deserves what happened because there are many loopholes and ways they scam and restrict players from making withdrawals when they win.

[Localhostspeed]

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.

I don't buy the media reports sometimes, they are bias with the reports they give. What if it's two side, some casino are very brutal with how they ignore users when they make huge amount of deposit and lose everything in one sitting but becomes active immediately they see such players make recovery of there money. Such person account will be restricted immediately if he won that amount of money but what if he has history of winning huge amount of money and they didn't intervene to stop him, not all casino are that bad plus they are licensed, they know this kind of investigations can come at anytime if they played dirty.

I'm marvel by why the country is taken action against such deposits as money laundering, there are big casino where celebrities gamble such volume under a week and they lose. I have seen drake loss that amount of money to stake casino and nobody say it's money laundering. Let's the law play fairness, maybe the case is that deep that the media is not giving everything.

[WhoYouCantKill]

At least we are gradually moving to the era where regulators are working and not just focusing on what they get from the casino, but also making sure there is some level of fairness. It will take time for casinos to adopt an effective system that can flag irresponsible gambling on a player's profile and send to warning across or block the user from playing in the same way they could easily detect and suspect a player who is winning too much or is doing a suspicious play same system can be deployed to help players.

I think the same level of monitoring that these casino use to detect suspicious winning patterns should equally be the same as at they should also use it to detect and identify potential signs of irregular and harmful gambling behavior. For instance, when a player is seen repeatedly making huge deposits more often than they usually do, or when they rapidly increase their stake and spending more time than used to. These are possible indicators and should be looked into by the casino whenever they are observed.

[9ja Amaka]

Here's the news.

What are your thoughts on this?

Grosvenor Casinos was fined because the managing company failed to comply with AML policies as agreed in the license contract. The amount of £5 million is extremely high. The amount of the fine is not appropriate, IMO.

Well, Grosvenor Casinos Limited and Gaming Group run over 51 casinos across Britain. Watchdog believes they have defaulted on the rules, possibly in all 51 casinos, and have failed to identify the risk to customers.

[Queentoshi]

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.

Maybe if more gamblers start considering the license that a casino has before gambling on the casino, that is ignoring casinos that have licenses that can be easily obtained and licenses that are not with no penalties for the casino if they break some certain regulations, then these casinos that purposely avoid licensing with strict regulators will have no choice than to obtain their license from stricter regulators forcing the regulators that easily give out their licenses before to think again and maybe add some difficulty and tougher regulations. It starts with one action from gamblers, considering the license that casinos have before gambling.

[WhoYouCantKill]

I don't buy the media reports sometimes, they are bias with the reports they give. What if it's two side, some casino are very brutal with how they ignore users when they make huge amount of deposit and lose everything in one sitting but becomes active immediately they see such players make recovery of there money. Such person account will be restricted immediately if he won that amount of money but what if he has history of winning huge amount of money and they didn't intervene to stop him, not all casino are that bad plus they are licensed, they know this kind of investigations can come at anytime if they played dirty.

I'm marvel by why the country is taken action against such deposits as money laundering, there are big casino where celebrities gamble such volume under a week and they lose. I have seen drake loss that amount of money to stake casino and nobody say it's money laundering. Let's the law play fairness, maybe the case is that deep that the media is not giving everything.

Whether the media is bias in their reporting or not, I think there’s more to the case than how much the player deposited or lost. If the casino actually allowed the player to keep on gambling even after seeing several clear signs of harm and chose to blatantly ignore those signs, then I think that alone  raises lots of questions about the casino’s responsibility, but I also believe it’s crucial to first know the full basis for the investigation before arriving at a conclusion.

Large gambling losses doesn’t automatically imply or point towards  money laundering, so the authorities should clearly explain the exact reason for their action. If we are unable to find out the full details, it’ll be difficult to really judge this in, whether it is truly the casinos that failed in their duty or not.

[Proty]

I believe saving of capital is the reason why casino may likely want to avoid strict regulations. A casino sole aim is to make profit, but they should also consider the welfare of its customers by making sure that gamblers are protected from gambling related harm.
Grosvenor casino fine of £5 million is justifiable for a gambler to have lost such amount of money within that short period shows that the casino doesn't  care about the welfare of gamblers.
Making profit shouldn't be the reason why a casino should not be bothered or choose to neglect the welfare of its customers.