09Jul

Gambling Commission Creates Interim Experts by Experience Group

9th July 2020 Bahar Alaeddini 331

On 19 June 2020, the Gambling Commission announced the creation of an interim Experts by Experience Group. The interim group “will provide advice, evidence and recommendations to the Commission to help inform decision making and raise standards, along with co-creating a permanent Experts by Experience Advisory Group to advise the regulator on a more established basis.”

An unidentified spokesperson for the interim group said:

“ comprises a group of people who have suffered a wide range of gambling harms, including recovering gambling addicts, family and partners of addicts, and those who have lost children to gambling suicides…the establishment of the group is long overdue. We are determined…to play a continuing and much more active role in the deliberations and decision making across the whole remit of the Commission as part of the National Strategy to reduce gambling harms. We bring a new and vital perspective on key issues of regulation and even how the Commission itself works.”

The interim group will be in place for at least six months, at which point the Gambling Commission plans to move to a permanent Experts by Experience Advisory Group, similar to the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling and the Digital Advisory Panel.

No terms of reference are published for the interim Experts by Experience Group and its members are not known. Names may be sensitive or confidential; however, at a minimum, the number of members, members’ backgrounds, the reason for their appointment and a register of interests should be published. Otherwise, the interim group runs the risk of being labelled a quasi-lobby group, financed and supported by the Gambling Commission.

Although it is only an interim group, plainly, it has a strong level of influence over the Gambling Commission’s work. It should, therefore, be treated no differently from the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling and the Digital Advisory Panel.

The objective bystander might wonder why the interim group’s members only comprise those who have experienced gambling harms when there are 400,000 people classified as problem gamblers and 32 million gamblers in Great Britain.

Unfortunately, the Gambling Commission’s lack of transparency detracts from the real and genuine value of the Experts by Experience Group and devalues contributions made by its members. To build a sustainable gambling industry, we could all learn and develop significantly from the work of the interim group and the experiences of its members. This requires us to work in partnership and adopt a balanced approach.

It seems the Gambling Commission has failed, again, to be transparent, balanced and independent.

07May

Remain Vigilant to Ensure AML Compliance

7th May 2020 David Whyte 363

The Gambling Commission published the fifth edition of The prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism – Guidance for remote and non-remote casinos (the “Guidance”) in January 2020. The Guidance incorporates the amendments made by the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2019 to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.

In its 2018/2019 Enforcement Report, the Gambling Commission said:

“Compliance activity and enforcement cases revealed again and again that operators’ AML policies, procedures and controls are not fit for purpose. There has been the incorrect perception that all gambling regulators’ expectations are identical in addition to a failure to digest our guidance and implement the legislative requirements applicable to Great Britain. This must change, for these are not just regulatory matters but breaches of UK law. Those failing to learn these lessons will face further draconian action.”

Despite repeated messages and enforcement cases of a similar nature, due to ongoing failings by the industry, the Gambling Commission has “continued to imposed increasingly tough financial penalties (or payments in lieu of financial penalties) in cases where there have been major AML failings in order to send a clear message to the industry.”

Operators must take heed because the Gambling Commission will continue to hold you to account for failing to adhere to the Guidance.

As we noted in our blog on 31 March 2020, the current COVID-19 crisis presents some operators with an opportunity to ease regulatory and commercial burdens.

Operators should ensure that they have implemented all changes required following the update to the Guidance and take note of the Gambling Commission’s statement that:

“…the publication of this updated guidance must result in casino businesses reviewing, and accordingly amending, their money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments as well as the associated policies, procedures and controls…”

Customer due diligence

Paragraphs 6.16 and 6.17 of the Guidance specify that, for the purposes of CDD (as required by Regulation 28), verify means verifying on the basis of documents or information which, in either case, have been obtained from a reliable source which is independent of the person whose identity is being verified. In addition to documents issued or made available by an official body made available by a customer themselves, information may be regarded as meeting this requirement if:

it is obtained by means of an electronic identification process (by using electronic identification means or by using a trust service); and
that process is secure from fraud and misuse and capable of providing an appropriate level of assurance that the person claiming a particular identity is, in fact, the person with that identity.

Enhanced customer due diligence and enhanced ongoing monitoring

There are now further requirements for EDD measures and/or an assessment of whether there is a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing (which, if identified, would require EDD measures) where:

in relation to any transaction where there is a requirement apply CDD measures, either of the parties to the transaction are established in a high-risk third country;
a transaction is complex or unusually large, there are unusual patterns of transactions, or the transactions have no apparent economic or legal purpose;
the customer is the beneficiary of a life insurance policy; or
the customer is a third country national who is applying for residence rights in or citizenship of an EEA state in exchange for transfers of capital, purchase of a property, government bonds or investment in corporate entities in that EEA state.

Other changes

Other changes to the Guidance include changes to the risk-based approach, risk assessments, risk-based CDD and new flow diagrams showing the Architecture for the risk-based process (figure 2) and The risk framework and risk-based customer due diligence (figure 3). These highlight the requirement that licensed casino operators:

take appropriate measures in preparation for, and during, the adoption of new products or business practices, and assess and mitigate any money laundering risks arising from such adoption, in addition to the existing and similar requirement for new technology, including cryptocurrencies (Regulation 19(4));
have specific policies, procedures and controls for the measures described above (Regulation 19(1) and (2)); and
take appropriate measures to ensure that any agents used by operators, for the purposes of their business, are given appropriate training in AML and CTF (Regulation 24).

Factors to consider

The new requirements can be addressed by:

reviewing money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments now, and each time a new product or business practice is introduced;
reviewing AML/CTF policies, procedures and controls to ensure that the Guidance has been considered;
ensuring that all employees are appropriately trained and understand the changes; and
amending contractual clauses and training procedures to ensure that agents are appropriately trained.

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised, please do get in touch with us.

14Apr

Gambling Commission Business Plan 2020-2021

14th April 2020 Francesca Burnett-Hall 336

In the midst of the Coronavirus crisis and national lockdown, the Gambling Commission pushed ahead and published its annual business plan for 2020-2021 on 1 April 2020. Clearly, the business plan was prepared before recent events, but Neil McArthur’s foreword heavily referenced current circumstances, including observing an immediate increase in participation in online gambling.

The Gambling Commission did not shy away from reaffirming its commitment to tackling gambling-related harm and holding operators to account by, “if necessary, using powers to suspend and revoke operating and personal licences”.

The business plan outlined five key priority areas, whilst making it clear that “verything do is centred around making gambling safer, balancing the enjoyment people get from gambling and identifying the risks that gambling can present to consumers and the wider public.” These five priorities are:

1. Protecting the interests of customers

Focusing on new regulatory requirements to make gambling safer, specifically in relation to VIP/high value customers, responsible game and product design and advertising technology. This follows the recent work of the industry working groups, which we wrote about in our blog on 2 April 2020.

The Gambling Commission will also advise the Secretary of State on the Government’s review of the Gambling Act 2005.

2. Preventing gambling harm to consumers and the public

Topping the Gambling Commission’s list is the intention to establish, by Q2, an ‘Experts by Experience’ Advisory Board, which will “ensure that the voice of consumers, particularly those who have experienced harm, fully informs decisions right at the heart of the Commission.” Industry reception to this initiative has been mixed, with Peter Hannibal of GBG describing it as “scary” amid concerns over the potential for a lack of representation from experts whose experience of gambling is positive. John White of BACTA is more welcoming of the initiative, but only if a wide range of players are the experts, not just those who have experienced problems. No details have been published regarding the Board’s constitution.

The Gambling Commission will also publish an evaluation of its actions to reduce the risk of harm to children and young people, and will review the way that it measures participation in, and prevalence of, gambling.

Finally, Neil McArthur mentioned in his foreword the single customer view initiative, which, with the use of technology, will aim to tackle the challenge “where operators currently only have a partial view of a customer’s behaviour.” This follows a two-day event on this subject on 11 and 12 February 2020. Further details are available here.

3. Raising standards in the gambling market

Raising standards by protecting against threats to betting integrity, developing an improved test-house assurance framework, implementing the Fifth Money Laundering Regulations, and delivering industry events and initiatives to raise standards.

It also intends to make online gambling safer by undertaking targeted action to improve standards in the remote gambling sector, which hints at the Gambling Commission shifting its focus in relation to its regulatory investigations and enforcement action.

4. Optimising returns to good causes from lotteries

The current National Lottery licence, held by Camelot UK Lotteries Limited, ends in 2023. A key priority for the Gambling Commission is the fourth National Lottery licence competition and “finding the right operator, who will innovate to engage players and protect them, run the National Lottery with integrity and continue maximising returns to good causes to benefit society.”

5. Improving the way it regulates

We very much welcome the Gambling Commission’s intention to improve accessibility to its:

digital services, such as eServices; and
often painfully slow and inefficient online application system.

How the Gambling Commission expects to achieve this when it is also considering reducing its staff headcount (as reported by the Guardian) is yet to be seen, but we remain hopeful.

It also plans to establish the case for changes to its fees and advise DCMS accordingly (this will no doubt mean increased fees!) and publish clearer documentation on its corporate governance process.

Given the global uncertainty caused by the pandemic, target dates may be subject to change. The Gambling Commission intends to review the position at the end of Q1, and revise the business plan, where necessary.

Nevertheless, the industry has been warned: “Those who fail to meet expectations will find approach to enforcement getting even tougher than it has been to date.” Given that we have seen the Gambling Commission’s enforcement work (and financial penalties) increase steadily over the last few years, operators would be wise not to view this as an empty threat.

03Apr

No Love in the Time of Coronavirus

3rd April 2020 Julian Harris 379

On 1 April 2020 the Gambling Commission published its annual business plan for 2020-2021. Inevitably this was drafted prior to the onset of the Coronavirus crisis and the ensuing shutdown of all land-based gaming in the UK, although the Gambling Commission has said that it will review the plan at the end of the first quarter, and publish a revised plan if considered appropriate.

In our blog last week I expressed disappointment at the Gambling Commission’s response to the current crisis and suggested a number of measures that complete shutdown of all venues, mass furloughing, redundancies, coupled with continuing costs and zero revenue. Aside from arcane activities such as Russian table tennis there is no mainstream sport on which to offer bets, so the online industry is also affected to a considerable extent.

No such measures have been adopted by the Gambling Commission. Instead, there has been a series of warnings issued to the industry, including a message from Neil McArthur, the CEO, on 25 March 2020. Whilst recognising the impact on the industry of the crisis and referring to a planned assessment of that by the Gambling Commission, in common with his foreword to the business plan, Neil McArthur refers to evidence of an increase in online slots, poker, casino gaming and virtual sports. This is followed by a warning which in effect summarises operators’ obligations under the law and regulations, following the phrase “I want to make the Commission’s expectations absolutely clear”. As regulator, it is perhaps timely to remind operators of their responsibilities. However, while the negative inference here is that there is an increase in gambling overall, the reality is more likely that there is a spike in those products which remain available online, which is more than matched by the disappearance entirely of many others, and the closure of land-based venues.

Similarly, in his foreword to the business plan, Neil McArthur states: “gambling related harm must be drastically reduced”. It is well known that the levels have been static for many years; in fact, they have slightly reduced over the past 10 years. Of course, in an ideal world, no-one would be harmed by gambling. The numbers should be reduced, which is, on any view a laudable aspiration, given we are talking about 400,000 people. Unfortunately, the suggestion that gambling harm must be “drastically” reduced is not only also probably unrealistic, it suggests that it is out of control, which it is not. Once again, this statement risks harming the reputation of the industry and the level of public confidence in it, at a time when the future of certain sectors is in doubt.

The foreword continues with a statement that if operators cannot protect customers from harm the Gambling Commission will suspend and revoke licences. This is standard fayre, but once again the Gambling Commission has expressed its intention to “get even tougher”. This is an indication of an even stricter approach to enforcement. We believe that this may mean even higher financial penalties, fewer regulatory settlements, with more referrals to regulatory panel and possibly more licence revocations in the most serious cases. Most importantly, licensees should be prepared for many more suspensions of licences at the beginning of the enforcement process.

There is a good news story to note. Following collaboration between three industry working groups, the Gambling Commission and the Betting and Gaming Council (the “BGC”), the UK industry has agreed to a series of safer gambling measures, including:

to ensure that VIP players are over 25 and subjected to spending, safer gambling and enhanced due diligence checks;
to set a minimum 2.5-second spin speed on all slots by September 2020 and remove addictive features, such as slam stops and turbo buttons, as well as split-screen features; and
to improve its use of customer data to target advertisements on social media away from vulnerable groups, rather than towards potential customers, as well as creating media only primarily attractive to those over the age of 25.

In their announcement of this development, reported in more detail in our blog yesterday, the Gambling Commission have welcomed the progress made by collaboration with industry, with encouraging and positive remarks about significant progress. There is always more to do, as indeed the BGC acknowledge.

However, the Gambling Commission has accompanied their announcement with comments from Neil McArthur which has in effect downgraded the good news aspect and undermined the good work done by the industry and the new BGC by stating that: “the proposals do not go far enough and we will now consider what additional measures we should impose on operators.” So instead of accepting that this first collaboration has been successful, the industry is pilloried yet again. This further encourages public opprobrium and demonstrates the degree of responsibility that lies with the regulator for the public perception of gambling. It is then followed by another unnecessary threat that risks reputational harm: “Ultimately actions speak louder than words and any operator that does not put consumer safety first will find itself a target for enforcement action.” These remarks dominate and destroy the positives, calling into question whether in such attempted collaboration the Gambling Commission can be regarded as a trusted partner.

This is profoundly disappointing. When even a good news story is translated into further criticism of the industry and threat of enforcement action in relation to new agreed measures not yet even in force, one has to question whether the Gambling Commission has joined the ranks of the anti-gambling lobby. Of course, it should encourage further collaboration with a view to having a well-regulated industry that protects its consumers and the wider public, and take a firm line against those who do not comply with their obligations. But it is not the job of any regulator to wage a publicity campaign against an entire industry. Indeed, to do so, particularly in the midst of a crisis, and as a result continually erode public confidence in the industry, is not only improper, it is likely to raise questions about confidence in the Gambling Commission as regulator.

The Gambling Commission’s own Statement of principles for licensing and regulation requires the Gambling Commission to regulate gambling in accordance with the Regulators’ code “in a supportive, straightforward, risk-based and transparent manner”. In the current crisis, in its recent actions and publications there is little evidence of it being supportive or straightforward. Those on the receiving end of its enforcement action may also question its transparency. It is certainly taking a novel approach to the “need to maintain public confidence in the gambling industry”, as it is obliged to do.

For regulation to be effective it requires a healthy and collaborative working relationship between regulator and those whom it regulates. Playing to the gallery, the press and those who would abolish gambling risks creating an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion. The Gambling Commission justifiably wants to make gambling fair and safe for all to enjoy. Progress can be made more effectively and speedily by developing the sort of measures just announced in working together with the industry and those who represent it. If, however the industry cannot trust the Gambling Commission to approach such cooperation in good faith, then the future is bleak.

A more detailed blog on the Gambling Commission’s new business plan will follow next week.

Gambling Regulation

Gambling Commission Creates Interim Experts by Experience Group

Remain Vigilant to Ensure AML Compliance

Gambling Commission Business Plan 2020-2021

No Love in the Time of Coronavirus