The Czech Republic is in the process of introducing a new gambling bill that would impose stricter regulations involving a variety of issues, including slot machine placements, betting limits, and tax revenues.
Czech Republic details new gambling billFinance Minister Andrej Babis unveiled details of the bill, which also includes a provision to create a database of gamblers to monitor their betting habits. The European country has been actively trying to curb cases of excessive gambling among its residents. Municipalities across the country have implemented their own regulations. On Thursday, Finance Minister Andrej Babis unveiled the details of a first comprehensive bill aimed to implement stricter rules and regulations for the industry.
A big part of these new regulations includes removing slot machines from regular pubs and bars and exclusively putting them in specialized bars and casinos. The Finance Ministry also plans to create a central monitoring system that would oversee all gambling operations in real time, while also creating a database of gamblers that will allow the ministry to intervene in “high-risk” gambling cases.
“We would also like to introduce principles of responsible gambling, establishing maximum hourly and monthly bet limits,” Babis said. “On top of that, we want to prevent certain groups of people from gambling. These include gambling addicts undergoing treatment or those who owe money either to their families or to the state.”
Gamblers and regular sports bettors will all be required to register in the aforementioned database, which will be linked to other registries in the country.
The proposed gambling bill would adhere to current EU rules on gambling, thus allowing the country to open its arms to online gambling operators who may want to nether the Czech market.
This part of the new bill is important because only five domestic bookmakers, including Fortuna Entertainment Group dominate the Czech gambling market. The current legislation bans any foreign online betting shops from catering to the market unless they also have physical betting shops in place.
However, the country is now realizing the missed revenue potential of the existing legislation. For one, the country doesn’t get tax revenues by not allowing foreign gaming operators to enter the market
“Users currently bet abroad, which several foreign companies make easier by introducing sites in Czech,” Deputy Finance Minister Ondrej Zavodsky told Reuters. “According to our estimates, the state misses out on more than 1 billion crowns a year in this segment.”
The bill is expected to be passed around to other government agencies before reaching the Lower House and could take effect in the early part of 2016.
October 14, 2014
October 13, 2014
Casino rule 1: the house always wins
Crockfords in Curzon Street is one of my favourite casinos, redolent with clickety chips and glittering history. Its name comes from the old 19th-century gaming house on St James’s, set up by William Crockford: a Cockney fishmonger who was such a talented gambler that he made enough money to open his own club and bankrupt half the aristocracy. My kind of guy.
American gambling history glows with the seedy glamour of saloons and riverboats, cowboys slicing and dicing their way across the outlaw south with big guns and marked decks. The British equivalents were the old racecourses where dukes and dustmen bet and cursed together, and the marble gaming halls where Regency dandies went skint.
I find this all romantic; I can’t help it. Even though what I mostly do, these days, is play respectable and regulated poker tournaments in rented conference centres full of young German maths graduates, I try to let this quirky cultural history add some colour.
I’m particularly fond of Crockfords because, when I wrote my gambling memoir For Richer For Poorer, they let me hold the book launch there. Everyone was very nice. I liked them. And it’s a beautiful club. I hope I don’t have my membership revoked for what I’m about to write.
Last week’s story about Phil Ivey, who sued Crockfords for non-payment of a £7.7m punto banco win, reminded me that casinos are – and will always be – the enemy.
Ivey, probably the greatest poker player in the world, had been “edge sorting”. This involves noticing when a deck of cards has an asymmetrical pattern, then turning key cards upside-down so they can be identified from the back. In punto banco, the player has a big edge if the first card dealt is a 6, 7, 8 or 9 – so, if Ivey could turn those cards upside down, he’d know when to make big bets.
In Crockfords, you aren’t allowed to touch the cards. So Ivey’s lady companion, Cheung Yin Sun, asked the unwitting croupier, in Mandarin, to turn the cards “for superstitious reasons”.
Phil Ivey won £7.7m but, realising what had happened, Crockfords paid out only his original stake. So he sued them for his winnings and lost.
The judge ruled that Ivey was cheating. I see a sting – maybe a con – but I’d say the house was outwitted rather than cheated.
The late gambling legend Amarillo Slim once bet the 1939 Wimbledon champion Bobby Riggs that he could beat him at ping-pong. When the match day dawned, the old-time gambler surprised the tennis champ by unveiling the “bats” he’d brought: two cast-iron cooking skillets. Slim had been practising with the skillets for months. Riggs could barely hold them. The tennis whizz thought he’d had a big edge in the coup, but he was wrong. He paid out and learned from his mistake.
Titanic Thompson once bet a guy that he could work out how many watermelons were piled on a passing truck, by sight alone. The guy had no idea that Thompson had met the truck driver the previous day, counted the watermelons and paid him to drive past at an agreed time. The guy paid out and learned from his mistake.
Phil Ivey himself, a few years ago, lost several thousand dollars playing golf against a couple of British poker players. One of the Brits made the mistake of boasting widely that Ivey was “a golf fish”. The proud American went away, took lessons, played obsessively, then came back and (claiming he’d “hardly played”) suggested upping the stakes. He won a million dollars.
Some argued that it was cheating not to declare a changed handicap. Others replied that this was not an official match; Ivey had been taken for a mug, so he mugged his opponents in return.
Why should casinos be exempt from the traps that face all gamblers? They hustle in their own ways, after all. No windows or clocks, so we lose a sense of time. Free drinks; friendly dealers; no open declaration of their statistical advantage. If they think you’re going to lose a fortune (as they did in Ivey’s case), they will pander to your “superstitions”, whether it’s providing a Mandarin-speaking dealer or flipping cards around. It’s all about making you feel important, to ensure you keep betting your money at unfavourable odds. They make you feel “lucky” when you don’t have a chance.
Ivey interfered with the run of play. That is one definition of cheating; the judge accepted it and I can see why. But my heart says he was just cleverer than the house.
He didn’t smuggle in a set of loaded dice or x-ray specs; he didn’t mark the cards with his fingernails or bribe the staff. He just spotted something about the deck they didn’t spot. He exploited their readiness to give him special treatment because they anticipated fat losses. I believe the casino should have ground its teeth, tipped its hat, paid £7.7m for the lesson and stopped using asymmetrical cards.
I play poker, a game where there is no edge but the luck of the deal and the skill of the player. Casino games such as roulette, blackjack, baccarat, slot machines and so on, are stacked in favour of the house. But don’t hustle the hustler: a judge has said that simply isn’t allowed. If you want to gamble on licensed premises, you just have to bend over and take it.
We all dream of “a system” to break the bank at Monte Carlo. What neater way to illustrate the muggery of that dream, what handier Belloc-like lesson, than a court’s official ruling: if you actually come up with such a system, they don’t have to pay you.
American gambling history glows with the seedy glamour of saloons and riverboats, cowboys slicing and dicing their way across the outlaw south with big guns and marked decks. The British equivalents were the old racecourses where dukes and dustmen bet and cursed together, and the marble gaming halls where Regency dandies went skint.
I find this all romantic; I can’t help it. Even though what I mostly do, these days, is play respectable and regulated poker tournaments in rented conference centres full of young German maths graduates, I try to let this quirky cultural history add some colour.
I’m particularly fond of Crockfords because, when I wrote my gambling memoir For Richer For Poorer, they let me hold the book launch there. Everyone was very nice. I liked them. And it’s a beautiful club. I hope I don’t have my membership revoked for what I’m about to write.
Ivey, probably the greatest poker player in the world, had been “edge sorting”. This involves noticing when a deck of cards has an asymmetrical pattern, then turning key cards upside-down so they can be identified from the back. In punto banco, the player has a big edge if the first card dealt is a 6, 7, 8 or 9 – so, if Ivey could turn those cards upside down, he’d know when to make big bets.
In Crockfords, you aren’t allowed to touch the cards. So Ivey’s lady companion, Cheung Yin Sun, asked the unwitting croupier, in Mandarin, to turn the cards “for superstitious reasons”.
Phil Ivey won £7.7m but, realising what had happened, Crockfords paid out only his original stake. So he sued them for his winnings and lost.
The judge ruled that Ivey was cheating. I see a sting – maybe a con – but I’d say the house was outwitted rather than cheated.
The late gambling legend Amarillo Slim once bet the 1939 Wimbledon champion Bobby Riggs that he could beat him at ping-pong. When the match day dawned, the old-time gambler surprised the tennis champ by unveiling the “bats” he’d brought: two cast-iron cooking skillets. Slim had been practising with the skillets for months. Riggs could barely hold them. The tennis whizz thought he’d had a big edge in the coup, but he was wrong. He paid out and learned from his mistake.
Titanic Thompson once bet a guy that he could work out how many watermelons were piled on a passing truck, by sight alone. The guy had no idea that Thompson had met the truck driver the previous day, counted the watermelons and paid him to drive past at an agreed time. The guy paid out and learned from his mistake.
Phil Ivey himself, a few years ago, lost several thousand dollars playing golf against a couple of British poker players. One of the Brits made the mistake of boasting widely that Ivey was “a golf fish”. The proud American went away, took lessons, played obsessively, then came back and (claiming he’d “hardly played”) suggested upping the stakes. He won a million dollars.
Some argued that it was cheating not to declare a changed handicap. Others replied that this was not an official match; Ivey had been taken for a mug, so he mugged his opponents in return.
Why should casinos be exempt from the traps that face all gamblers? They hustle in their own ways, after all. No windows or clocks, so we lose a sense of time. Free drinks; friendly dealers; no open declaration of their statistical advantage. If they think you’re going to lose a fortune (as they did in Ivey’s case), they will pander to your “superstitions”, whether it’s providing a Mandarin-speaking dealer or flipping cards around. It’s all about making you feel important, to ensure you keep betting your money at unfavourable odds. They make you feel “lucky” when you don’t have a chance.
Ivey interfered with the run of play. That is one definition of cheating; the judge accepted it and I can see why. But my heart says he was just cleverer than the house.
He didn’t smuggle in a set of loaded dice or x-ray specs; he didn’t mark the cards with his fingernails or bribe the staff. He just spotted something about the deck they didn’t spot. He exploited their readiness to give him special treatment because they anticipated fat losses. I believe the casino should have ground its teeth, tipped its hat, paid £7.7m for the lesson and stopped using asymmetrical cards.
I play poker, a game where there is no edge but the luck of the deal and the skill of the player. Casino games such as roulette, blackjack, baccarat, slot machines and so on, are stacked in favour of the house. But don’t hustle the hustler: a judge has said that simply isn’t allowed. If you want to gamble on licensed premises, you just have to bend over and take it.
We all dream of “a system” to break the bank at Monte Carlo. What neater way to illustrate the muggery of that dream, what handier Belloc-like lesson, than a court’s official ruling: if you actually come up with such a system, they don’t have to pay you.
UK Government to stop unemployed from gambling
The UK governments work and pension Minister Iain Duncan Smith has announced at the recent Conservative Party Conference that benefits for the unemployed and poor will receive per-paid cards instead of cash to limit in what he called problems with addictions such as gambling and drugs.
In a trial period for a select number of claimants the Minister said that pre-paid cards would stop people using the money to gamble and other addictive devices and make them spend the money on getting them back to work and providing for the family.
Mr Duncan Smith said that for a ‘significant’ number of people on benefits, the struggle to manage their household finances makes it harder for them to buy the essentials and to look for work.
At the conference he said: ‘I have long believed that where parents have fallen into a damaging spiral – drug, alcohol or gambling addiction, even problem debt, or more – we need to find ways to safeguard them – and more importantly, their families, their children, ensuring their basic needs are met.
‘That means benefits paid should go to support the wellbeing of their families, not to feed their destructive habits.
‘I can announce that I am testing prepaid cards, onto which we will make benefit payments, so that the money they receive is spent on the needs of the family – finally helping break the cycle of poverty for families on the margins, change we can be proud of.’
Under the new plan a trial of claimants in the north of the country will be issued with the pre-paid cards.
The government claims that families will be able to ‘take more control over their finances’ if they are restricted in what they can buy or use the funds for.
In this way people will be unable to buy alcohol, drugs and gamble but making the cards compatible only with a limited number of retailers.
Should the trial scheme work then it is planned to be rolled out across the whole country by 2018.
In a trial period for a select number of claimants the Minister said that pre-paid cards would stop people using the money to gamble and other addictive devices and make them spend the money on getting them back to work and providing for the family.
Mr Duncan Smith said that for a ‘significant’ number of people on benefits, the struggle to manage their household finances makes it harder for them to buy the essentials and to look for work.
At the conference he said: ‘I have long believed that where parents have fallen into a damaging spiral – drug, alcohol or gambling addiction, even problem debt, or more – we need to find ways to safeguard them – and more importantly, their families, their children, ensuring their basic needs are met.
‘That means benefits paid should go to support the wellbeing of their families, not to feed their destructive habits.
‘I can announce that I am testing prepaid cards, onto which we will make benefit payments, so that the money they receive is spent on the needs of the family – finally helping break the cycle of poverty for families on the margins, change we can be proud of.’
Under the new plan a trial of claimants in the north of the country will be issued with the pre-paid cards.
The government claims that families will be able to ‘take more control over their finances’ if they are restricted in what they can buy or use the funds for.
In this way people will be unable to buy alcohol, drugs and gamble but making the cards compatible only with a limited number of retailers.
Should the trial scheme work then it is planned to be rolled out across the whole country by 2018.
Japan WILL allow locals to gamble
It seems that the Japanese parliament have changed their minds on the possibility of casino resorts in the country being only open to overseas tourists. In a report from Reuters the news agency is now quoting that the Integrated Resorts Promotion Bill will now allow Japanese nationals to gamble.
With the new bill expected to become law in early 2015 there were fears that the government and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was considering to ban locals from gambling within the casinos to appease opposition parties to get the bill through parliament.
However with Japan only attracting some 10 million tourists per year in a country that has 128 million residents many foreign casino operators would not have been interested investing had that law been brought in.
Indeed with Macau the world’s largest gambling hub seeing nearly 30 million visitors per year the prospect then of operators investing the $10 billion or more building the casino resorts in Japan was more unlikely.
If that were to be the case, it would be a “tremendous missed opportunity,” said Jim Murren, chief executive of MGM Resorts International earlier this year.
It now seems that the law allowing for casino resorts to be built before the 2020 Tokyo Olympics will allow local gamblers along with foreign visitors.
With the new bill expected to become law in early 2015 there were fears that the government and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was considering to ban locals from gambling within the casinos to appease opposition parties to get the bill through parliament.
However with Japan only attracting some 10 million tourists per year in a country that has 128 million residents many foreign casino operators would not have been interested investing had that law been brought in.
Indeed with Macau the world’s largest gambling hub seeing nearly 30 million visitors per year the prospect then of operators investing the $10 billion or more building the casino resorts in Japan was more unlikely.
If that were to be the case, it would be a “tremendous missed opportunity,” said Jim Murren, chief executive of MGM Resorts International earlier this year.
It now seems that the law allowing for casino resorts to be built before the 2020 Tokyo Olympics will allow local gamblers along with foreign visitors.
Over 7,000 Chinese officials punished for gambling offenses
China’s attempts to crackdown on illegal gambling activities has resulted in thousands of government officials getting punished for offenses related to illegal gambling since the belt-tightening began in the middle of last year.
The Shanghai Daily quoted a central government reporting that 7,162 officials were punished for their involvement in illegal gambling activities from more than 30 cities and provinces in China. Of these locations, the Zhejiang and Guangdong provinces reported the most cases with the former accounting for 1,575 cases and the latter having 1,127 cases. No details were released on the severity of the punishments but reports suggested that officials were given anywhere from warnings to administrative punishments.
The report puts weight on separate incidents wherein Chinese government officials made headlines in the past for their gambling foibles, including officials who were alleged to have taken bribes “by being allowed to win” at mahjong by gambling owners. In China, it’s a common practice, especially in the Guizhou province, as a way of winning “favors” and preferential treatment for potential business dealings in the future.
Back in May, a deputy director from Liuzhou’s social security management office was also arrested over allegations that he pocketed 3 million yuan in public funds just to pay off his losing bets on soccer. A similar case was also reported in Guangxi’s Liangjiang Town wherein Finance Office Director Lu Shengle allegedly siphoned off 3.23 million in government money to pay his own gambling debts.
Then there’s the case in Fotang Town in Zhejiang’s Yiwu City where a village official is currently under investigation over allegations that he has more than 4 million yuan in debts in Macau, following a suicide attempt in late September.
All these punishments of government officials has come at a time when the country has aggressively pushed its anti-corruption campaign. Since gambling is illegal anywhere in China except Macau, government officials who have engaged in illegal gambling in the past are now being put on blast, front and center, to answer for their alleged misgivings.
The Shanghai Daily quoted a central government reporting that 7,162 officials were punished for their involvement in illegal gambling activities from more than 30 cities and provinces in China. Of these locations, the Zhejiang and Guangdong provinces reported the most cases with the former accounting for 1,575 cases and the latter having 1,127 cases. No details were released on the severity of the punishments but reports suggested that officials were given anywhere from warnings to administrative punishments.
The report puts weight on separate incidents wherein Chinese government officials made headlines in the past for their gambling foibles, including officials who were alleged to have taken bribes “by being allowed to win” at mahjong by gambling owners. In China, it’s a common practice, especially in the Guizhou province, as a way of winning “favors” and preferential treatment for potential business dealings in the future.
Back in May, a deputy director from Liuzhou’s social security management office was also arrested over allegations that he pocketed 3 million yuan in public funds just to pay off his losing bets on soccer. A similar case was also reported in Guangxi’s Liangjiang Town wherein Finance Office Director Lu Shengle allegedly siphoned off 3.23 million in government money to pay his own gambling debts.
Then there’s the case in Fotang Town in Zhejiang’s Yiwu City where a village official is currently under investigation over allegations that he has more than 4 million yuan in debts in Macau, following a suicide attempt in late September.
All these punishments of government officials has come at a time when the country has aggressively pushed its anti-corruption campaign. Since gambling is illegal anywhere in China except Macau, government officials who have engaged in illegal gambling in the past are now being put on blast, front and center, to answer for their alleged misgivings.
Ladbrokes to introduce new atmosphere creation techniques to London stores
Ladbrokes Retail management is planning to test artificial turf and “scent atmosphere” to select high street stores as the bookmaker aims to differentiate its retail division from competitors. Ladbrokes will look to recreate the feeling of the old fashioned football terraces in-store.
Ladbrokes is working on its in-store ambiance project with commercial design agency Fitch London. The changes will look to implement new design features, aimed at improving social atmosphere and customer engagement within its stores.
Ladbrokes retail management, announced that the new layouts would be tested in select London stores, after a trial period management would than assess whether to implement these changes throughout its UK retail operations.
Design agency Fitch London has worked on numerous commercial retail projects including M&M’s World, Adidas Stores and Swarovski London stores. The agency will look to apply its commercial expertise in order to engage a positive response from Ladbrokes retail customers.
Chris Robson, the Group Property and Procurement Director of Ladbrokes commented on the project: “The new shop layout and customer strategy aims to differentiate Ladbrokes from the normal traditional format of the betting shop.”
In June 2015, Ladbrokes retail management announced a revamp of in-store facilities throughout its UK operations. Ladbrokes stores would use interactive screens showing the latest sports results, and would have access to free WiFi and phone charging stations. Furthermore tea and coffee machines would also be installed as the bookmaker looked to improve in-store atmosphere and customer engagement.
Ladbrokes is working on its in-store ambiance project with commercial design agency Fitch London. The changes will look to implement new design features, aimed at improving social atmosphere and customer engagement within its stores.
Ladbrokes retail management, announced that the new layouts would be tested in select London stores, after a trial period management would than assess whether to implement these changes throughout its UK retail operations.
Design agency Fitch London has worked on numerous commercial retail projects including M&M’s World, Adidas Stores and Swarovski London stores. The agency will look to apply its commercial expertise in order to engage a positive response from Ladbrokes retail customers.
Chris Robson, the Group Property and Procurement Director of Ladbrokes commented on the project: “The new shop layout and customer strategy aims to differentiate Ladbrokes from the normal traditional format of the betting shop.”
In June 2015, Ladbrokes retail management announced a revamp of in-store facilities throughout its UK operations. Ladbrokes stores would use interactive screens showing the latest sports results, and would have access to free WiFi and phone charging stations. Furthermore tea and coffee machines would also be installed as the bookmaker looked to improve in-store atmosphere and customer engagement.
Unibet adds UK Twitter age verification monitor
Unibet are the latest sports betting operator to strengthen its player protection initiatives by launching an age verification monitor to its English language Twitter feed.
The European sports betting operator announced that its English Twitter followers would be required to enter their date of birth in order to follow the operators Twitter feed, latest news and player promotions.
Unibet management have followed the same player protection initiatives undertaken by UK operators William Hill and Gala Coral, who in September announced that age verification monitors would be implemented throughout their social media channels.
At present Unibet has over 19,000 Twitter followers on its English language twitter account. The operator has launched the new Twitter initiative to coincide with upcoming changes to UK online gambling laws, as Unibet Plc aims to promote responsible gaming and player safety measures throughout its betting operations.
Unibet management confirmed the operator will monitor engagement on social media channels to ensure that the operator does not engage and communicate with underage users.
The European sports betting operator announced that its English Twitter followers would be required to enter their date of birth in order to follow the operators Twitter feed, latest news and player promotions.
Unibet management have followed the same player protection initiatives undertaken by UK operators William Hill and Gala Coral, who in September announced that age verification monitors would be implemented throughout their social media channels.
At present Unibet has over 19,000 Twitter followers on its English language twitter account. The operator has launched the new Twitter initiative to coincide with upcoming changes to UK online gambling laws, as Unibet Plc aims to promote responsible gaming and player safety measures throughout its betting operations.
Unibet management confirmed the operator will monitor engagement on social media channels to ensure that the operator does not engage and communicate with underage users.
October 09, 2014
Japan casinos could be foreign gamblers only
The Japanese lower house of parliament which is currently debating the casino bill that would allow casino resorts in the country for the first time ever, is now considering to amend the bill to only allow foreigners to enter and not locals.
According to media reports from Japan the chairman of a bipartisan grouping of lawmakers set up to handle the Integrate Resorts Promotion bill suggested it might be watered down to make such resorts for foreigners-only.
It is believed that by doing so would gain the support of minority political parties that are currently opposing the gambling bill. Letting just overseas players in initially would mean there is no risk of gambling related issues such as problem gambling.
However this possibility even in the short to medium term of casino resorts opening would severely impact on international casino operators spending the billions they said they would given that the whole nation on which they have casino resorts are not allowed to enter.
In Singapore where they currently have this model of overseas gamblers only allowed the market is worth $2.7 billion in revenues per year, analysts believe that figure could be four times higher is locals were allowed to gamble.
Should Japan decide to go down the foreign gambler only route all the casino operators some offering $10 billion to build a casino resort would certainly water down those estimates on construction given the lower revenues generated by just overseas gamblers.
According to media reports from Japan the chairman of a bipartisan grouping of lawmakers set up to handle the Integrate Resorts Promotion bill suggested it might be watered down to make such resorts for foreigners-only.
It is believed that by doing so would gain the support of minority political parties that are currently opposing the gambling bill. Letting just overseas players in initially would mean there is no risk of gambling related issues such as problem gambling.
However this possibility even in the short to medium term of casino resorts opening would severely impact on international casino operators spending the billions they said they would given that the whole nation on which they have casino resorts are not allowed to enter.
In Singapore where they currently have this model of overseas gamblers only allowed the market is worth $2.7 billion in revenues per year, analysts believe that figure could be four times higher is locals were allowed to gamble.
Should Japan decide to go down the foreign gambler only route all the casino operators some offering $10 billion to build a casino resort would certainly water down those estimates on construction given the lower revenues generated by just overseas gamblers.
October 08, 2014
Singapore remote gambling bill will ban casino and poker, allow social games
Singapore’s remote gambling bill passed its second reading in Parliament on Tuesday, despite spirited opposition from a group of lawmakers who say the bill’s restrictions don’t go far enough.
The bill, introduced in September, would restrict online gambling to those operators licensed by the state. License eligibility would be limited to Singapore-based operators who contribute a portion of their proceeds to local charitable and/or social causes. The bill also calls for punitive measures against operators of sites not holding a Singapore license, as well as anyone acting as an agent or other promotional capacity for such sites, and even for these sites’ customers.
Second Minister for Home Affairs S. Iswaran (pictured) told Parliament the bill would keep a tight lid on the types of betting licensed operators would be able to offer. Casino-style games and poker were singled out as examples of betting that won’t be tolerated. But Iswaran downplayed fears that the bill’s broad language would restrict Singaporeans’ ability to play online social games, saying such games would not fall within the bill’s scope so long as players “cannot convert in-game credits or tokens for money or real merchandise outside the game.”
Parliamentary critics suggested the government was sending a mixed message by allowing exemptions to the remote gambling ban. Companies like the Singapore Pools sports betting monopoly and its pari-mutuel race betting equivalent Turf Club are expected to apply for new remote gambling licenses. Singapore Pools currently allows remote betting only via telephone while the Turf Club permits wagering via smartphones.
Iswaran referenced both companies as evidence that Singapore knew what it was doing by granting limited exemptions to gambling prohibitions. Iswaran said the bill was introduced “not because we wish to promote it or condone” remote gambling but to maintain “an ecosystem that minimizes the law and order concerns and social consequences.”
Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Social and Family Development, followed up on this point, saying the exemptions for select operators would allow the authorities to monitor player behavior to mitigate potential harms of remote gambling. Chan said it wasn’t so much a question of whether to ban or not ban but determining “the best way for us to manage this very difficult problem.”
Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean has revealed some statistics on how local residents were utilizing the brick-and-mortar casino levy system. Singapore’s two casinos charge local gamblers a S$100 entry levy that is valid for 24 hours. The model has been widely cited by other Asia-Pacific jurisdictions seeking to liberalize their gambling laws as the best way to mitigate the potential social harms of casino gambling.
In response to a question from a fellow parliamentarian, Teo said 8% of all daily entry levies were purchased by Singaporeans looking to extend their casino stay by an additional 24 hours. Teo cautioned that this didn’t automatically mean all 8% had been gambling at the casino for 24 hours non-stop, as the levies permit gamblers to enter and exit the casino at their leisure during that 24-hour window. Teo said the government would continue to monitor levy usage but has no current plans to revise the laws to prohibit such extensions.
The bill, introduced in September, would restrict online gambling to those operators licensed by the state. License eligibility would be limited to Singapore-based operators who contribute a portion of their proceeds to local charitable and/or social causes. The bill also calls for punitive measures against operators of sites not holding a Singapore license, as well as anyone acting as an agent or other promotional capacity for such sites, and even for these sites’ customers.
Second Minister for Home Affairs S. Iswaran (pictured) told Parliament the bill would keep a tight lid on the types of betting licensed operators would be able to offer. Casino-style games and poker were singled out as examples of betting that won’t be tolerated. But Iswaran downplayed fears that the bill’s broad language would restrict Singaporeans’ ability to play online social games, saying such games would not fall within the bill’s scope so long as players “cannot convert in-game credits or tokens for money or real merchandise outside the game.”
Parliamentary critics suggested the government was sending a mixed message by allowing exemptions to the remote gambling ban. Companies like the Singapore Pools sports betting monopoly and its pari-mutuel race betting equivalent Turf Club are expected to apply for new remote gambling licenses. Singapore Pools currently allows remote betting only via telephone while the Turf Club permits wagering via smartphones.
Iswaran referenced both companies as evidence that Singapore knew what it was doing by granting limited exemptions to gambling prohibitions. Iswaran said the bill was introduced “not because we wish to promote it or condone” remote gambling but to maintain “an ecosystem that minimizes the law and order concerns and social consequences.”
Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Social and Family Development, followed up on this point, saying the exemptions for select operators would allow the authorities to monitor player behavior to mitigate potential harms of remote gambling. Chan said it wasn’t so much a question of whether to ban or not ban but determining “the best way for us to manage this very difficult problem.”
Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean has revealed some statistics on how local residents were utilizing the brick-and-mortar casino levy system. Singapore’s two casinos charge local gamblers a S$100 entry levy that is valid for 24 hours. The model has been widely cited by other Asia-Pacific jurisdictions seeking to liberalize their gambling laws as the best way to mitigate the potential social harms of casino gambling.
In response to a question from a fellow parliamentarian, Teo said 8% of all daily entry levies were purchased by Singaporeans looking to extend their casino stay by an additional 24 hours. Teo cautioned that this didn’t automatically mean all 8% had been gambling at the casino for 24 hours non-stop, as the levies permit gamblers to enter and exit the casino at their leisure during that 24-hour window. Teo said the government would continue to monitor levy usage but has no current plans to revise the laws to prohibit such extensions.
October 03, 2014
Bet365 accused of profiteering in Chinese online market
Bet365, the Stoke-based bookmaker whose adverts are fronted by the actor Ray Winstone, has grown into one of the world’s largest online gambling businesses, helped by Chinese punters, who risk prison terms by betting via the group’s website.
The company – which is also known in Britain for funding the Premier League football team Stoke City and for making large donations to the Labour party – has seen a boom in its online betting operations. They are almost three times the size of the internet division of William Hill and more than seven times larger than the online business run by Ladbrokes, as turnover has grown by 78% over the past two years.
However, documents seen by the Guardian, interviews conducted with former and current bet365 employees, Freedom of Information requests made to the UK’s Gambling Commission and an analysis of foreign-language media reports all appear to confirm industry suspicions that the company – which has no physical presence or assets in China – operates one of the most successful online gambling services that can be accessed from inside the country.
China is one of the world’s largest online gambling markets despite the government having outlawed betting in all but a few controlled scenarios. The gambling group says its legal advice is that it has broken no law by taking bets from the country. The Guardian’s evidence suggests that:
• Chinese citizens have been detained for interacting with online betting firms, including four bet365 customers in Jiangxi province arrested after gambling on the group’s website, while two men in Zhejiang were jailed for promoting bet365 on their blogs, according to local media reports.
• Bet365 frequently changes its website addresses in China, thereby side-stepping attempts by local regulators to close sites down.
• The bookmaker has created a large call centre in Stoke staffed by Chinese-speaking workers.
• The company has constructed a complex payments system that allows it to take bets placed using China’s currency, the renminbi.
The Guardian has established that only about half of the £1.3bn the company won from gamblers in 2013 came from countries where bet365 possessed a licence to operate.
While that statistic does not imply the remainder was won from markets with legal restrictions on online gambling, industry analysts say a sizeable portion of the winnings must come from Asia, and principally China.
Bet365’s publicly listed rivals – William Hill, Ladbrokes, Betfair and Paddy Power – all say they do not take online bets from the country.
One former bet365 employee, who confirmed that the company was one of the larger online gambling operators accessible from China, said: “There’s nothing the Chinese government can do about it, other than block the sites, which they do. A lot Chinese[-facing] bookmakers change their domain names on a regular basis.”
Meanwhile, a current bet365 employee confirmed it was “100% true” that bet365 altered website addresses to allow Chinese punters to keep betting when authorities shut down sites. The bet365 sites in question use obscure domain names such as www.28365365.com in their often brief lifespan. He added: “I would say there are 50 [bet365 call centre] advisers just to follow the Chinese customers. China is the biggest department apart from the English [speaking] one”.
The company declined to respond in detail to a series of questions posed to it by the Guardian. In a statement, it said: “Bet365 takes its legal and regulatory obligations very seriously and is licensed to undertake its activities by relevant regulatory authorities across a variety of jurisdictions and is compliant with all applicable legislation.
“There is no legislation that expressly prohibits the supply of remote gambling services into China by operators who are based outside China. Bet365 has no people, assets or infrastructure in China and does not engage any agents, aggregators or intermediaries, for any purpose, in China.
“In the view of bet365, and its lawyers, Chinese law does not extend to the provision of services into China by gambling operators and service providers who themselves have no nexus with the territory. Any allegation of illegality on the part of bet365 is therefore untrue.”
The company added that it does not receive “renminbi from payment processors or otherwise”, and said it was unaware of “anyone in China being prosecuted for using its services”. It also said that in the Jiangxi case – where four bet365 customers were arrested in 2011 – it was “likely” that it had been the victim of a fraud, while in response to reports of two men being jailed in Zhejiang, it said it is the “responsibility of affiliates [who are paid by bet365 for introducing customers] to assess the legal implications”.
In 2005, China published judicial interpretations relating to the existing article 303 of its criminal law, which already stated: “That whoever, for the purpose of reaping profits, assembles a crowd to engage in gambling, opens a gambling house or makes an occupation of gambling is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention or control, in addition to a fine”.
The interpretation added that “whoever, for the purpose of reaping profits, sets up gambling websites on the internet or acts as an online gambling agent will be regarded as ‘opening gambling houses’ and will be punished according to article 303 of the criminal law”.
The interpretation of the law has led many within the gambling industry to take the view that this applies to websites located outside China as well as within, and to avoid China as a market.
Michael Tan, senior counsel based in Shanghai at the international law firm Taylor Wessing, said: “From the perspective of Chinese law, [gambling] is illegal and a criminal offence. However, it is hardly enforceable since the betting company might be beyond the jurisdiction of China. So far China does not have treaties with most western countries, and to extradite is difficult in practice”.
Regulus Partners, a gambling industry consultancy firm, said there was very little visibility as to the true size of the Chinese betting market. However, it estimates that the Chinese market generates annual winnings for bookmakers of about £13.9bn – of which about £3bn are placed directly with gambling websites and the rest via third parties who collect bets on the ground and then pass the bets on to bookmakers. On those figures, a 3% share of the Chinese market, for instance, would provide a gambling company with annual winnings of around £400m.
The Guardian’s analysis of bet365’s revenue streams comes as the UK gambling industry began a new regulatory regime on 1 October, whereby operators pay a licence fee to the Gambling Commission in order to operate in the UK.
Under the new UK licensing regime, operators deriving more than 3% of revenues from distinct international markets must disclose details of those businesses to the regulator, and provide a legal opinion justifying operations in those foreign markets.
The bookmaker said: “Bet365 Group entities have applied for continuation rights as required by the [new UK] licensing regime and, when doing so, shared with the Gambling Commission the legal bases underpinning the business derived from all the group’s material markets”.
Betting companies will also need a licence if they want to advertise on Premier League shirts and in football stadiums, an activity that has surged in recent seasons as English football games are broadcast around the world.
Separately, the Stoke-based bookmaker announced on Monday that it would be relocating its international betting businesses from Britain to Gibraltar, operating under licences granted by the government of Gibraltar and making the company the last of the big UK betting companies to move offshore. The firm’s gaming business has operated from Gibraltar since 2007.
Apart from its online gambling business, bet365 Group also owns Stoke City, and has covered losses at the club to the tune of £49m over the past four years. Its logo is seen all over the world each weekend as it is the sponsor of the team’s jerseys.
As well as supporting the local football team, the company and its subsidiaries also gave £330,000 to the Labour Party between 2007 and 2010, according to Electoral Commission records.
Peter Coates, the Stoke City chairman, co-owner of bet365 and father of the business’s founder, Denise, has personally donated £160,000 between 2004 and 2012.
The company – which is also known in Britain for funding the Premier League football team Stoke City and for making large donations to the Labour party – has seen a boom in its online betting operations. They are almost three times the size of the internet division of William Hill and more than seven times larger than the online business run by Ladbrokes, as turnover has grown by 78% over the past two years.
However, documents seen by the Guardian, interviews conducted with former and current bet365 employees, Freedom of Information requests made to the UK’s Gambling Commission and an analysis of foreign-language media reports all appear to confirm industry suspicions that the company – which has no physical presence or assets in China – operates one of the most successful online gambling services that can be accessed from inside the country.
China is one of the world’s largest online gambling markets despite the government having outlawed betting in all but a few controlled scenarios. The gambling group says its legal advice is that it has broken no law by taking bets from the country. The Guardian’s evidence suggests that:
• Chinese citizens have been detained for interacting with online betting firms, including four bet365 customers in Jiangxi province arrested after gambling on the group’s website, while two men in Zhejiang were jailed for promoting bet365 on their blogs, according to local media reports.
• Bet365 frequently changes its website addresses in China, thereby side-stepping attempts by local regulators to close sites down.
• The bookmaker has created a large call centre in Stoke staffed by Chinese-speaking workers.
• The company has constructed a complex payments system that allows it to take bets placed using China’s currency, the renminbi.
The Guardian has established that only about half of the £1.3bn the company won from gamblers in 2013 came from countries where bet365 possessed a licence to operate.
While that statistic does not imply the remainder was won from markets with legal restrictions on online gambling, industry analysts say a sizeable portion of the winnings must come from Asia, and principally China.
Bet365’s publicly listed rivals – William Hill, Ladbrokes, Betfair and Paddy Power – all say they do not take online bets from the country.
One former bet365 employee, who confirmed that the company was one of the larger online gambling operators accessible from China, said: “There’s nothing the Chinese government can do about it, other than block the sites, which they do. A lot Chinese[-facing] bookmakers change their domain names on a regular basis.”
Meanwhile, a current bet365 employee confirmed it was “100% true” that bet365 altered website addresses to allow Chinese punters to keep betting when authorities shut down sites. The bet365 sites in question use obscure domain names such as www.28365365.com in their often brief lifespan. He added: “I would say there are 50 [bet365 call centre] advisers just to follow the Chinese customers. China is the biggest department apart from the English [speaking] one”.
The company declined to respond in detail to a series of questions posed to it by the Guardian. In a statement, it said: “Bet365 takes its legal and regulatory obligations very seriously and is licensed to undertake its activities by relevant regulatory authorities across a variety of jurisdictions and is compliant with all applicable legislation.
“There is no legislation that expressly prohibits the supply of remote gambling services into China by operators who are based outside China. Bet365 has no people, assets or infrastructure in China and does not engage any agents, aggregators or intermediaries, for any purpose, in China.
“In the view of bet365, and its lawyers, Chinese law does not extend to the provision of services into China by gambling operators and service providers who themselves have no nexus with the territory. Any allegation of illegality on the part of bet365 is therefore untrue.”
The company added that it does not receive “renminbi from payment processors or otherwise”, and said it was unaware of “anyone in China being prosecuted for using its services”. It also said that in the Jiangxi case – where four bet365 customers were arrested in 2011 – it was “likely” that it had been the victim of a fraud, while in response to reports of two men being jailed in Zhejiang, it said it is the “responsibility of affiliates [who are paid by bet365 for introducing customers] to assess the legal implications”.
In 2005, China published judicial interpretations relating to the existing article 303 of its criminal law, which already stated: “That whoever, for the purpose of reaping profits, assembles a crowd to engage in gambling, opens a gambling house or makes an occupation of gambling is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention or control, in addition to a fine”.
The interpretation added that “whoever, for the purpose of reaping profits, sets up gambling websites on the internet or acts as an online gambling agent will be regarded as ‘opening gambling houses’ and will be punished according to article 303 of the criminal law”.
The interpretation of the law has led many within the gambling industry to take the view that this applies to websites located outside China as well as within, and to avoid China as a market.
Michael Tan, senior counsel based in Shanghai at the international law firm Taylor Wessing, said: “From the perspective of Chinese law, [gambling] is illegal and a criminal offence. However, it is hardly enforceable since the betting company might be beyond the jurisdiction of China. So far China does not have treaties with most western countries, and to extradite is difficult in practice”.
Regulus Partners, a gambling industry consultancy firm, said there was very little visibility as to the true size of the Chinese betting market. However, it estimates that the Chinese market generates annual winnings for bookmakers of about £13.9bn – of which about £3bn are placed directly with gambling websites and the rest via third parties who collect bets on the ground and then pass the bets on to bookmakers. On those figures, a 3% share of the Chinese market, for instance, would provide a gambling company with annual winnings of around £400m.
The Guardian’s analysis of bet365’s revenue streams comes as the UK gambling industry began a new regulatory regime on 1 October, whereby operators pay a licence fee to the Gambling Commission in order to operate in the UK.
Under the new UK licensing regime, operators deriving more than 3% of revenues from distinct international markets must disclose details of those businesses to the regulator, and provide a legal opinion justifying operations in those foreign markets.
The bookmaker said: “Bet365 Group entities have applied for continuation rights as required by the [new UK] licensing regime and, when doing so, shared with the Gambling Commission the legal bases underpinning the business derived from all the group’s material markets”.
Betting companies will also need a licence if they want to advertise on Premier League shirts and in football stadiums, an activity that has surged in recent seasons as English football games are broadcast around the world.
Separately, the Stoke-based bookmaker announced on Monday that it would be relocating its international betting businesses from Britain to Gibraltar, operating under licences granted by the government of Gibraltar and making the company the last of the big UK betting companies to move offshore. The firm’s gaming business has operated from Gibraltar since 2007.
Apart from its online gambling business, bet365 Group also owns Stoke City, and has covered losses at the club to the tune of £49m over the past four years. Its logo is seen all over the world each weekend as it is the sponsor of the team’s jerseys.
As well as supporting the local football team, the company and its subsidiaries also gave £330,000 to the Labour Party between 2007 and 2010, according to Electoral Commission records.
Peter Coates, the Stoke City chairman, co-owner of bet365 and father of the business’s founder, Denise, has personally donated £160,000 between 2004 and 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)