By Gabriel princewill-
The Gambling Commission is failing to deal with all cases of corrupt casino mangers competently.
Whilst meting out efficient punitive measures against corrupt casinos and some individual managers, The Eye Of Media.Com can reveal that the commission has not yet held the corrupt manager of Gentings Casino accountable after he breached the commissions regulations in failing to safeguard the interest of a problem gambler.
Gentings casino was fined £500k in 2018 after one of their corrupt managers whose identity has never been divulged. exploited the individual who lost £1m in 24 hours. The General manager from Gentings Casino in Mayfair had breached known regulations by exploiting a problem gambler.A Gambling Commission investigation revealed how a general manager of Grosvenor Casino, owned by Rank Group, visited the player at his overseas home during a self-exclusion period and it’s online gambling site did not follow rules around providing the player credit.
The Casino’s boss apologised for the failing and promised to be more careful in future, but the no known action took place against the manager. Efforts by The Eye Of Media.Com to establish the current position of the manager has been blocked by both the Casino and the Commission who say they do not comment on individual cases .
The commission has explained that it has in the past punished managers for breaching regulations.A fleeting glance at the records on the Commission’s website reveals a list of casino’s and managers punished following breaches of the rules. The Commission imposed close to a to £14m in penalty packages against three companies in 2018, as result of their failings to put in place effective safeguards to prevent money laundering and keep consumers safe from gambling-related harm.
Daub Alderney to pay a financial penalty of £7.1m (as previously announced) and Casumo has been ordered to pay a financial penalty of £5.85m. Videoslots will pay £1m in lieu of a financial penalty. Many others have been slapped with charges by the commission since then.
SILENCE
Notwithstanding evidence of punitive measures, there seems to be a wall of silence as to this particular individual appears to be slipping under the net. We are not making it that easy. The natural assumption is that the manager is still working at the casino, possibly in the same post, and could repeat the offence without detection. Many breaches of the rules go undetected, only those involving gamblers who complain or report a painful experience comes to the attention of the commission.
Gambling operators in the Uk have been shown to be fraudulently disposed, making it a curious question why a particular manager who transgressed the rules would be allowed to act with impunity.Despite being subjected to fines when caught contravening the rules, it is quite conceivable for penitent bosses to be cosily and profusely apologetic after paying a fine. This could leave the regulator content and sympathetic with an offending organisation, enough not to seek out every guilty individual for punishment. Equal treatment demands transparency in every case punished by a regulator unless the integrity of the latter in particular circumstances where underhand agreements become a theoretical possibility.
NET
This particular manager should not be slipping under the net. We are not making it that easy for them. Many breaches of the rules go undetected, only those involving gamblers who complain or report a painful experience comes to the attention of the commission. Gambling operators in the Uk are known to be fraudulently disposed, making it a curious question why a particular manager who transgressed the rules would be allowed to act with impunity.
Despite being subjected to fines when caught contravening the rules, it is quite conceivable for penitent bosses to be cosily and profusely apologetic after paying a fine. This could leave the regulator content and sympathetic with an offending organisation, enough not to seek out every guilty individual for punishment. Equal treatment demands transparency in every case punished by a regulator unless the integrity of the latter in particular circumstances where underhand agreements become a theoretical possibility.
This publication demands that the UK Gambling Commission does not evade the subject and squarely informs the public whose interest it purports to serve, why there has been no confirmation of the actions taken against the anonymous manager who must have been seasoned in his dubious acts of greed and exploitation, and whose penchant for sustaining the presence of big time gamblers will not disappear in a whiff just because of a fine he did not have to pay himself. It may be that the manager in question is plotting a grand scheme to compensate the company for the big fine it was compelled to pay on account of his unscrupulous acts.