Just as the Campaign explained how thanks to FOBTs, betting shops have become
dangerous environments, rife with crime and money-laundering- the bookies asked the question, "
Betting shops and money laundering - are high street bookies safe?"
To support the Campaign position there were references to ten articles in national newspapers and one local newspaper article. However, to support the bookies’ position there was not one independent reference.
The bookies’ item featured the CEO of the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB), Malcolm George, who claimed that bookmakers are the "the safest places to gamble in the UK". But it does not provide any comparison with bingo halls, adult gaming centres, family entertainment centres, pubs or clubs. Therefore Mr. George provides no evidence whatsoever to support his key claim.
Ask any operator of any of those alternative gambling facilities: “Are your premises more dangerous than a betting shop?” and you can bet you’ll know what the answer will be - and you can bet that some of the replies would contain a very justifiable profanity!
The bookies have been
exposed for not requiring all crimes on premises to be reportedbut there is no evidence that any other gambling sector has engaged in such crime statistics manipulation.
Betting shops
frequently operate with single staff working alonewho are often young, often female, often part-time and often on minimum wage or not much above. These staff members are sadly subject to abusive language and behaviour from disgruntled FOBT gamblers on a regular basis. Furthermore, betting shop managers are not trained to the same standards as pub managers.
Inadequate staffing numbers helps explain the failings of the bookies’ paper-based self-exclusion scheme, where the failure rate of breaches of self-exclusions are far higher at 66% than any other gambling sector. With that level of self-exclusion failure, how can anyone have any confidence that the bookies are diligently compliant with Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR), identifying possible money laundering or use of proceeds of crime?
Mr George claimed that there are a similar number of SARs reported in around 9,000 betting shops as there are in around 140 casinos. But it is not the number of venues that should be considered for comparison, it is the number of gamblers and the cash turnover. And if money-laundering and gambling with the proceeds of crime is actually more frequent in betting shops than casinos, then a similar number of SARs is indicative of failing compliance diligence by the bookies.
Mr. George also failed to provide data on police call-outs to gambling premises. The latest figures show that police are called out an average of 1.25 times per betting shop compared to 0.49 per casino, 0.19 per arcade and 0.12 per bingo hall. Bearing in mind that betting shops are generally smaller than those premises and generally have less visitors per premises, there should be far fewer police call-outs per premises to betting shops. This discrepancy, together with restricted reporting to police by bookies, is clear evidence that betting shops are more dangerous than arcades and bingo halls.
The Gambling Commission is currently evaluating the level of money-laundering risk on a per premises basis.
According to the Daily Record, the Gambling Commission said “The betting sector is considered high risk relative to other gambling sectors”. The purpose of this evaluation is to advise government which gambling sectors should be included in the 4th EU money-laundering directive. The bookies will be hoping that, based on previous form in having avoided the 2nd and 3rd directives, they can get away again with misleading representations to avoid the 4th directive, which will simply require identifying customers who stake more than £1500 total in a day.
The recent
DCMS Evaluation of the introduction of the £50 staking threshold was reviewed by the Campaign. This Evaluation showed that stakes over £50 per spin had decreased by over 67% but stakes from £40 to £50 per spin had increased by around 315%. There had also been very minimal take-up of the player loyalty card, which requires only basic ID of a mobile phone number, to enable stakes over £50 per spin.
Whilst DCMS wants to claim this shows gamblers are taking more conscious control of their staking, the real lesson is that they are consciously deciding to remain anonymous. Imagine if you were gambling proceeds of crime, benefit fraud or tax evasion or engaged in money laundering – wouldn’t you want to remain anonymous?
Mr George totally ignores that betting shops are the most dangerous places to gamble as they contain the most dangerously addictive form of gambling - FOBTs. So Mr George, the Campaign will be noting all of your statements and may use them as evidence against you and the ABB.
The Government must not rely on dodgy dossiers to deny the Local Government Association’s request for FOBT stakes to be reduced to a maximum of £2 per spin. It also cannot allow the ABB’s dodgy dossiers to influence the pending DCMS position in the 2016 Triennial Review of Stakes and Prizes.