{"id":7651,"date":"2018-06-23T08:00:59","date_gmt":"2018-06-23T12:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.onlinepokeramerica.com\/?p=7651"},"modified":"2018-06-23T08:00:59","modified_gmt":"2018-06-23T12:00:59","slug":"why-32red-was-fined-2m-over-a-sole-problem-gamer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.onlinepokeramerica.com\/news\/why-32red-was-fined-2m-over-a-sole-problem-gamer\/","title":{"rendered":"Why 32Red was fined \u00a32m over a sole problem gamer"},"content":{"rendered":"
The world of poker has known its controversies. From the shutting down of websites to arguing the outcome of games, and on occasion \u2013 a few incidents involving gunmen storming offline events. Today we look into a slightly different matters, though. 32Red, an established British online casino, has been fined \u00a32 million over its failure<\/a> to conduct a number of anti-money laundering and social responsibilities checks. <\/p>\n Between November 2014 and April 2017, 32Red had a customer who managed to stake up to \u00a3758,000 without undergoing any screening process. An investigation was launched by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), the country\u2019s highest authority on gambling issues. Shortly after, the UKGC has come up with a conclusive proof, that 32Red had indeed overlooked a number of screening procedures it must have carried out.<\/p>\n The said gambler\u2019s monthly income barely inched up of \u00a32,000 a month, when the average money played was \u00a345,000<\/strong>. The defence 32Red mounted was unconvincing. The operator cited a receipt provided by the customer where they stated the monthly income was \u00a313,000<\/strong>. The UKGC has been right to step in. In a recent study conducted by another respected regulator, the Australian Gambling Research Centre<\/a>, it was established that, for example, 40{c118e36310c7bc75bef8f724f80ee0a52cfaf44be22f7e80906142f4c81518da} of all poker players have moderate to severe gambling addiction.<\/p>\n And so, the UKGC found obvious discrepancies between what the upheld values of 32Red were and what they in fact did. While this conclusion may seem a tad harsh, the most shocking aspect of the case has been quite revealing \u2013 the casino had been offering free bonuses on regular basis to keep the customer coming back.<\/p>\n Even more shockingly, the customer themselves had expressed regrets in front of staffers that they might be wagering too much. However, 32Red remained passive to that appeal, which alone certainly merits the moral reprimand and hefty price tag. <\/p>\nThe Backdrop of a Scandal<\/h2>\n
\nUKGC managed to establish discrepancies that returned it to its original number. Furthermore, the person\u2019s income was volatile and as such, it was not credible basis to accept such wagers.<\/p>\nA Storm in a Bottle \u2013 How to Handle the Looming Crisis<\/h2>\n