2020-02-17
Legal Articles

Company cash gambled away? There may be redress.

Home / Knowledge base / Company cash gambled away? There may be redress.

Posted by Matthew Goodwin on 26 October 2018

Matthew Goodwin Associate-Solicitor-Advocate

Paddy Power Betfair has been fined £2.2 million by the Gambling Commission for permitting stolen money to be gambled.  The gambling group was criticised for failing to intervene when their customers showed signs of addiction problems, gambling “significant sums” of stolen money, and failing to carry out appropriate anti-money laundering checks.

Simon Price, the former CEO of Birmingham Dogs Home, was jailed for 5 years after being convicted of defrauding the charity of approximately £900,000 which he squandered through online gambling.

Who regulates betting groups?

The Gambling Commission are responsible for regulating the industry.  All commercial gambling businesses which hold a licence under the Gambling Act 2005 must comply with the Act and the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Code of Practice.  The Gambling Commission is also tasked with combating illegal gambling activities.

What are the responsibilities of gambling groups?

Gambling businesses have a responsibility to intervene when their customers display signs of problem gambling and must ensure that their anti-money laundering checks and welfare and social responsibility checks are effective and compliant with the regulations.

The decision in the Paddy Power case

The decision in the Betfair case offers some reassurance to companies and charities who are the victims of fraud, where directors or other senior office holders unlawfully, and in breach of their duties, use company funds to pursue their gambling additions.  Holding betting groups accountable, where appropriate checks could have prevented the stolen funds being used in this way, allows companies and charities in this position to seek to recover the substantial sums lost.

The defrauding of companies can often begin as subtle and relatively small misappropriations of money over a period of time, in some cases increasing as the perpetrator’s problem grows or becomes more desperate, culminating in significant amounts of money being stolen.  Where the perpetrator is a senior officer, or even the financial director, issues can go undetected for some time.  Often, by the time a company becomes aware that it has been defrauded, the money has already been spent or otherwise embezzled, making a financial recovery against the individual wrongdoer difficult to achieve.  The ability to seek redress from gambling businesses where the funds have been spent gambling, provides helpful redress.

How we can help

Having recently made a successful recovery from a gambling business on behalf of our client in similar circumstances, we would encourage companies to speak to us as soon as possible, should they have any concerns that company or charitable funds are being embezzled as a result of gambling.

About the author

Matthew Goodwin

Associate-Solicitor-Advocate

As an associate within the tax and financial services litigation team, Matthew regularly acts for corporates and individuals, dealing with a variety of disputes.

Matthew Goodwin

As an associate within the tax and financial services litigation team, Matthew regularly acts for corporates and individuals, dealing with a variety of disputes.

Recent articles

04 June 2020 Coronavirus: business interruption insurance update

If you purchased business interruption cover (BI), you might have insurance to pay losses while you cannot trade. You will need to have one or two of the most common BI extension clauses and cover will depend very much on the wording of that clause.

Read article
04 June 2020 What can our health service learn now from Covid?

It is normal for most organisations to have a business continuity plan that is regularly reviewed, updated and stress-tested to ensure that it is sufficiently robust to deal with pretty much every conceivable disaster scenario.

Read article
04 June 2020 Setting a trend for success fee recovery in 1975 Inheritance Act claims?

In a recently unreported Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 197 claim (‘the Act’), His Honour Judge Gosnell sitting at Leeds County Court made the unusual decision to give an award specifically to part-pay a claimant’s success fee, which was payable by the Claimant as a result her ‘no win, no fee’ funding agreement.

Read article
Contact
How can we help?
01926 732512
CALL BACK