William Hill fined $6.2M ($8.64M)

**Optional** · 02-21-18, 07:25 AM

When we see threads on here claiming William Hill are scammers for reporting suspicious betting or asking people for bank statements, I'll try to remember to link them to this thread.

We can thank the UK Gambling Commission for forcing bookmakers to ask for this sort of information.

Useless regulator who has not only implemented rules that do not protect gamblers and give books all sorts of reasons to hold up payment on almost any account if they wish to, but also force them to act like a financial regualtor/counsellor.

Ridiculous situation.

Long live offshore. Most regulation is an expensive joke right now.

**katstale** · 02-21-18, 10:00 AM

They should have been fined this for having smug and/or non-existent CS. I use to do their "monthly" 25 pound BJ bonus--back in the good ole days.

**arie1985** · 02-21-18, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Optional

When we see threads on here claiming William Hill are scammers for reporting suspicious betting or asking people for bank statements, I'll try to remember to link them to this thread.

We can thank the UK Gambling Commission for forcing bookmakers to ask for this sort of information.

Useless regulator who has not only implemented rules that do not protect gamblers and give books all sorts of reasons to hold up payment on almost any account if they wish to, but also force them to act like a financial regualtor/counsellor.

Ridiculous situation.

Long live offshore. Most regulation is an expensive joke right now.

I totally agree.

**Foxx** · 02-21-18, 11:21 AM

It's stupid to put the responsibility of validating the source of funds on the books for non-cash transaction. The onus should be on the banks and stored value outfits like paypal if that's where the funds are coming from. I get it to put it on the backs of books if it's huge cash transactions or something. All the financial institutions already have their own source of wealth regulations, so asking books to verify funds coming from such processors seems redundant.

**Optional** · 02-21-18, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Foxx

It's stupid to put the responsibility of validating the source of funds on the books for non-cash transaction. The onus should be on the banks and stored value outfits like paypal if that's where the funds are coming from. I get it to put it on the backs of books if it's huge cash transactions or something. All the financial institutions already have their own source of wealth regulations, so asking books to verify funds coming from such processors seems redundant.

The books should have to report to a central agency, a govt sanctioned body, who determines financial ability and source of funds and such personal matters when needed.

There also should be a similar agency who holds all funds whilst suspicious betting investigations are conducted. I bet the books and industry would soon find a way to streamline that system if they were forced to remit all the funds bet whilst waiting for an outcome like players have to.

**ikid2groove415** · 02-21-18, 12:52 PM

Tax write off?

**VeggieDog** · 02-21-18, 12:56 PM

In 5 years the Corleone Family will be completely legitimate.

**Foxx** · 02-21-18, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Optional

The books should have to report to a central agency, a govt sanctioned body, who determines financial ability and source of funds and such personal matters when needed.
There also should be a similar agency who holds all funds whilst suspicious betting investigations are conducted. I bet the books and industry would soon find a way to streamline that system if they were forced to remit all the funds bet whilst waiting for an outcome like players have to.

I hear you, but why put it on the books at all for anything other than cash transactions? Places like banks, neteller, skrill, paypal ask for source of wealth/funds proof from many customers who fall into certain thresholds or have unusual/suspicious patterns. I assume they do so because they are required by financial regulations. So any deposit accepted by those above means shouldn't be subject to further review by the book. It's an unnecessary redundancy. Now, as far as I saw in the article, I didn't see any mention of which deposit methods were used. Maybe they used cash deposit methods. I'd be interested to know.

**Optional** · 02-22-18, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Foxx

I hear you, but why put it on the books at all for anything other than cash transactions? Places like banks, neteller, skrill, paypal ask for source of wealth/funds proof from many customers who fall into certain thresholds or have unusual/suspicious patterns. I assume they do so because they are required by financial regulations. So any deposit accepted by those above means shouldn't be subject to further review by the book. It's an unnecessary redundancy. Now, as far as I saw in the article, I didn't see any mention of which deposit methods were used. Maybe they used cash deposit methods. I'd be interested to know.

KYC is still the book responsibility. If they do not properly ID people then anything banks or others might do to verify their customers is redundant.

The two issues that are a serious problem (and getting worse) are books suspending grading on suspicious betting activity markets regularly and leaving players hanging with zero explanation, estimated timeframe or method of recourse.

And UK books suspending accounts demanding copies of bank statements, payslips, proof of income and proof of money source.

Both of these should be taken completely out of bookmaker hands.

And in the case of suspended markets books should have to remit all funds risked to a central body... so the books will actually be the ones chasing for these investigations to happen faster instead of leaving players holding the bag for a year or more and then paying most people in the end anyway.

There is almost none of these cases where player funds are not released. If there had been more that turned out to need to confiscate funds, I would actually be more tolerant of the timeframe.

**ChewFu** · 03-06-18, 05:56 PM

There's two parts to this. The first is William Hill allowing criminals to launder cash through their shops/online accounts and not doing anything about it, as long as it profits from the deal. For this, they should be fined.

The second is not checking that players are aware that they're doing their bollocks; I'm a bit torn on this, as you have to be an adult to gamble, in which case you should be responsible for your own actions. However, the flipside is that they limit anyone who shows even the slightest ability to spot value, yet allow obvious mugs to squander tens of thousands with impunity.

Overall, couldn't have happened to a nicer company. Hopefully the FOBTs get limited to £2 a spin, at which point some of these books might start having to lay a bet again. God help them if that becomes the case, as they'll get taken to the cleaners by the sharps.