Poker toolkit - case studies
This toolkit provides you with guidance, templates for letters and case studies to give examples of how cases have been successfully brought to a conclusion.
Under the Gambling Act 2005 private clubs with a club gaming permit cannot run the premises wholly or mainly for the purposes of gaming, nor can the club make a profit as all funds must be applied for the benefit of the members.
A commercial poker club in Enfield was regularly generating weekly profits in the thousands of pounds, and sometimes in excess of £10,000 per week.
Enfield Council prosecuted the club owner under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which resulted in a conviction for five counts of money laundering and a 15 month jail sentence.
Success in this case was due in part to the early involvement of all the key participants: officers, local authority lawyers and counsel. That meant that from the outset of the court proceedings there was a coherent strategy that everyone understood and could work towards.
The advantage of focusing on the financial aspects of the case was twofold: it meant, firstly, that the scale of the operation could be reflected in the sentence imposed; and secondly that the confiscation investigation could proceed more smoothly.
Further details on Enfield Council's website, including the relevant documents for this hearing.
A joint visit to a pub in Blackburn found two poker tables and briefcases of poker chips.
Players bought in for £5 and player numbers ensured that prize limits were regularly breached.
The man in charge of the poker, husband of the designated premises supervisor, confirmed breaches in poker prizes on the premises.
The man was provided with advice regarding poker in pubs and the designated premises supervisor subsequently received a warning letter from the council
Local authorities working in five different areas achieved great success in closing down a chain of allegedly illegal poker clubs which appeared, initially in one local authority area, and then spread to four more, namely Basingstoke, Southampton, Bournemouth, Slough and Reading.
The poker organiser initially claimed that these were members’ clubs (and therefore entitled to club gaming permits allowing unlimited stakes and prizes poker), and then later claimed that it was offering poker as private gaming and was therefore exempt from the licensing provisions of the Gambling Act 2005.
The local authorities worked together, with expert advice and support from the Gambling Commission, to deter the operation and as a result, the clubs in all five areas closed down. The case raises two important issues:
- the status of ‘voluntary’ contributions in private gaming
- the meaning of private versus public in the context of private gaming played by members of an allegedly private club.
People joining a club to attend and take part in a ‘private’ event are likely to remain members of the public, particularly if ‘club membership’ is acquired only a short time before, and in order to, attend the event. The courts will not readily allow ‘membership’ status to be abused in order to circumvent the law in this way.
A joint visit, involving the police, the local authority and the Gambling Commission, to a club where illegal poker was allegedly taking place identified customers who were not members, poker only being played on the premises and rakes being taken by the house.
The local authority decided to revoke the club premises certificate, which also allowed the club gaming permit to be revoked and the premises were closed.
The first decision was to cancel the permit under paragraph 21(1) of s12 to the Gambling Act 2005. Under paragraph 21(4), this does not have effect until the time for appealing has expired, 21 days after notice of the decision is given.
The second decision was to withdraw the club premises certificate under section 90 of the Licensing Act 2003. Although there is a right of appeal under s181 and schedule 5 part 2 paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Licensing Act 2003, there is no provision for the certificate to be effectively re-instated pending the appeal. The decision therefore takes effect once the notice is given to the club.
The consequence of that is that paragraph 17(2)(c) of schedule 12 to the Gambling Act comes into effect and this provides that because the club gaming permit was granted under paragraph 10 (the fast track procedure), it "shall lapse if the club premises certificate on which the application relied ceases to have effect."
Two months later those involved in the previous club tried to apply for new permission under a new name to re-open the club but the local authority refused the application on the basis of their previous behaviour.
Rother District Council, accompanied by officers from Sussex Police and the Gambling Commission, made an unannounced evening visit to a shop in Bexhill’s High Street where it was suspected illegal poker was taking place.
Three poker tables were in use with 19 people playing. There was a £250 gaming machine, snacks were available on a side counter, and there was also a small counter with a computer display screen indicating a £20 jackpot prize.
Police identified the owner of the premises as the same person in charge of the poker that evening, but when interviewed he claimed he was conducting private gaming on private premises, as no participation fee was charged, nor did he charge for the food. However, the police and district council spoke to the other players and their comments did not support the owner’s account. The owner of the shop was also in breach of a number of other licensing and premises conditions.
The shop owner closed and vacated the premises the following week.