Owner(s) of TGP white label partners 8XBet and 6686
Request
As per the Act, I am requesting the following information:
The name or description of any documents held by the GC that contain the ultimate owner(s) of TGP white label partners 8XBet and 6686.
Knowing your commitment to privacy, I do not request identifiable details, but merely wish to know what types of records the GC holds in relation to this matter.
If it is possible, it would be helpful if you could disclose the nationality of owner(s), and if they are a natural person or a company/trust etc.
Response
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested:
The name or description of any documents held by the GC that contain the ultimate owner(s) of TGP white label partners 8XBet and 6686. Knowing your commitment to privacy, I do not request identifiable details, but merely wish to know what types of records the GC holds in relation to this matter. If it is possible, it would be helpful if you could disclose the nationality of owner(s), and if they are a natural person or a company/trust etc.
The Gambling Commission do not provide comment on the types of records held containing information regarding specific operators unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.
Section 31(3) (Law Enforcement) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that compliance with section 1(1)(a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, section 31 of the FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request as opposed to maintaining the exemption.
Arguments in favour of disclosure
The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
Further to this, it is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain, so consumers have an understanding of the regulatory activity that the Commission is taking with specific operators to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator.
Finally, disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing licensees and, furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption
The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing existing licensees. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator continuing to provide gambling services where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s compliance assessment processes.
Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t engaging in specific conversations with operators and provide them with an opportunity to alter their behaviours or evade detection. This would result in making it more difficult for the Commission to achieve its aims.
Further to this, simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies. The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commissions regulatory work and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Finally, if a formal decision is made the Commission will ordinarily publish all such information in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work of the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
Weighing the balance
Given the points considered, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest. Ultimately, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption, therefore, we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information in relation to your request.
Review of the decision
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham B2 4BP
Internal Review Request
Thank you taking the time to consider my request. I would like to request an internal review.
While respecting the Commission's law enforcement capacity, this refusal is incompatible with the nature of the request.
To begin with, it may be that the Commission does not comment on matters, but I am not requesting media comment, but information that should be accessible via an FOI request.
My request is for the name or description of files. It specifically does not request information that would require a person to be identified. Therefore, your second argument - about alerting individuals about the Commission's action - is invalid. Likewise, there is no plausible way that fulfilling this request could impact the openness of stakeholders to provide information.
The other two arguments provided against disclosure are generic statements about the Commission's work.
Therefore, there is no valid reason to deny this request.
Internal Review Response
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 06/11/2023 which we responded to on 04/12/2023, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 06/12/2023.
We have now concluded our review and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.
In your initial email you requested the following information:
The name or description of any documents held by the GC that contain the ultimate owner(s) of TGP white label partners 8XBet and 6686.
In our response we advised that the Gambling Commission do not provide comment on the types of records held containing information supplied by specific operators unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request. As such, section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) was engaged.
Internal Review
When reviewing this request, the public interest test was further considered, and we acknowledge that fulfilling this request may demonstrate the type of information processed by the Commission which may further increase public awareness of the work carried out by the Commission.
However, once licensed, gambling operators, such as TGP Ltd, are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.
This includes monitoring of licences due diligence conducted into their white label partners.The responsibility for compliance of all operating gambling websites, including white labelled sites, sits with the licence holder and cannot be transferred to any other party.
Failure to ensure compliance with the following, at all times, may bring into question the suitability of a gambling business to hold a licence:
- a licensee’s business is conducted in a way which minimises the risk to the licensing objectives.
- our Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) are being complied with.
Information collated as part of this ongoing compliance process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence.
The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing licensees. These procedures and processes are put in place to minimise the risk of an operator providing gambling facilities, where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s licence assessment processes. Confirming or denying information which identifies specific information processed by the Commission is likely to impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies.
There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding the information collected in relation to specific operators during the Commissions due diligence process.
In order to promote transparency, there is information that is publicly available, both on our website but also via the Policy Statement, which clearly sets out the required standards with which operator licensees are expected to comply.
Therefore, it is our view that there is sufficient information publicly available about the assessment process and assessment framework to adequately address the public interest in transparency in respect of this matter and the information requested would not further the public interest in this subject.
The Commission also publishes other information in relation to how it assesses licensees, including its Statement of principles for licensing and regulation. Therefore, to the extent that there is a public interest in transparency around the assessment of licensees this is already met by the material the Commission proactively publishes.
To disclose to the public whether we hold this information could impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission, its stakeholders and other regulatory bodies, which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from organisations who are unfit or incompetent in their activities.
Finally, the amount of information released regarding individual licensees is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commission’s work and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice to the Commission would be caused by confirming or denying whether we hold any information falling within the scope of your request. After reviewing your request and our response, in conclusion, I uphold our original decision to engage the S31 exemption.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely,
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission