This box is not visible in the printed version.
Request date: 23 June 2024
This version was printed or saved on: 7 May 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/licence-application-and-due-diligence-of-tgp
I am an Australia-based freelance journalist and gambling researcher. Under the relevant FOI legislation, I would like to request the following information:
Given the significant public interest (including the potential links to human rights abuses of the companies involved), and the corporate transparency of organisations like Companies House, I would request that the identities of persons related to the licensee contained within any documents would not be redacted.
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested:
Gambling operators are required to hold a licence from the Commission in order to offer facilities for gambling to customers located in Great Britain. The Commission goes through a licence application process as part of this and makes an assessment of suitability against criteria set out in the Act. Part 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 details the Commission’s statutory functions in relation to the licensing requirements. The Licence conditions and codes of practice (LCCP) set out the requirements all licensees must meet in order to hold a Gambling Commission licence.
Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice
Section 21 of the FOIA provides that information is exempt where it is reasonably accessible elsewhere.
We publish registers of licensed businesses and individuals here:
Register of gambling businesses - Gambling Commission
The publicly available licence details for TGP including any sub-licensees 8XBet, BK8 or 6686 can be viewed here:
TGP Europe Limited - Licence summary (gamblingcommission.gov.uk)
When we receive licence applications an assessment is made on whether a business will uphold the licensing objectives and also the suitability of the applicant to carry out the activities that the licence allows. As part of this assessment the Commission will request the following evidence to support the application and the individuals who are relevant to the application, such as:
Details with regards to how we process a licence application can be found on our website:
Apply for a licence to operate a gambling business
These checks are carried out to ensure that we meet our obligations under the Act and our Statement of Principles.
Statement of principles for licensing and regulation
Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.
Information collated as part of this process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence
I can confirm that information falling within the scope of your request is held. However, the Commission is of the view that information in relation to specific operators, other than what is made publicly available, is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)g of the FOIA (‘law enforcement’) and therefore will not be released.
Section 31
Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).
The Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:
i. Subsection 31(2)(a) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,
ii. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,
iii. Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,
iv. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on
Public interest test
The factors the Commission has considered when applying the public interest test have been detailed below.
Arguments in favour of disclosure:
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:
Weighing the balance
The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of operator, however, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/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.
However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess operators’ compliance with the LCCP and identify any operators who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.
We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about our processes which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole.
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
I thank you for your very timely response, and appreciate your well made points regarding the availability of licensing terms.
I am politely asking for an internal review regarding the rest of your decision, where my request has sought documents that would disclose the identity and bona fides of those involved with TGP Europe, 8XBet and 6686.
I found your arguments against releasing such documents entirely unpersuasive.
Firstly, they go against the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The White Paper that preceded the drafting of act stated that “Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state”, and that:
But more specifically, and in direct response to your email from earlier today, there is nothing in Section 31 of the Act that precludes the Commission from releasing information that would identify those that it has accepted as fit and proper persons.
This section states that information should only be exempt in very specific circumstances.
The only potentially relevant reasons found entirely within subsection 1 relate to:
A reasonable person would not suggest that releasing the identities of business people involved in a public company would in any way undermine the Commission’s abilities in relation to these matters.
On the contrary, a reasonable person would find that the disclosure of such details is absolutely in the public interest and would ensure greater accountability of said identities.
Moreover, the need to do is elevated to the highest level where the industry in question is one such as gambling, which is known to be closely affiliated with organised crime, and where the businesses in question have reported links to human rights abuses and have gone to extreme lengths to mask their identities.
Subsection 2 allows for exemptions where the disclosable information can be use to ascertaining whether:
In relation to these, it is quite obvious that a person's identity and bona fides are not related to their potentially criminal behaviour.
Furthermore, the allowances in subsection 2 are largely written to relate to actions that have already taken place and are of little relevance to people who the Commission has already found that are not engaged in criminal activity.
I look forward to hearing the response of your internal review and am happy to elevate this matter further if need be.
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 23/06/2023 which we responded to on 27/06/2023, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 27/06/2023.
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:
In our original response, we advised that we do hold information relating to the licence and supporting documents for TGP and its sub-licensees. However, whist the Commission does publish some License information on its website, the majority of information falling within the scope of your request was exempt from disclosure and the s31 – Law Enforcement exemption applies.
S31- Law Enforcement
The s31 – Law Enforcement exemption provides that Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice –
(g) the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2)
The relevant purposes referred to subsection (2) are –
(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,
(b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,
(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise.
(d) the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become authorised to carry on.
Internal Review
It continues to be our view that the regulatory functions of the Commission, would be prejudiced by revealing details about how the Commission assesses licence applications.
It is our view that the regulatory functions of the Commission, would be prejudiced by disclosure of this information as follows:
i) Prejudice to the Commission’s ability to fulfil its statutory functions by revealing details about how the Commission assesses licence applications, and
ii) Prejudice to the Commission’s ability to raise overall standards in the gambling industry by revealing information which has been provided in confidence which would impact on the Commission’s relationship with operators within the industry as a whole
Undermining statutory functions
Information is collected by the Commission as part of the application process to enable the Commission to undertake a full assessment of the suitability of a potential operator and the applicant’s ability to comply with the requirements of the Gambling Act 2005, the LCCP and any other regulations and guidance provided by the Commission.
The release of the information that has been gathered and assessed will have a direct impact on our statutory functions, by forewarning potential operators of the standard of information provided by other operators.
This would enable potential applicants to frame applications and present information required as part of the application process in such a manner as to secure a licence and could undermine the process of determining the genuine suitability of applicants which will ultimately impact on consumers.
The Commission considers that disclosure of the requested information would provide potential applicants with information that could be used to undermine and circumvent the licence application assessment process and reduce the possibility of any non-compliance being detected by the Commission because they would have been informed of the particular areas of the assessment that the Commission directs its resources towards, the particular form and type of evidence required and conversely what evidence does not appear to be relevant to the Commission’s assessment.
The Commission’s concern is that this would result in operators or individuals using the disclosed information to present information in a manner which would avoid further scrutiny or be targeted at the particular factors which those assessing licence applications are considering for evidence of compliance with the published framework.
By releasing this information, the Commission will be in a position where it will not be able to rely on the current process to assess applications and would need to introduce further assessment processes which have not been disclosed to ensure that the assessment process remains robust and fit for purpose in order for the Commission to perform its statutory functions.
Raising overall standards in the gambling industry
The Commission also takes the view that disclosure is likely to reduce the overall standards in the gambling industry because releasing this information would undermine our relationship with operators as the information that they provide to us as part of the application process (which can include commercially sensitive information) is done so on the understanding that this will not be released into the public domain. If this information was disclosed, it would damage the relationship that we have formed with operators which would result in them being less likely to share information with us in the future which would undermine our regulatory functions and, as a consequence, have a detrimental impact on the wider public.
Establishing trust with operators is key to having open and frank exchanges and this, in turn, will make operators more inclined to provide commercially sensitive information on the basis it is trusted to be kept with appropriate safeguards.
Disclosing the requested information without sufficient rationale would undermine this trust and make operators less likely to cooperate fully in the future. The Commission considers that if it were to be in a situation in the future where it must use its formal powers to compel the provision of information then this information, provided under compulsion, would be of a different and arguably less satisfactory quality than if information was voluntarily supplied. It would also expend the Commission’s resources considerably if, instead of being voluntarily provided the information, the Commission had to engage in prolonged discussions about the disclosure of documents during the course of assessing applications.
Public interest test
The factors the Commission has considered when applying the public interest test have been detailed below and our view is that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemption.
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/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.
Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is adequately assessing applications 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.
In favour of maintaining the exemption
The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing licence applications. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator being granted a licence 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.
There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding the techniques used to ascertain if a licence should be granted. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure. The amount of information the Commission can release relating to our specific regulatory techniques is limited as this could lead to potentially non-compliant operators altering their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission’s standards purely for assessment purposes. This in turn may impact on the Commission’s function of ascertaining a gambling operator’s fitness to carry out gambling activities.
Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.
Further, disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the outcome of future assessments by the Commission by exposing assessment techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.
Operators are required to provide detailed information and there are statutory mechanisms in place to compel the provision of information, but this is not the most effective way to obtain information. The Commission relies on the voluntary provision of information to perform its functions and open and frank exchanges are integral to decision making.
Disclosing information without sufficient rationale would undermine this trust and make operators less likely to cooperate with requests in future. This would potentially result in the Commission having to use its more formal statutory powers in the future, leading to more guarded disclosures which would not be in the public interest.
Weighing the balance
The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of operator, however, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments. However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess applications and identify any operators who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, the Commission considers that the relevant prejudice identified above would be caused to the Commission by disclosure and this weighs in the balance when considering the question of public interest.
Disclosure of the information gathered in relation to TGP and their application is very unlikely to contribute to a proper understanding of the regulatory activities of the Commission. There is extensive information already published on our website about our licensing processes to satisfy the public interest in this matter via the Policy Statement: Licensing, compliance and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005 – Gambling Commission which clearly sets out the required standards with which operator licensees are expected to comply.
The Commission also publishes other information in relation to how it assesses license applications, including its Statement of principles for licensing and regulation - Gambling Commission and information about applying for and assessing operating license applications. 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.
To summarise, having reviewed your request and our response, I uphold our original decision to engage the section 31 exemption.
In your request for an internal review, you have specifically referenced releasing the identities of ‘business people’ involved in TGP and its sub-licensees. This level of detail was not specified in your initial request and as such was not directly addressed. However, I can confirm that as with businesses that offer gambling in Great Britain, the Gambling Commission licenses, regulates, advises, and provides guidance to the individuals working in the gambling industry.
Individuals are required to hold a licence from the Commission in order to offer facilities. The Commission goes through the same licence application process as with licensing a business. It makes an assessment of suitability against criteria set out in the Act. Part 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 details the Commission’s statutory functions in relation to the licensing requirements. The Licence conditions and codes of practice (LCCP) set out the requirements all licensees must meet in order to hold a Gambling Commission licence.
Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice
Once licensed, gambling individuals are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.
Identifying individuals associated with operators would constitute their personal data. We are therefore unable to provide details of the individual(s) associated with TGP and its sub-licensees.
The Data Protection Act 2018 requires the processing of personal data to be fair and lawful. It would be disproportionate for us to publicly disclose these details unless there is a strong public interest in doing so. These individuals have a legitimate expectation that their personal details will not be disclosed in the context in which they are held.
On balance, there is no legitimate public interest in disclosing this information and it would not be fair to do so.
This information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
If you are not content with the outcome of your FOI 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.