Section 42 Cheating

Request

Copies of any internal documents, policies, guidance notes, legal opinions, correspondence, or other recorded information held by the Gambling Commission relating to:

1. The interpretation or enforcement of Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 ("Cheating"), particularly as it applies to the use of electronic devices by players in casinos or other gambling environments.

2. Any internal or external communications, reports, or guidance concerning the legality or regulatory position on card counting, whether performed mentally or with the assistance of electronic or mechanical devices.

3. Any documents, circulars, or advice provided by the Commission to licensed casinos, operators, or enforcement bodies concerning the use of player-owned devices (such as smartphones, calculators, or wearable electronics) at gaming tables.

4. Any recorded material referencing the cases of Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) or courtsiding, insofar as they relate to the Commission's interpretation of cheating or the use of publicly available information.

Response

Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

In your email you have requested copies of any internal documents, policies, guidance notes, legal opinions, correspondence, or other recorded information held by the Gambling Commission relating to:

1. The interpretation or enforcement of Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 ("Cheating"), particularly as it applies to the use of electronic devices by players in casinos or other gambling environments.

2. Any internal or external communications, reports, or guidance concerning the legality or regulatory position on card counting, whether performed mentally or with the assistance of electronic or mechanical devices.

3. Any documents, circulars, or advice provided by the Commission to licensed casinos, operators, or enforcement bodies concerning the use of player-owned devices (such as smartphones, calculators, or wearable electronics) at gaming tables.

4. Any recorded material referencing the cases of Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) or courtsiding, insofar as they relate to the Commission's interpretation of cheating or the use of publicly available information.

The Gambling Commission can confirm as follows:

Question 1, Question 2 and Question 3:

The Gambling Commission does not hold any information falling within the scope of your request. We do not hold any policies or general guidance in relation to cheating or player-owned devices. We also do not hold any internal or external communications, reports, or guidance concerning the legality or regulatory position on card counting.

Any view that we take in individual cases will be based on the specific facts of the case at the time rather than the Commission having a policy position.

The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions; through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry. We take care to publish as much information as possible. However, we must also be careful not to reveal any information that could hinder our ability to conduct investigations or enable those we may investigate to avoid detection.

In accordance with section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 (opens in new tab), a person commits an offence if he—

(a)cheats at gambling, or

(b)does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.

Known or suspected offences of cheating must be reported to the Gambling Commission under Licence conditions 15.1.1 (reporting suspicion of offences - non-betting licences) and 15.1.2 (reporting suspicion of offences - betting licences).

The Commission can investigate and bring prosecutions regarding criminal offences under section 42 of the Act. If convicted, a person could face up to two years in jail plus a fine. The Sports Betting Integrity Unit (SBIU) is a unit within the Commission which deals with reports of betting-related corruption. It works closely with the betting industry, sport governing bodies, and the police to understand potential threats and help protect the integrity of sport and betting.

The Commission determines a referral under section 42 of the Act based on the information we receive from our stakeholders.

However, not every betting integrity case reported to the Commission’s SBIU is investigated by the Commission. This is because it is often found that other statutory criminal offences such as bribery, fraud and conspiracy are present and the Commission does not have the power or authority to investigate such crimes.

In these circumstances, the Commission is obligated to report this immediately to law enforcement (whether that is in this country or abroad) and those cases then become the responsibility of the relevant law enforcement agency that it has been referred to. The Commission does not track or keep records of the results of those cases.

The Commission’s Misuse of Inside Information Policy PDF offers a detailed explanation of our approach to dealing with potential incidents of misuse of inside information in betting. It also outlines the role that sport governing bodies and betting operators can play in relation to protecting sport and betting from the misuse of inside information. Please note, this policy is being updated at present. The updated version of the policy will therefore be published in due course.

Court-siding:

The term 'courtsiding' is used to describe the act of using or transmitting information from a live sporting event for the purpose of gambling. Courtsiding involves a spectator at a sporting event taking advantage of the delay between the live action and TV or other feeds.

The spectator can use (or pass on to a third party) the real-time information to place bets on in-play markets before a betting operator, or other betting exchange user, receives the information and adjusts their odds accordingly to reflect the state of play. This results in the bettor being able to obtain more favourable odds.

The Commission does not consider courtsiding in itself an offence of cheating under section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. However, it may breach the entry terms and conditions of a tournament or event.

Further information regarding our mandatory requirements for operators can be found here: Remote Technical Standards: RTS 15 – In-play betting.

Question 4:

The Gambling Commission can confirm that some information is held falling within the scope of your request.

Any information that we can publicly disclose in relation to particular regulatory activities is made available on our website at the appropriate time so as not to disclose any information that could impact on our ability to make enquiries and conduct investigations or enable those we investigate to avoid detection.

The Commission therefore concludes that the disclosure of information referencing the cases of Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017), insofar as it relates to the Commission's interpretation of cheating, would prejudice the statutory functions of the Commission.

Section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA, provides that information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has, at any time, been held by the authority for the purposes of:

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained

(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or

(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it.

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 applying 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 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 makes decisions to ensure that any offences of cheating are correctly identified, referencing the relevant case law where appropriate, and any necessary action taken.

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

Section 30(1) of the FOIA exists to ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of offences. It recognises the need to prevent disclosures that would prejudice either a particular investigation or set of proceedings, or the investigatory and prosecution processes generally, including any prejudice to future investigations and proceedings.

There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure of the information. Should the Commission be required to disclose sensitive and confidential information relating to our decision-making methodologies relating to any suspected cases of cheating, or our investigatory and prosecution processes generally, it may lead to prejudice to our investigations, thereby inhibiting our ability to protect consumers.

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.

Weighing the balance

The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities. However, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest. Public knowledge of only certain elements of our work that ultimately informs our decision-making is unlikely to contribute to a proper understanding of the investigatory activities of the Commission.

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. 

It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.

The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Information Management Team
Gambling Commission