The Gambling Commission said an investigation in 2020 and 2021 uncovered “significant weaknesses” in the operator’s processes related to its anti-money laundering and safer gambling practices.
Vbet will make the payment of a set of sanctions, being the cash destined to socially guilty causes.
Of the total, £302,500 will go to National Gaming Strategy projects to fund challenge game studies and remedies. The amount of GBP 35 131 will also be voluntarily transferred and GBP 15 606. 50 will be transferred to the Commission’s investigation prices.
“In determining the appropriate outcome, the Commission noted in its assessment that Vivaro cooperated with the investigation and took ‘proactive and timely action’ for the issues raised,” a BetConstruct spokesperson said in a statement.
The Gambling Commission has decided that there are a number of shortcomings in Vbet’s anti-money laundering (AML) policies and processes.
Not only were consumers able to deposit large sums of money before “know your customer” checks went into effect, but the company also failed to provide enough guidance in its policies on how workers determine fund resources, as well as supporting documentation to be supplied.
The regulator also said that, based on the degree of visitor spending, anti-money laundering case degrees were too high and “not adequate to manage the related money laundering risk well. “
The Gambling Commission has put forward express examples illustrating this in action. Within two months, one visitor was able to deposit £14,850 “with an inadequate SOF in place”. Although Vbet had triggers in position for controls, he said most of them were too high and the controls performed were not enough.
“The Commission is of the opinion that while some checks were carried out, they were sufficient until the visitor reached the ‘much higher AML threshold’ set by the licensee,” the regulator said.
He went on to point out that “Vivaro relies too heavily on the customer’s net gaming position,” as it allowed consumers to swipe winnings-based checks beyond the game.
The GC also pointed to another case where a visitor provided a bank with a balance of more than £270,000 which the visitor claimed he earned from winnings from a separate gambling site.
The regulator said the company “did not sufficiently address the risks related to recycled profits,” and focused specifically on the trader’s failure to carry out further checks confirming the origin of the budget that had been used for betting.
“Customers may embezzle the budget and redeposit new expenses from scammers,” the Gambling Commission said.
In addition, the Gambling Commission noted that the licensee had failed to take into account the dangers related to cash gambling from cryptocurrency trading. The Commission considers cryptocurrencies to be a “high risk” product.
Despite those shortcomings in processes, the Commission said its review of known express consumers in the compliance assessment “found no evidence of fraudulent spending with the licensee. “
Vbet also discovered a number of social responsibility breaches.
The company hadn’t set up enough controls for new users, the regulator said, and didn’t properly account for high-speed spending and game duration. In one case, a player deposited and lost £4,000 over a four-day period.
The regulator decided that there was a poor point of record-keeping, as well as no evaluation of the use of culpable gambling tools by customers. The operator also did not read about the maximum levels of spending in relation to revenue.
“A consumer with a salary of £5,000 per month was able to deposit £20,000 between 9 September 2020 and 5 February 2021. This was approximately 80% of the client’s salary and the licensee did not sufficiently cover this point of expenses. “said the Gambling Commission.
In September 2021, Swedish regulator Spelinspektionen revoked Vivoro’s license after it was unable to start operating a year after receiving its license.
The operator cited personnel issues similar to the Covid-19 pandemic as the reason for its delay, as well as the clash between Armenia and Azerbaijan, where the company was based, which led to the call of another 50 people to serve in the Armenian Armed Forces. Effective. .
This ruling was overturned the following month by the country’s administrative court, following a successful appeal through the company.