.svg)
The UK Gambling Commission has charged several of the political figures caught up in last year’s election betting scandal, in what one legal expert says is a vindication of operators’ know your customer (KYC) procedures.
The commission announced on Monday (April 14) that it had formally charged 15 individuals with cheating when placing bets on the timing of the 2024 general election.
The scandal erupted last year when it emerged that individuals with advanced knowledge of the date that then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak would call a general election appeared to have placed bets using insider information.
The individuals charged by the regulator include former MP Craig Williams, who at the time of the scandal was an aide to Sunak.
A former Conservative member of Wales’ devolved parliament, the Senned, was also among those charged, along with former Conservative candidate Laura Saunders and her partner Anthony Lee.
“Current members of staff who have been charged are being suspended with immediate effect,” a spokesperson for the Conservative Party said.
“These incidents took place in May last year. Our party is now under new leadership and we are cooperating fully with the Gambling Commission to ensure that their investigation can conclude swiftly and transparently,” they added.
The betting allegations were highly embarrassing for Sunak and his ultimately doomed bid to defeat the Labour Party in last year’s election.
“From the operator perspective it’s more about a customer with inside information looking to exploit that information to win money from the operator in an unfair and/or unlawful way,” said Andy Danson, a partner with Bird & Bird.
“Betting operators would want to be aware of it from that perspective for their own purposes, but they would only police it to the extent it was proportionate to do so — given the difficulty of knowing who is exposed to confidential information, and the relatively low amounts staked on political events compared to some sports events,” he said.
Another UK legal expert argued that the very fact the Gambling Commission has been able to press charges speaks well of gambling operators’ policies and procedures.
“It would be easy to criticise bookmakers for accepting bets from people that had access to non-public information about the timing of the general election, but in truth, this story is an example of an effective regulatory framework in action,” said Chris Elliott, a partner at law firm Wiggin.
“Operators typically undertake checks on whether a customer is a politically exposed person (PEP) early on in the customer relationship. These processes are generally pretty robust and, where a PEP is identified, operators undertake enhanced due diligence when deciding whether they wish to accept any bets.
“No system of checks will spot all PEPs — for example, customers who walk into high-street betting shops can enter and place bets without being known to the bookmaker.”
Rules in the UK around how potentially politically exposed customers should be treated are detailed, but apply more stringently to casinos, both physical and online.
“Licensed operators currently have an obligation to report to the commission if they have knowledge or suspicion of an offence such as cheating,” explained Danson.
“However, this doesn’t go as far as an obligation to actively monitor beyond that which they do for their own purposes. It would be quite bizarre if betting operators were obliged to police the behaviour of politicians, rather than the other way around!”
In the case of the election betting scandal, Elliott said: “A bookmaker identified bets that raised red flags — including wagers placed by individuals who appeared to have access to confidential information about the election date before it was publicly announced.
“Thanks to these monitoring processes, the suspicious activity was flagged, prompting a formal investigation and ultimately allowing the authorities to pursue criminal charges.
“It is plainly in the public interest that these people should be held to account, which helps maintain public trust, both in the integrity of elections and in the fairness of regulated gambling markets.”
