The plan to make gambling debts legally enforceable, reversing 150 years of practice within the industry is a move which will inspire confidence in the users of the UK market. 

The Government is keen to make the UK a global gambling centre and encourage large firms to locate their business here. The establishment of a kitemark by the Gambling Commission to differentiate regulated firms from unregulated will encourage firms to be subject to the regulations. 

Firms displaying the kitemark will receive a greater level of public confidence than those that don’t subject themselves to the regulation. 
In my view the establishment of the Gambling Commission by the Government means that the UK will be able to locate itself at the forefront of the worldwide gambling market and ensure that it is a jurisdiction that gambling operators will want to locate to.

Betting Exchanges: Person-to-Person Betting

Betting exchanges have revolutionised the online betting industry since their recent arrival on the scene. While it is clear that they have increased competition on the internet, they are still operating in a relatively grey area as regards the law. The users can act as bookmakers without the required permit. 

This has caused the larger bookmakers to question the legality of the exchanges they argue that the users do not have to pass a ‘fit and proper’ test before ‘laying’ bets. 

I would argue that the ‘fit and proper’ test required of bookmakers under Sch.1 s.16(1)(a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 is negated by the measures that exchange sites such as Betfair have introduced. 

Betfair doesn’t allow you to make bets outwith the money you have on deposit, therefore you will always be in a position to settle your debts. Betfair also has a system in place whereby every transaction that goes through the website is logged and any signs of unusual betting patterns will be reported, this will therefore deter any criminal involvement on the exchanges.

It will still be necessary for the Government to introduce some form of legislation regarding betting exchanges, so that the law is clear for others who wish to set up an exchange. 

Regulation of Clients Assets Held On Deposit

As we have seen the situation regarding the regulation of clients assets is badly in need of reform. There have been too many cases of ordinary punters being ripped off for this problem to be ignored any longer. With no effective regulations on how they should look after their clients assets bookmakers have been setting up business with no regard to the liabilities that they will encounter on a daily basis. 

I feel that since spread betting has been regulated since the Finance Act 1986, that there is no good reason why ordinary bookmakers are treated differently. It was highlighted by Leggat L.J. in the City Index case that sporting activities were regulated by the FSA. The Government chose to do nothing about this and allowed the practice to continue. 

Why should punters who bet on the outcome of a sporting event via an ordinary bookmaker be treated less favourably than a punter who bets with a spread betting firm? There is no good answer to this question and this is why the law needs to be reformed. 

Australia boasts some of the most well respected online bookmakers who are forced to comply with regulations that segregate client funds from the rest of the business. This raises the question, ‘if they can do it, why can’t we?’ Again there is no good reason why we shouldn’t force bookmakers in the UK to be subject to similar controls.