Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the - SportAccord

Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport
recommended the creation of a dedicated unit within the Gambling Commission, the Sports Betting
Integrity Unit (SBIU) 134 . Its task is to collect and analyse data relating to possible fraud in the sports
betting market. It employs 12 people and is supported by the Enforcement Unit of the Gambling
Commission, which has a staff of 10 who carry out investigations. The unit also has access to the work
of 50 compliance managers who are responsible for checking to ensure that operators obey the general
rules.
In the United Kingdom, operators are obliged to signal suspicious bets, which now provide the main
basis for the Commission s work. When an alert is issued, a preliminary inquiry is launched.
Enquiries are also made among other operators, the sports authorities, police departments and in the
GC s database to glean a maximum of information. An assessment is then made, and a decision taken
as to whether to investigate the case in more depth. Responsibility for the inquiry is assigned if it
continues ( prosecuting competences ), even though in practice it is often regional police structures
that carry out the inquiries. 240 warnings have been processed since the creation of the SBIU in 2009,
but 100 of them did not go beyond the preliminary inquiry stage. The Gambling Commission is able to
carry out tests on the warning systems of operators over which it has authority. It also has the option to
cancel all bets and have them reimbursed in the event of a problem, and has a six-month period in
which to do so. There is no time limit in the event of suspected criminal activity.
France has adopted the same model, creating a sport department within ARJEL, which is
responsible for alerts on sporting bets. It uses a system named FRONTAL , which is a secure system
collecting and archiving data on events and exchanges between gamblers and platforms.
The regulator is seen as the most appropriate authority for centralising information in respect of sports
prohibitions in general and conflicts of interest affecting the world of sport. Centralisation can
therefore help to cross-check confidential data from different sources while the obligation to notify the
regulator of any suspicions together with the improved monitoring measures make it possible to crack
down if necessary, both within the sports movement and in the event of bets linked to match-rigging.
It is important to have a formal procedure to follow in the event of an alert, particularly in the context
of making contact with the sports movement to carry out the necessary internal checks.
This role of interface played by the regulator makes it possible to centralise information, which then
facilitates dialogue between states, particularly to fight against the illegal market.
The opportunity for a European approach to combat the illegal market
Many questions have arisen at European level following various actions brought before the ECJ in
recent years, which have led a number of states to regulate online sports betting activity. The general
principle is that gambling and games of chance are a service subject to restriction for reasons of
general interest, on the one hand to protect consumers (dependency), and on the other to defend public
order (avoid abuses and frauds). The principle of subsidiarity applies within the European Union. The
same concept prevails internationally for lack of a specific agreement, and this has led to a wide range
of legislation and therefore differentiated approaches to the area covered by the illegal market .
134 http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/02/01/anti-corruption-experts-uk-needs-sports-integrity-unit-010202/
79