We have written to Reading FC, calling on the club to end it’s relationship with ‘Casumo’.
Following the company’s failures of social responsibility (as outlined below), including allowing a customer to lose over £1 million without any interaction or intervention, Casumo have been fined £6 million by the UK regulator. This is their second major offence with punishment from the Gambling Commission, after being fined £5.7 million in 2018.
With between 250 and 650 gambling-related suicides in the UK every year, the consequences of irresponsible gambling operators can be catastrophic.
As the below clearly demonstrates, Casumo has shown itself not once, but twice, to be completely unworthy of appearing on the front of any football shirt, let alone represent a community-driven Championship club like yourselves.
That’s why we are calling on the club to end it’s relationship with Casumo at the earliest possible opportunity, and not seek to replace it with another gambling company.
Regulatory action against Casumo – Gambling Commission 25th March 2021
Not putting into effect policies and procedures for customer interaction where it has concerns that a customer’s activity may indicate problem gambling, and this resulted in:
· One customer losing £1.1m over three years without being subject to a responsible gambling interaction.
· A second customer losing £65,000 in one month without being subject to a responsible gambling interaction.
· A third customer losing £76,000 over seven months without being subject to a responsible gambling interaction.
Not taking into account the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction, and this resulted in:
· The operator not carrying out a responsible gambling interaction on a customer who lost £89,000 in a five-hour period.
· The operator not carrying out a responsible gambling interaction on a customer who lost £59,000 in a 90-minute period.
Anti-money laundering failings included:
· Customers were allowed to deposit significant sums of money without sufficient AML checks being conducted.
· Source of Funds (SOF) checks were insufficient. Payslips and invoices presented as evidence of SOF were not corroborated with bank statements (or other evidence).
· Bank statements produced were not assessed appropriately. Examples include incomplete bank statements which only showed credits into the customer’s account. The balance figures on a customer’s bank statement had been redacted.
· Inadequate checks of documentation for authenticity.
· No assessment or limit of how much a customer should be allowed to spend based on known income, wealth or any other risk factors.
· Winnings from other gambling operators were accepted as SOF, without further investigation.
· Not ensuring that its policies, procedures and controls were implemented effectively, kept under review, revised appropriately to ensure that they remain effective and take into account any applicable learning or guidelines published by the Commission from time to time.