2112 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 31 minutes ago, Just a local said: Hi [Manx Partner of an ex employee from the group here]. The company reported in the BBC News article "MIC" / Manx Internet Commerce Ltd employed 40 or so employees based in Victoria Road whose job was marketing for the sports betting sites operated by the group in Asia. They had tangible results and there was real players being channeled towards the sites because of these guys. I don't want to speak out of turn and bear in mind I'm 3 degrees of separation away here but my partner said that there was a small number of these guys fled almost immediately after the initial police raid and the rest followed after IOM Immigration got involved. This small number of people were apparently conducting this "pig butchering" scam outside of core office hours, and outside of company infrastructure i.e. servers and systems - which were for sports book marketing. The Company, MIC was obviously not setup for scamming and it was, (based on the conversations my partner was involved in after the big day) the actions of a small number that was carried out without the knowledge of the management. The Company had other employees that did other work and there of course is the sports book company and the licensed gaming companies that had employees conducting legitimate, revenue generating business. So, respectfully, to imply an IOM company was setup for scamming purposes just can't be true. But again, this isn't my area, I'm just trying to offer some perspective from the innocent guys who are caught up in all this. It wouldn’t really matter if the company was 100% clean and above board in the eyes of some people. The BBC investigation and ensuing publicity, coupled with police action has ultimately stripped the companies or their licence. Too many questions are awaiting answers, and sadly, the island will be affected in years to come. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 1 hour ago, Just a local said: I don't want to speak out of turn and bear in mind I'm 3 degrees of separation away here but my partner said that there was a small number of these guys fled almost immediately after the initial police raid and the rest followed after IOM Immigration got involved. This small number of people were apparently conducting this "pig butchering" scam outside of core office hours, and outside of company infrastructure i.e. servers and systems - which were for sports book marketing. The Company, MIC was obviously not setup for scamming and it was, (based on the conversations my partner was involved in after the big day) the actions of a small number that was carried out without the knowledge of the management. The Company had other employees that did other work and there of course is the sports book company and the licensed gaming companies that had employees conducting legitimate, revenue generating business. So why after they were suspended in April were the e-gaming licenses irrevocably pulled by the gaming commission in July then if it was a just few people doing it on the side not using company infrastructure? You don’t pull the license for two whole public operations lightly given the resultant bad international publicity for the IOM. It looks like most of the people in management who weren’t Chinese didn’t really have a scooby do what was going on and as they banked nice egaming salaries likely didn’t ask too many questions either. If they were suspended and reinstated later after investigation people might buy that line. But they weren’t. They were suspended and after a couple of months investigation the IOM completely revoked all licenses to trade. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Just a local said: Hi [Manx Partner of an ex employee from the group here]. The company reported in the BBC News article "MIC" / Manx Internet Commerce Ltd employed 40 or so employees based in Victoria Road whose job was marketing for the sports betting sites operated by the group in Asia. They had tangible results and there was real players being channeled towards the sites because of these guys. I don't want to speak out of turn and bear in mind I'm 3 degrees of separation away here but my partner said that there was a small number of these guys fled almost immediately after the initial police raid and the rest followed after IOM Immigration got involved. This small number of people were apparently conducting this "pig butchering" scam outside of core office hours, and outside of company infrastructure i.e. servers and systems - which were for sports book marketing. The Company, MIC was obviously not setup for scamming and it was, (based on the conversations my partner was involved in after the big day) the actions of a small number that was carried out without the knowledge of the management. The Company had other employees that did other work and there of course is the sports book company and the licensed gaming companies that had employees conducting legitimate, revenue generating business. So, respectfully, to imply an IOM company was setup for scamming purposes just can't be true. But again, this isn't my area, I'm just trying to offer some perspective from the innocent guys who are caught up in all this. Thinking a bit more about this, chatting to people in the Gaming industry and knowing how the regulators operate, I'd 100% agree with you. MIC/King was a legit gaming Co but there appears to have been a handful of rogue operators. How much senior Management knew or how this ties into the visas etc remains to be seen. Suggestions that this drove all the immigration and proposed development (or that Govt was complicit) is foolish and seems is coming from posters with a clear agenda against Govt/the company or gaming in general. It seems the fact we are heavily regulated and have a good reputation in the industry was the perfect cover for some shady people to set something up from a back room. If Management were aware or involved doesn't even necessarily mean they were in agreement. We know what some of these Chinese gangs are like. Perhaps they had them over a barrel somehow. These things are run and discovered globally all the time. We are just making headlines due to our perceived tax haven reputation. Edited August 27 by The Phantom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 7 minutes ago, Luker said: So why after they were suspended in April were the e-gaming licenses irrevocably pulled by the gaming commission in July then if it was a just few people doing it on the side not using company infrastructure? You don’t pull the license for two whole public operations lightly given the resultant bad international publicity for the IOM. It looks like most of the people in management who weren’t Chinese didn’t really have a scooby do what was going on and as they banked nice egaming salaries likely didn’t ask too many questions either. If they were suspended and reinstated later after investigation people might buy that line. But they weren’t. They were suspended and after a couple of months investigation the IOM completely revoked all licenses to trade. It's not like the regulators to go overboard or for Govt to be clearly panicking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 6 minutes ago, The Phantom said: It's not like the regulators to go overboard or for Govt to be clearly panicking? We already have a report from an employee that phones/photos were banned from their do’s. Presumably because the Chinese Government scrape social media with facial recognition software. That’s a management enforced decision it’s nit something a few rogue blokes do. What you’ll likely find is that the Chinese controllers knew exactly what was going on and the Manx/Europeans probably took a lot at face value because they were being paid well and believed what they were told. They likely don’t speak Mandarin either so wouldn’t have a clue on conversations p, emails or documents that might be circulating around them. You don’t pull a license directly affecting the jobs of 70 odd people without grounds when you’ve already suspended them publicly a few months before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a local Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 1 hour ago, Luker said: So why after they were suspended in April were the e-gaming licenses irrevocably pulled by the gaming commission in July then if it was a just few people doing it on the side not using company infrastructure? You don’t pull the license for two whole public operations lightly given the resultant bad international publicity for the IOM. It looks like most of the people in management who weren’t Chinese didn’t really have a scooby do what was going on and as they banked nice egaming salaries likely didn’t ask too many questions either. If they were suspended and reinstated later after investigation people might buy that line. But they weren’t. They were suspended and after a couple of months investigation the IOM completely revoked all licenses to trade. If I knew that, Luker, I wouldn't be spending my evening arguing with the denizens of this angry little corner of the internet, would I Mr. C? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 11 minutes ago, Just a local said: If I knew that, Luker, I wouldn't be spending my evening arguing with the denizens of this angry little corner of the internet, would I Mr. C? Nobody is angry or arguing with you. I’m just pointing out that the license was suspended and then subsequently fully cancelled after an investigation. So there was clearly an investigation before they decided to irrevocably pull the license. Also if there is a rule that stops people taking pictures at office parties that isn’t made up by a small number of rogue traders. It’s a management decision to reduce the likelihood of the Chinese Government scraping someone’s image from Facebook. Does your “partner” speak Mandarin? Likely not so they could basically be doing anything, including having a conversation in Mandarin two feet in front of anyone, and nobody would be any the wiser. It’s nice to be paid an e-gaming salary though isn’t it to pretend you know what’s going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Luker said: You don’t pull a license directly affecting the jobs of 70 odd people without grounds when you’ve already suspended them publicly a few months before. Companies in receivership aren’t allowed to have gambling licences. The BBC article says the two companies are in receivership upon application of the Attorney General. The GSC haven’t said why they’ve taken the licenses away but receivership would be grounds by itself even if there was no foul play. Edited August 27 by Ringy Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: Companies in receivership aren’t allowed to have gambling licences. The BBC article says the two companies are in receivership upon application of the Attorney General. The GSC haven’t said why they’ve taken the licenses away but receivership would be grounds by itself even if there was no foul play. https://lotteryinsider.com/2024/07/public-statement-isle-of-man-gsc-cancellation-of-gambling-licences-for-king-gaming-limited-and-dalmine-limited/ “The Commission considers that it is in the public interest to issue this statement to advise stakeholders that further to section 13 of OGRA, the Commission cancelled King Gaming Limited’s licence on 24th July 2024. This decision has immediate effect” Section 13 of OGRA is here (Page 13): https://www.gov.im/media/1349397/online-gambling-regulation-act-2001.pdf Edited August 27 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Luker said: The Commission considers that it is in the public interest to issue this statement to advise stakeholders that further to section 13 of OGRA, the Commission cancelled King Gaming Limited’s licence on 24th July 2024. This decision has immediate effect” Yes, you’ve just quoted what I already said. We know the licenses are gone but we don’t know why. Edited August 27 by Ringy Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 2 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: Yes, you’ve just quoted what I already said. We know the licenses are gone but we don’t know why. I’d suggest it’s 13.3 (C) https://www.gov.im/media/1349397/online-gambling-regulation-act-2001.pdf Nowhere is receivership specifically mentioned in 13 OGRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Luker said: Nowhere is receivership specifically mentioned in 13 OGRA. It is. It’s at 13(1) which points you to another section. A licence holder must have financial means which they obviously don’t have if they’re in receivership. 8 minutes ago, Luker said: ’d suggest it’s 13.3 (C) You’re just guessing. It may or may not be an educated guess given what else has happened but it is still just a guess. The GSC have been silent. Edited August 27 by Ringy Rose 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 9 minutes ago, Luker said: I’d suggest it’s 13.3 (C) https://www.gov.im/media/1349397/online-gambling-regulation-act-2001.pdf Nowhere is receivership specifically mentioned in 13 OGRA. Were any of those convicted either the licence holder or a designated official? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: It is. It’s at 13(1) which points you to another section. A licence holder must have financial means which they obviously don’t have if they’re in receivership. You can be in receivership and still have the financial means to meet liabilities. The license was cancelled under S 13.of OGRA and 13.3 (C) makes it clear that if anyone is convicted in any court in the world of an offense with a sentence of 2 years or more that’s grounds. We know that people were convicted in a Chinese Court of exactly that. Edited August 27 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Luker said: You can be in receivership and still have the financial means to trade. The license was cancelled under S 13.of OGRA and 13.3 (C) makes it clear that if anyone is convicted in any court in the world of an offense with a sentence of 2 years or more. That’s grounds. We know that people were convicted in a Chinese Court of exactly that. Not anyone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.