Kopek Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 The time difference is 8 hrs, the scammers would need to be in place, midnight or later. Regular staff would be tucked up by then, empty office to hide their activities!!! Scams of this type rely on repeated and constant contact with the victim, phone, email , hook their interest, get a commitment, get more from them over time, it's rarely one call and job done, it's a confidence trick, hook them, bleed them? That means a dedicated team of confidents, operating with training in the confidence trick, with management supervision and ongoing support directing MR X to the person they have spoken to??? It's not a few employees sneaking back into the office after closing to do their nefarious activities!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 1 minute ago, Kopek said: The time difference is 8 hrs, the scammers would need to be in place, midnight or later. Regular staff would be tucked up by then, empty office to hide their activities!!! Scams of this type rely on repeated and constant contact with the victim, phone, email , hook their interest, get a commitment, get more from them over time, it's rarely one call and job done, it's a confidence trick, hook them, bleed them? That means a dedicated team of confidents, operating with training in the confidence trick, with management supervision and ongoing support directing MR X to the person they have spoken to??? It's not a few employees sneaking back into the office after closing to do their nefarious activities!!! As an international gaming business, they probably shift-worked through 24 hours. TBH, no one can make any assessment of complicity or how it worked. The really big question is why here? Surely, a boiler room in Mumbai would be less obvious and more 'fleet of foot'? However, no matter what went on, there will be collateral damage, individually and to the island, and that is just so sad on many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 On 8/24/2024 at 9:17 AM, Mysteron said: Probably because the entities in question are regulated by the GSC and not the FSA. Your question might still be pertinent if the GSC employs retired cops. 4 hours 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. I bet this is f***ing bollocks. Sorry, but I imagine your partner didn’t know sh** all about what was going on in victoria road, I don’t believe this for a second. Companies don’t get closed down because of what folk do “on the side” Sorry, I don’t buy this. I call nonsense on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 1 hour 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. The licenses were revoked before receivership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 1 hour ago, Gladys said: But who has been convicted? nobody has to be convicted for a licence to be cancelled, FYI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 59 minutes ago, Gladys said: Well, @Luker, has the licence holder or a designated official been convicted? not yet, but I’m sure charges will follow in due course. Like @Luker said, companies don’t get closed down unless there’s good evidence to show that bad things went on. It’s also entirely likely that this evidence can’t be shared til trial…. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, manxkinho said: nobody has to be convicted for a licence to be cancelled, FYI. Yes, there are very many reasons. But Luker was referring to the convictions in China as being the basis for the cancellation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: Yes, there are very many reasons. But Luker was referring to the convictions in China as being the basis for the cancellation. The original announcement just referred to section 13. It’s most likely section 13 (4) (e) which talks about failure to comply with money laundering codes. https://www.isleofmangsc.com/gambling/news-gambling/24-july-2024-public-statement-cancellation-of-gambling-licence-for-king-gaming-limited/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 3 minutes ago, manxkinho said: not yet, but I’m sure charges will follow in due course. Like @Luker said, companies don’t get closed down unless there’s good evidence to show that bad things went on. It’s also entirely likely that this evidence can’t be shared til trial…. You are probably (likely) quite right and I am not disputing the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, manxkinho said: The original announcement just referred to section 13. It’s most likely section 13 (4) (e) which talks about failure to comply with money laundering codes. https://www.isleofmangsc.com/gambling/news-gambling/24-july-2024-public-statement-cancellation-of-gambling-licence-for-king-gaming-limited/ Quite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 1 minute ago, Gladys said: Quite. The timeline is: 24th July - license is cancelled 6th August - Receivers appointed So, it cannot be cancelled because of receivership. It also could have been cancelled because all of the directors resigned on 30th May, causing the companies to be in default, and have no nominated officer. My money is still on the 13 (4) (e) though, companies don’t get totally shut down for having no directors so quickly….. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puppet1 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 From speaking to someone who left the company before this blew up. The "pig butchers" worked from the hotel, they were "customer services staff" and were kept separate from the KG office. Tbc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 46 minutes ago, manxkinho said: nobody has to be convicted for a licence to be cancelled, FYI. I was discussing 13.3 (C) which only needs a key person to be convicted anywhere in the world of an offense that’s a 2 years sentences or more. It’s clear receivership has nothing to do with this as you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puppet1 Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 Apparently UK/Manx staff suspected something wasn't right because so much money was used on building a business that never really took off. Any conventional investors would have pulled the plug a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessTickle Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 What was the script with the hotel? Was that owned by the group or was it an HMO? 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.