Non-Believer Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 1 hour ago, WTF said: maybe those 6 chinese banks got rumbled early on and we weren't told why they never arrived ? Maybe this was one of the 6 🤭 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 The concern I have is how much financial encouragement did the Government give them, if any, to operate on the Island. 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 3 minutes ago, Fred the shred said: The concern I have is how much financial encouragement did the Government give them, if any, to operate on the Island. I would venture to say that I’d be surprised if IOMG didn’t give King and others glowing testimony to persuade builders/developers to enter into a large scale development? Did IOMG get involved, are they acting as a guarantor? I’m sure many are going to get their fingers burned. It may put other developers from building new office schemes for the egaming sector? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 2 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: Given the police smashed their back doors in Oh er missus 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 3 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: [...] I’m not sure what the pearl clutching is about. Regulators can’t do things without evidence. Nor can the police for that matter. For King’s offices to be raided there will have been many months of investigation to get sufficient evidence to justify the raid. As soon as King’s offices were raided the licence was revoked. In short, police raids come at the end of a long investigation, not at the start. But the whole point of regulators is that they do greater powers to inspect and investigate. They don't have wait for a warrant, they can and should regularly look at what the organisations they regulate do, including things such as unannounced visits. And these powers should be especially relevant to the gambling sector, because of its potential to be used for laundering money from illegal activities, scams and the like. And companies such as King should have been under close scrutiny for various reasons discussed elsewhere (though the original Philippe Auclair article is now paywalled) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 29 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: But the whole point of regulators is that they do greater powers to inspect and investigate. They don't have wait for a warrant, they can and should regularly look at what the organisations they regulate do, including things such as unannounced visits. In the Isle of Man only gambling activity that takes place on the island is regulated. Activity that is tangential, such as writing selling software, isn’t regulated. Which is why Microgaming never had a licence and it’s also why TGP Europe- the ones who do the white labelling in the UK that so exercises Philippe Auclair- don’t need a licence. There was an employment tribunal a couple of years ago which showed that a lot of what King did was software development. If that’s true the GSC would have had no power to inspect anything that wasn’t gambling. You can hide a lot of Chinese scammers in a “software developer” and without a forensic examination of their computers you’d have no real idea what they were actually up to. I can’t for one second imagine the GSC would have the ability to do such a forensic examination. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 3 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: In the Isle of Man only gambling activity that takes place on the island is regulated. Activity that is tangential, such as writing selling software, isn’t regulated. Which is why Microgaming never had a licence and it’s also why TGP Europe- the ones who do the white labelling in the UK that so exercises Philippe Auclair- don’t need a licence. There was an employment tribunal a couple of years ago which showed that a lot of what King did was software development. If that’s true the GSC would have had no power to inspect anything that wasn’t gambling. You can hide a lot of Chinese scammers in a “software developer” and without a forensic examination of their computers you’d have no real idea what they were actually up to. I can’t for one second imagine the GSC would have the ability to do such a forensic examination. Didn’t King create Candy Crush, which was for mobile devices? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 19 minutes ago, 2112 said: Didn’t King create Candy Crush, which was for mobile devices? No that was a linked business. Remember the one which the ex head of gaming for IOM Government jointed joined after he left and which then made him about £4M when it was sold off a few years later. Before he then went to work for the convicted fraudsters Alvin Chau’s UK e-gaming company that was exposed by the Daily Mail a few years back? As I said about. Some people in government have done very VERY well out of our e-gaming sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 5 hours ago, 2112 said: Didn’t King create Candy Crush, which was for mobile devices? King gaming ltd is a completely different company from the company that created candy crush etc, it’s not related at all! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 5 hours ago, Luker said: No that was a linked business. Remember the one which the ex head of gaming for IOM Government jointed joined after he left and which then made him about £4M when it was sold off a few years later. Before he then went to work for the convicted fraudsters Alvin Chau’s UK e-gaming company that was exposed by the Daily Mail a few years back? As I said about. Some people in government have done very VERY well out of our e-gaming sector. king gaming in the island was not related to either alvin chau or the makers of candy crush. The chap in question was Mark Robson who was head of gaming. I don’t think that king gaming iom ever got sold - so I don’t think he made that much money : but maybe he earned 4m from king during his tenure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 4 hours ago, manxkinho said: king gaming in the island was not related to either alvin chau or the makers of candy crush. The chap in question was Mark Robson who was head of gaming. I don’t think that king gaming iom ever got sold - so I don’t think he made that much money : but maybe he earned 4m from king during his tenure? He's confusing King and 138 / TGP Europe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 7 hours ago, manxkinho said: king gaming in the island was not related to either alvin chau or the makers of candy crush. The chap in question was Mark Robson who was head of gaming. I don’t think that king gaming iom ever got sold - so I don’t think he made that much money : but maybe he earned 4m from king during his tenure? No the ex IOM Gaming head was Garth Kimber and the company here was Xela he then ended up at TGP Europe which was linked to Chau in the Daily Mail having trousered several millions when Xela sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 17 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: In the Isle of Man only gambling activity that takes place on the island is regulated. Activity that is tangential, such as writing selling software, isn’t regulated. Which is why Microgaming never had a licence and it’s also why TGP Europe- the ones who do the white labelling in the UK that so exercises Philippe Auclair- don’t need a licence. There was an employment tribunal a couple of years ago which showed that a lot of what King did was software development. If that’s true the GSC would have had no power to inspect anything that wasn’t gambling. You can hide a lot of Chinese scammers in a “software developer” and without a forensic examination of their computers you’d have no real idea what they were actually up to. I can’t for one second imagine the GSC would have the ability to do such a forensic examination. But in this case we know that both King Gaming Ltd and the related Dalmine Ltd had licences, because those were suspended in April (and later cancelled). So regulation ought to have been going on and those regulated shouldn't be allowed to to say "Don't look there, that's not relevant" because that undermines any regulation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: So regulation ought to have been going on and those regulated shouldn't be allowed to to say "Don't look there, that's not relevant" because that undermines any regulation. Whilst both King and Dalmine were regulated, other companies weren’t. Champion Tech, the subject of that employment tribunal, were not regulated. Nor were Manx Internet Commerce, the subject of the BBC article. Regulators don’t have the power to look outside of the entities they are regulating. It’s the same with the FSA and it’s also why CURA are pretty much powerless to do anything about Manx Gas. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 4 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: Whilst both King and Dalmine were regulated, other companies weren’t. Champion Tech, the subject of that employment tribunal, were not regulated. Nor were Manx Internet Commerce, the subject of the BBC article. Regulators don’t have the power to look outside of the entities they are regulating. It’s the same with the FSA and it’s also why CURA are pretty much powerless to do anything about Manx Gas. To support the scam, the borders between the various entities may have been a little more 'porous' than you would expect. That was why I asked above if the actual throughput of the gaming entities was looked at above. 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.