Two-tier fear?

[Albert Tatlock]

1 hour ago, Luddite said:

 

“John Wright” is probably just yet ANOTHER Manx Advocate who has accepted a lucrative Government contract from the Ministry of Propaganda. The IoM Law Society has also likely sanctioned that practice. 

You are wasting your breath here Sceptic, the Stasi will be knocking at your door next!

Be lucky!

All JW is saying is that there is a process to be gone through before ascertaining any guilty parties.

I'm saying the same.

That's not difficult to understand in my book.

You guys are making assumptions you can't back up yet, until that process is completed...and I just don't know your motivation for doing so.

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, The Phantom said:

I think they just want to force a consolidation of the industry. So all the small businesses have to sell out to something like Equiom. Then there are only a couple of massive firms left that can afford to employ 100s of Compliance bods to treat all their clients like criminals and pay a massive fee to the regulator every year. 

This is a common theme in all these regulatory bureaucracies.  They think it will make their lives easier if there are just a few players who will be easier to keep in line and who they expect to be properly behaved anyway.  But what happens is regulatory capture by those big players and a 'too big to fail' mentality.  Until failure happens.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

The cost is being transferred to the industry. Regulation here brings in more in fees, charges, penalties than it costs.

That's not what the FSA Accounts appear to show:

Half their income comes from government grants, fairly consistently.

Edited September 7 by Roger Mexico
Add link

[Sceptic]

22 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's not what the FSA Accounts appear to show:

Half their income comes from government grants, fairly consistently.

You are 100% correct. The policy appears to be to issue more fines and destroy more legacy financial services businesses deemed dispensable as they aren’t key employment or revenue drivers anymore in order to dilute government funding. Whilst doing nothing about widespread e-gaming abuses which are ruining the IOMs reputation. 

Edited September 7 by Sceptic

[Luker]

17 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

But of course they can't do that, because ALL the gambling firms are dirty as fuck.

Can you point out the obvious like that on this forum when you have the lifestyles of a few associated at stake and it being one of the biggest funders of government coffers? Government wages and pensions funded by a global wall of online pain that feeds off the vulnerable and the stupid that is responsible for frauds and suicides perpetrated by some of the addicted fools who are actively targeted and sucked into it? It’s a dog shit industry. 

[thommo2010]

1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said:

All JW is saying is that there is a process to be gone through before ascertaining any guilty parties.

I'm saying the same.

That's not difficult to understand in my book.

You guys are making assumptions you can't back up yet, until that process is completed...and I just don't know your motivation for doing so.

A little off topic but it's like people bumping their gums about 2 tier justice in the UK because that Labour mp is getting a trial and they are saying we'll people were banged up within days with no trial. You try to explain that's because they plead guilty and this mp has plead not guilty so it has to go to trial but it just doesn't seem to go through

[Roger Mexico]

Further to my comment above on the FSA's income, I should note that what isn't included anywhere is described below from Note 2 to the Accounts:

Civil penalty income reflects administrative civil penalties levied on regulated and registered entities. In addition £307,292 (2022: £472,409) was charged in respect of discretionary penalties levied on regulated entities arising from successful enforcement actions or settlement agreements. The discretionary penalty receipts are not treated as income of the Authority, and are therefore not reflected in the Authority’s income and expenditure account, and are accounted for as credits to the IOM Government’s general revenue.

But even if you add this in, it doesn't take much off the £3.5 million that the government needs to put in to balance the books.

[Roger Mexico]

What does make a profit however is the Gambling Supervision Commission:

(Clearly the lack of justification for what they do extends to the inability to right-justify numbers)

There doesn't seem to be any reference to financial penalties, but we know none of the people they regulate could ever do anything wrong.

Edited September 7 by Roger Mexico
Add link

[Jarndyce]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

(Clearly the lack of justification for what they do extends to the inability to right-justify numbers)

A formatting joke!   To think we should live to see such times!!

[Harry Lamb]

1 hour ago, Jarndyce said:

A formatting joke!   To think we should live to see such times!!

Perhaps numbers that are both right and can be justified are outside their experience.

[Sceptic]

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

What does make a profit however is the Gambling Supervision Commission:

(Clearly the lack of justification for what they do extends to the inability to right-justify numbers)

There doesn't seem to be any reference to financial penalties, but we know none of the people they regulate could ever do anything wrong.

The CSP sector is viewed as legacy IOM revenue. It’s just being beaten up and managed down by the FSA regardless of the limited systematic risk it poses. The future they clearly won’t touch despite the clear issues as it has the potential to jeopardise government income spend. Best get away with nicking millions and ruining the IOMs reputation than not log a few things in a register and get a £20K fine. 

[Albert Tatlock]

Too many people in this thread are comparing the FSA with the GSC...but they are apples and oranges.

The GSC issues fewer fines than the FSA due mainly to differences in regulatory focus and industry risks. The GSC takes a more collaborative, compliance-driven approach with gambling operators, focusing on resolving issues through guidance rather than penalties. In contrast, the FSA oversees a more complex and higher-risk financial sector where breaches can have significant economic consequences, necessitating stricter enforcement, including fines. The FSA’s focus on protecting financial stability and deterring misconduct results in more frequent penalties than the GSC.

But it's not like gambling firms here don't face fines. Where they tend to be fined, and have to report breaches to the GSC, is across the world where they actually operate under licence. Most countries now have their own form of operations licencing and policing.

Pokerstars got a large Dutch fine a few years ago and others have faced penalties in the UK...all these fines under the remit of the Gambling Supervision of the country of operation. 

[Mercenary]

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

What does make a profit however is the Gambling Supervision Commission:

(Clearly the lack of justification for what they do extends to the inability to right-justify numbers)

There doesn't seem to be any reference to financial penalties, but we know none of the people they regulate could ever do anything wrong.

'profit' won't last long with the staff costs up +35% YoY

[Luker]

1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Too many people in this thread are comparing the FSA with the GSC...but they are apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges in that both are prudential regulators charged with preserving the IOMs reputation by taking action against firms which present a risk to their customers and the IOM. But from the above it appears that one potentially does it far too enthusiastically whereas the other doesn’t seem to do it at all. Yeah, apples and oranges! 

[Sceptic]

On 9/7/2024 at 11:36 AM, Roger Mexico said:

This is a common theme in all these regulatory bureaucracies.  They think it will make their lives easier if there are just a few players who will be easier to keep in line and who they expect to be properly behaved anyway.  But what happens is regulatory capture by those big players and a 'too big to fail' mentality.  Until failure happens.

E-gaming is clearly “too big to fail” here. They all seem to have some sort of diplomatic immunity for feeding governments aspirations while the legacy IOM finance sector is the only part being named and shamed and pulled apart.