UKGC Uses MaxEnt Example To Emphasis Legitimate Sources Of Funds

The UK Gambling Commission has reminded players of the value of showing legitimate sources of funds when purchasing or investing in gambling enterprises.

The note cites the example of online casino operator MaxEnt’s licence revocation in June 2019, which saw the operator lose its licence to provide consumers in Great Britain with gambling facilities due to concerns raised about its change in corporate control and source of funds.

In this instance, after a change in corporate control, MaxEnt applied for a continuation of its licence. The application revealed a previously undisclosed change in corporate control which resulted in the regulator being unhappy with the source of funds used to finance the company–both prior to the undisclosed change in corporate control and during the later reported change in corporate control.

With regard to the case against MaxEnt, officials of the Commission were initially worried that the funds used posed a risk to the licencing objectives, especially in preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, with further questions being raised about the suitability of the operator to hold a licence following the submission of evidence to a regulatory committee.

The panel’s key findings were:


  • Officials were satisfied as to the adequacy of resources now available to the applicant to fund the business in the future but not as to the source of funds used to acquire and support the business at the time of, and following, the changes of corporate control;
  • The Commission had no adequate evidence of the source of funds used to acquire and finance the business in 2017 and through 2018;
  • In a declaration form to another gambling regulator, the applicant failed to identify their previous ownership and management of a casino. This was also omitted from the applicant’s CV provided to the Commission;
  • Despite a protracted period of correspondence and discussion between the applicant and Commission officials prior to the panel hearing, further material was produced to the Commission shortly before the hearing;
  • New, previously undisclosed information was identified during the hearing which required the applicant to provide further material; and
  • After the provision of this further material, evidence of source of funds remained outstanding. This meant that neither the licensee nor the applicant had a proper appreciation for the need to be full and frank with the Commission, nor for what the Commission requires to process an application of this kind.

At the time the UKGC explained while considering its regulatory decision: “After a hearing before the regulatory panel, the commission has decided to revoke the operating licence under section 102(4)(b) of the Gambling Act 2005.

“This is because the Commission is not satisfied that it would have been granted the operating licence to the licensee had the new controller been a controller of the company when the application for the operating licence was made.

“In particular, the Commission is not satisfied as to the source of funds used to acquire and support the licensee at the time of, and following, the change of corporate control.

“The Commission also identified concerns relating to the new controller’s suitability, in that it appeared that he had provided conflicting information and had failed to be full and frank in his dealings with the Commission.”