NN: Benjamin, do you have any observations? From your perspective, I know that the German regulatory regime is relatively new so there are limited numbers of financial fines so far, but from a regulator’s perspective, the purpose of financial penalties is important to ensure compliance and consistency within the regime. BS: Yes, we have also an opportunity for financial sanctions. But, of course, our State Treaty is now two years in operation so we have no experience in this field, because have we granted the permissions only in the last two years and only now we are starting with the controlling. And, yes, if there are violations of our regulation, we will start also with financial sanctions. On the other hand, we are also combating illegal gambling, and we have the first experience of sanctions under criminal law: a case about influencers in advertising. But we have also the opportunity as a regulator under gambling law and have been very successful in payment blocking against illegal gambling. We have payment blocking over the last 10 years and now we have a very good cooperation with the banks and credit card companies. But we have no experience of sanctions. NN: I won’t go too far into this. But clearly in a number of jurisdictions, the manner in which the regulated market is protected, and facilitated for the benefit of consumer protection and licensed operators is important and trying to quantify the success or otherwise of sanctions or blocking mechanisms is difficult. But the black market in Germany exists, as we can see from the civil liability suits that have been brought. Anyway, maybe that’s too far away from our core subject of financial policies so let me go back to this. Are these fines achieving their purpose? Why are they being levied at such high levels? And are they having the desired effect? Jamie? JN: Look, if I can just back up for a second, because I think when we’re looking at record finds we’re making the assumption that the actual statute, or laws allow significant fines to be imposed. And what became very apparent in Australia with essentially a number of casinos’ completely reprehensible conduct in respect of integrity and responsible gaming behavior being conducted, was that maximum fines imposed by statute were laughable; they weren’t even a cost of doing business. They were in statutes, which were drafted something like 25-30 years ago, when something like AUS$100,000 seemed like a large sum of money. So it was very apparent at the start of these inquiries, that the statute needed to be amended. So therefore it became AUS$100 million in respect of the breach of various laws for the casinos, and those fines have now been imposed. Then it comes down to a policy perspective and again, it needs to be looked at in respect of a broader umbrella. What are the sanctions which are capable of being imposed for non-compliance? Is it only fines? Or is that just part of a range of sanctions which can lead to suspension or cancellation of a license in respect of onshore? And then obviously a question mark in respect of offshore, so what’s effective? In the Crown penalty, what came up very clearly was one of about 10 factors, which they looked at. That is to say that the factor of deterrence, whether it be specific or general, is key. And so therefore, if it’s a fine, which is just a matter that can be catered for, as essentially a cost of doing business, that is really problematic as the message which is going to be stated. And that is very much at the forefront, not just in respect of the courts, but also in respect to the regulators where they’re looking at the conduct, which they are essentially looking to supervise. So I think it’s one of the factors that come to mind where the regulators had to be seen to be looking after the interests of other stakeholders, whether it be the public as represented by the consumers, politicians, governments, etc, as whether or not it’s an appropriate fine in the circumstances of the relevant conduct. And of course, that gives rise to the question of what is the type of conduct that’s being assessed? CB: What Jamie’s saying is what is considered as well. Part of what we’re discussing is transparency. You mentioned how fines are calculated, the transparency, that is a line which must be held. On the one hand, we must be transparent as to why we are imposing certain fines and how we get to the number. On the other hand, you cannot be so obvious. Most of us here are lawyers, and we have an interest in compliance. Most of the regulated industry, is made up of good people who actually want to be compliant. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still some operators that will see whether the cost of doing business is going to be defeated by the fine that will eventually be meted out or not. So
27
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker