ABB’s  Guardian  Rebuttal  Dirties  up  the  Facts  on  FOBT  Money  Laundering  By  Christopher  Wakem  December  10,  2013  

 While  Dirk  Vennix  of  the  Association  of  British  Bookmakers  recently  took  issue  with  the  accuracy  and  fairness  of  Randeep  Ramish’s  Guardian  article  on  the  link  between  gambling  machines  and  money  laundering,  the  truth  is  Mr.  Vennix  himself  makes  a  major  jump  in  logic.    The  gist  of  Mr.  Ramish’s  piece:  drug  dealers  throughout  Britain  are  using  fixed-­‐odds  betting  terminals  in  bookmaker  shops  to  launder  money  by  feeding  their  profits  into  the  machines,  losing  a  minuscule  amount,  cashing  out,  and  collecting  a  printed  ticket  that  they  can  show  police  should  any  questions  be  raised.  The  concern  is  that  the  machines  are  very  lightly  regulated,  and  though  bookmakers  are  aware  the  machines  are  being  used  for  this  sinister  purpose,  they  are  hesitant  to  do  anything  about  it  as  FOBTs  are  so  profitable–the  machines  contributed  $1.4  billion  to  the  betting  industry  last  year  alone.    In  his  rebuttal,  Mr.  Vennix  argues  that  though  money  laundering  is  a  serious  and  widespread  crime  that  must  be  eradicated,  bookmakers  can  not  possibly  be  seen  as  the  root  of  the  problem.  According  to  his  organization’s  research,  less  than  0.3%  of  suspicious  incidents  reported  to  the  Serious  Organised  Crime  Agency  involved  bookmaker  shops.  And  of  all  the  betting  transactions  in  the  UK,  just  250  cases  (or  0.00001667%)  were  suspected  of  wrongdoing,  only  10%  of  which  ended  up  being  investigated  further  or  prosecuted.  He  argues  this  is  due  to  stringent  anti-­‐money-­‐laundering  regulations  the  shops  abide  by,  including  the  Proceeds  of  Crime  Act,  the  Gambling  Act,  and  the  Terrorism  Act.    Mr.  Vennix’s  argument,  though  persuasive,  overlooks  a  key  fact  highlighted  by  Ramish–that  bookmakers  essentially  regulate  themselves.  They  decide  whether  or  not  to  ban  problem  gamblers,  call  the  police  over  suspicious  behavior,  or  report  witnessed  crimes.  A  low  number  of  suspicious  incidents  reported  or  investigated  doesn’t  necessarily  prove  Vennix’s  assertion  that  the  regulations  are  working,  in  fact  it  could  play  right  into  Mr.  Ramish’s  contention  that  the  cases  of  wrong  doing  are  simply  being  ignored.