It seems to me that Canbet UK limited is the parent company and Canbet Sports Bookmakers UK limited is the subsidiary, which is the one doing the trading and has run out of money.
Why they haven't either just transferred in money (assuming Canbet uk limited has the funds, which seems likely if the IGAS group is part of it) to pay people or either written it off by now is a mystery. Maybe they are trying to evaluate the shortfall to see whether it is worth saving for the 'goodwill' of the Canbet name.
Maybe to this end they are trying to rob people of outstanding balances (voiding bonuses and winnings due to incorrect procedures by players, they would probably say) to reduce the net payout, if the last few posters on this thread are to be believed: Canbet a disgrace!!! - Page 2
I bet The Gambling Commission are praying that no one kicks up a fuss and that the whole
thing dies down. Not only have they made a donkeys ass of this, but it seems like they done their best
to protect Canbet while it defrauded the public.
I read this article a few days which addresses this type of problem. Basically says that because Canbet are located overseas that the GC are as much use as a chocolate fireguard:
With the UK set to embark on a new regulatory regime later this year, has the Canbet episode given the Gambling Commission a timely taster of the task ahead?
It is expected that by this summer a sizable proportion of the online gambling industry will be beginning to get to grips with the UK’s new Point of Consumption (PoC) regime.
As most will already be aware, the new regulatory framework will require operators and suppliers that wish to transact with customers based in Great Britain, or advertise their services on the island, to be in possession of a licence from the UK Gambling Commission.
Although the stated intentions of this new framework – to better protect consumers - have been broadly welcomed by the industry, trade associations such as the Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association (GBGA) have been vocal about the regime’s shortcomings.
One of the GBGA’s concerns is that the Birmingham-based Commission will struggle to regulate operators and suppliers based in far-flung corners of the globe. The Commission, of course, rejects this argument, however, the current case involving bookmaker Canbet might just be a case in point.
Although licenced in the UK and with offices in London, Canbet’s main operations and decision makers are based in Melbourne, Australia, following the online bookie’s acquisition by Interactive Gaming & Sports in early 2013.
However, since the takeover the operator has run into problems, with reports of customers unable to withdraw money from their Canbet accounts dating back to October. Canbet has continually attributed this failure to “an ongoing system malfunction” and last week brought a temporary halt to all operations in order to rectify the problem.
Audrey Ferrie, gaming lawyer and legal director at Pinsent Masons, believes the current situation involving Canbet is “ironic” given that “one of the stated purposes of the new Act (assuming it comes into force) is better customer protection”.
“[Canbet] is a UK company which is licensed by the Commission,” she adds, “but from a practical point of view it may prove difficult to regulate those companies which are subsidiaries of foreign entities.”
Only in the past week has the Commission requested that Canbet’s auditors provide evidence of the operator’s ability to pay customers the monies owed – a precautionary measure it perhaps should have taken long before the operator was forced to shut down.
Although there is no evidence to suggest Canbet’s problems are a result of anything other than a technical issue, the Commission seems to be dealing with the situation in a reactive manner, rather than proactively – perhaps hamstrung by it being located half a world away from the troubled operator.
According to the GBGA, the Commission has so far failed to communicate any practical proposals as to how it will review, supervise and monitor overseas companies. This leaves the regulator “in no position to effectively supervise senior management or any systems of control for UK facing elements” with operators “largely left to their own devices”.
The regulator may well now face renewed calls to illustrate exactly how it plans to scrutinise international operators. And one thing this case does illustrate is that the Commission faces no easy task in keeping on top of problems developing overseas and will be largely dependent on co-operation from local regulators.
ok... thanks. But what exactly does all that mean? i was wondering if anyone had been or heard of anyone having been paid. For a minute there i thought the chairman was an actual Lord!! which of course means he wouldnt be the only crook in that house.
Interesting post from the client who got the personal reply from the Director Peter Lord;-
Currently owed mid four figures from canbet. I went with the legal side of things around mid December and filled for a court claim, anyway, 2 weeks went by and they didn't respond, then I was by default allowed to file for judgement in which again they didn't respond. Now I have the right to file for a warrant. However, the director of the company has emailed me stating that I should be paid by the 28th of January.
What happens if by the 28th, they file for bankruptcy or insolvency? any chance of getting my money, but then I think to myself, why haven't they don't this already, why are they still around? The warrant will cost me an extra £100.