MaxEnt is to appeal the UK Gambling Commission’s intention to revoke its licence, in addition to stressing that, despite being hopeful of a positive outcome, it is “carefully considering” its position in the market.
Making its intention public this week the UKGC has issued the firm a Tuesday 18 June deadline to submit an appeal, as opposed to revoking the licence with immediate effect.
The Malta based operator of betat.co.uk and slottyvegas.com stressed that the regulator is not only satisfied that the firm is adequately funded in the short and long term, but also with the source of the funding too.
Furthermore, in a company statement posted on its website, it commented that the UKGC issues are also not connected with the way the business is run or with how customers are treated, but solely with availability of documentary evidence from two years ago.
This relates to a transition period undertaken before current management took charge of the organisation, something it says “as part of the appeal we will seek to have proper regard of the change of management taken.”
MaxEnt also went on to add disappointment that the UKGC wrote “This follows identification of concerns relating to the operator’s finances and information supplied to the Commission,” a comment that, “in light of what was written in the findings,” it brands as misleading.
Concluding its response to the potential revocation, MaxEnt explained: “We feel that the commission’s decision is not sufficiently objective, hence why we are appealing. We do not intend to leave the UK market at this time.
“We are hopeful of a positive outcome following our appeal, but we will be carefully considering our position in the UK market, nonetheless. We believe that other markets show great potential for a responsible, prudent operator such as ourselves.”
On its regulatory decision register, the UKGC said of its decision earlier in the week: “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.”
