Casino 36 Losses Case Against Money Laundering Officer

A compliance and money laundering reporting officer working for Casino 36 in Wolverhampton has won her case against the company for constructive dismissal.

Jayne Bailey was given the role in 2017 and was responsible for complying with the UK Gambling Commission rules and regulations, however when she reported two specific cases to her employers including owner Adrian Ballard that customers were breaching regulations and spending beyond their means she was rebuffed.

In her role she reported two customers to bosses that she believed were gambling beyond their means, one customer named only as “LS” in court lost more than £77,000 in twelve months and another named as “S” lost £10,800 in three months. In both instances neither were allowed to be followed up as Mr Ballard said their losses were the result of previous winnings.

Another customer she reported was using large amounts of loose cash, this customer was never approached to ascertain were the money came from.

Following a short period Ms Bailey was off with stress on her return her line Manager told her that it would be best if she were to take a more suitable role, which would be less demanding as her probationary period as the money laundering reporting officer was unacceptable.

Ms Bailey resigned instead, however in October of 2018 two months following her resignation the UK Gambling Commission found that Casino 36 had breached regulations and fined £300,000.

Presiding Judge Clifford Miller said there was no evidence to support the argument that Miss Bailey’s performance had been unsatisfactory and that in deciding to remove her from the role and It was clear, said the judge, that she made the disclosures in the public interest, intending to uphold the law.

The judge concluded by saying: It may be that the claimant was motivated by a wish to do her job as well as she could and take the steps that she considered would protect the respondent from intervention by the Gambling Commission, but it is obvious that the claimant had a clear understanding that to do so was in the public interest, namely the reduction/ prevention of crime and the protection of people vulnerable to gambling addiction.”