Allegations of cheating arise across the whole world of gambling: in casinos and card rooms, in online betting, and in sports where people bet on the outcome. For many of those involved, the first sign of trouble is an approach from a regulator, a sports governing body or a gambling operator, rather than the police. That inquiry may end with a ban, a voided bet or a withheld payout. But the same conduct can also be a criminal offence, and a regulatory or contractual dispute can turn into a criminal investigation with very little warning.

Having spent 22 years as a Crown lawyer before moving into defence work, I have seen how these cases develop from both sides. The decisions made in the first few days of an inquiry can shape everything that follows.

The criminal offence of cheating

Under section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, it is a criminal offence to cheat at gambling, or to do anything to enable or assist another person to cheat. Cheating can include actual or attempted deception or interference with the process by which gambling is conducted, or with any game, race or other event on which people gamble. It does not matter whether the cheat actually improves their chances or wins anything. On conviction in the Crown Court, the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

The Act does not define cheating exhaustively, so its scope is wide. It can catch a player at a casino table, a bettor, a sports participant who manipulates an event, and anyone who helps them.

Cheating does not require dishonesty

The leading authority is Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67. The professional gambler Phil Ivey won around £7.7 million at baccarat using a technique called edge-sorting, and the casino refused to pay. Although it was a civil claim, the Supreme Court held that cheating has the same meaning there as under section 42, and that dishonesty is not a necessary element of it.

The question is whether the conduct was in fact cheating, judged objectively against the rules of the game or activity, not whether the person believed it was. Mr Ivey genuinely regarded what he did as legitimate “advantage play”, but that made no difference. One of the court’s own examples came from racing: a stable lad who denies the favourite water for a day and then lets it drink heavily just before the race is cheating, even if few would naturally call it dishonest.

The practical lesson is that sincerely believing your conduct is clever but legitimate is no defence.

Who investigates?

Several bodies may be involved, often at the same time:

• Gambling operators. Licensed operators must report suspected cheating to the Gambling Commission. They may also refuse to pay out or close accounts.
• The Gambling Commission. Its Sports Betting Intelligence Unit receives betting integrity reports. The Commission can investigate and prosecute offences under section 42, and has power to void bets that it considers substantially unfair.
• Sports governing bodies. Where betting relates to a sporting event, the sport’s own regulator may investigate its participants under its rules.
• The police. Serious cases may be investigated by the police and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Beyond cheating itself, there may be further exposure. Winnings obtained by cheating can be treated as the proceeds of crime, which brings the possibility of money laundering offences, confiscation proceedings and the freezing of bank accounts.

An example: racing and the BHA

Horse racing illustrates how far a sports regulator’s powers can reach. Licensed and registered participants, including trainers, jockeys and stable staff, are bound by the Rules of Racing and must cooperate with British Horseracing Authority (BHA) investigations. The BHA explains that in integrity inquiries it will interview the people involved and ask for their full telephone records and betting account histories. Its analysts then build a timeline of calls and bets. Failing to comply can lead to disqualification.

The Rules also prohibit participants from passing inside information to others. A review of the BHA’s integrity processes recommended clear criteria for deciding when matters under BHA investigation should be passed to the police or the Gambling Commission. In other words, a regulatory inquiry can be the first step towards a criminal case.

Another example: betting on the 2024 general election date

Section 42 is not confined to sport and casinos. Before the 2024 general election was called, gambling operators offered markets on when it would be held. The then Prime Minister announced the date of 4 July 2024 on 22 May 2024, and the Gambling Commission opened a criminal investigation into bets placed beforehand by people suspected of having advance knowledge of the date.

In 2025, the Commission charged 15 people with cheating under section 42. On 29 June 2026, two defendants pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court. The Commission said both had placed bets using confidential information about the election date, and they are awaiting sentence. The remaining defendants deny the charges and are due to stand trial in 2027 and 2028, so no conclusions should be drawn about them.

The case is an important illustration of how far section 42 reaches. On the Commission’s approach, cheating need not involve interfering with the event at all: betting on the strength of confidential information can be enough. It also shows that markets on political and other non-sporting events are just as much within the law’s reach as a horse race or a card game.

The risk of parallel proceedings

Where a person is bound by a regulator’s or governing body’s rules, the duty to cooperate usually comes from those rules, and refusing to answer questions or hand over records can cost them their licence or livelihood. Yet anything said or produced may later become relevant to a criminal investigation, and they should not assume it will be protected from use.

Even where there is no duty to cooperate, as with a casino or betting operator disputing a payout, explanations given in correspondence or interviews can later be used as evidence. These are not decisions to make alone.

Practical steps if you are contacted

• Take advice before any interview or written explanation. The first account you give will be compared with betting records, phone records and any CCTV, and inconsistencies will be examined closely.
• Understand what you are obliged to do. Check what the relevant rules or contract require of you, what happens at each stage, and the consequences of declining.
• Do not delete anything. Deleting messages, call logs or betting records can turn a manageable issue into an allegation of obstruction or perverting the course of justice.
• Do not discuss the case with others involved. Conversations with associates, fellow participants or other gamblers may be misinterpreted and can themselves become evidence.
• Think about criminal exposure from the outset. Ask whether the conduct could also amount to an offence, and plan your approach to the regulator or operator with that in mind.
• Protect your finances. If there is any suggestion that winnings or payments are linked to wrongdoing, take advice promptly about the risk of account freezing or restraint.

How we can help

Child & Child advises individuals and businesses facing cheating allegations and integrity investigations by gambling operators, the Gambling Commission, sports governing bodies such as the BHA, and the police. We can advise from the first contact, attend interviews, manage the interaction between regulatory, civil and criminal proceedings, and deal with any related tax or proceeds-of-crime issues.

To arrange a confidential discussion, please contact Tessa Lorimer on TessaLorimer@childandchild.co.uk or 020 7201 1896.

Sources

Gambling Act 2005, section 42 and Explanatory Notes (legislation.gov.uk); Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67; Gambling Commission, Section 42 Cheating (FOI response); British Horseracing Authority, Integrity and the BHA, and Integrity Code of Conduct; BHA Integrity Review (2016); Gambling Commission, Two admit General Election betting offences (29 June 2026).

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be taken on individual circumstances.