Connaitre ses droits

Arjel Procedure No. 2010/03 COMMISSION DECISION ON SANCTIONS

Last Updated on Monday, 11 July 2011 14:24 Written by Administrator Monday, 11 July 2011 14:17

CONTROL AREA

GAMES OF CHANCE AND MONEY ONLINE

BOARD SANCTIONS

established by Article 35 of Law No. 2010-476 of 12 May 2010 on the introduction of competition

and sector regulation of gambling and online gambling

----------------------------------------

Enforcement Committee

Procedure No. 2010/03

COMMISSION DECISION OF SANCTIONS

The Sanction Commission of the Regulatory Authority for online games (hereinafter "ARJEL")

After hearing during the public meeting of May 12, 2011:

- Bertrand DACOSTA in his report;

- Mr. Rhadames KILLY, representing the College and its Board ARJEL, Mr. Bernard

WHEAT;

- Representatives of the company X;

the defendants having had the last word.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The jj/mm/2010, an investigator in the conduct of investigations and inspections of ARJEL after

remote access to the compartment "paris sports" vault of archival material support

Company X, established a record which it is clear that for some players:

- The first recorded event does not correspond to the specific record

account opening;

- The event of acceptance of the terms and conditions of the operator, prior to the

first time, is absent;

- Setting the event moderator, before the first time, is

also absent;

- Finally, the accounts have not led to questioning of the file and play banned

of prohibited gambling among players with an account opened in jj/mm/2010.

The record has been notified to the Company X jj/mm/2010

The jj/mm/2010, the president of the ARJEL put the operator on notice to comply with its

obligations relating to conditions of operation, supply and operation

Players accounts as well as those governing the interrogation of the file of the game banned

Company X has responded by letter of jj/mm/2010.

Dd / mm / yyyy, the College of ARJEL, however, decided to open a sanction procedure

against the company, pursuant to Article 43 II of the Act of May 12, 2010 on

opening to competition and regulation in the sector of gambling and online gambling.

The statement of objections was sent to the company X jj/mm/2010.

The Chairman of the Sanctions Committee designated the rapporteur jj/mm/2010.

The jj/mm/2011, after obtaining an extension of fifteen days of the deadline set by Article 5

Decree of 14 May 2010 on the procedure of sanction applicable to licensed operators of gaming

paris or online, the company X has produced a written submission.

The ARJEL produced jj/mm/2011 the comments in response. Company X produces a memory

reply February 28, 2011. The ARJEL produced a second defense on jj/mm/2011.

The company produces a second reply the jj/mm/2011.

The jj/mm/2011, the reporter proceeded with the hearing of several agents ARJEL.

The jj/mm/2011, the rapporteur has proceeded to hear the representative of company X, the head

Technical society and its counsel.

After transmitting the report to the parties on jj/mm/2011, ARJEL and Company X submitted

new observations, respectively 7 and April 22.

The jj/mm/2011, ARJEL informed the parties that it believed that the failure to the absence

setting moderators game had ended and she decided to abandon the grievance

matching.

The disciplinary committee met May 12, 2011. During the meeting, said she ARJEL

abandoned the complaint concerning the failure to consult the file of banned gambling, given the

corrective actions implemented by the company.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The sanctions committee took note of the abandonment by the ARJEL two of the four complaints.

Still have two complaints.

The first complaint is based on the finding that financial flows were carried out on

a number of accounts, without the opening of these accounts were recorded on

hardware support archiving of company X. The ARJEL considers the failure to register is

likely to prove a breach of society's obligation to archive in real time.

It also believes that the failure to register "may suggest that the operations

and movements in question were made in the absence of prior opening of player accounts

relevant or that supplies were made prior to obtaining

of approval, which is likely to characterize a breach of the provisions of Article 17

the Act of May 12, 2010 and may be such as to characterize an illegal transfer of comptesjoueurs. "The ARJEL observes that the facts in dispute, which occurred during a period of massive flows

opening of accounts, "are likely to involve a very significant number of accounts

players ". She believes that society should have to bring to the notice to comply

its legal obligations, close and reopen the accounts in question.

The second complaint is based on a similar observation: the lack of registration in the support

storage material for a number of accounts, data on decision

knowledge and acceptance of terms of sale, which might suggest

a disregard of the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of Decree of 19 May 2010 on the last

available supply of games and paris by authorized operators of games or online paris. There

again, ARJEL considers that the company should have made the closing and then reopening,

accounts concerned.

Company X maintains a temporary computer malfunction occurred during three days,

preventing that data relating to the opening of a number of accounts are

stored in the safe, even though these openings had occurred and that

general conditions of sale had actually been validated. Demonstrated, in her view,

data in the sensor, as well as exchanges with the players showing that a

account opening process has been consistently committed.

She argues that in any event, it follows from the combined provisions of Articles 31 and 38 of the

law that the obligation to archive messages does not extend to opening accounts.

* * *

The disciplinary committee can use the powers it has under Article 43 of the Law of 12

May 2010 in case of failure of a gaming operator or online paris approved obligations

laws and regulations applicable to its business. In the absence of such failure, it

may impose a sanction, without the need to rule on the materiality of grievances

invoked by the College of ARJEL.

Section 38 of the law poses one of the principles underlying the functioning of the system:

continuous monitoring of the activities of gambling operators or online paris is performed by licensed

ARJEL and to this end, operators must make available a permanent number

data.

However, the requirement of filing in real time, on a physical medium located in France

Metropolitan, the data exchanged between the player and the operator does, under

section 31, as mentioned in Article 3 of 38 ("the events of gambling or betting, and

for each player, the operations associated and any other data involved in the formation

player's account balance "). However, the data on behalf of each player, including its

opening date and reference of payment account, are expressly referred to in Article 2 of

38.

Even if the regulatory authority could legally extend the obligation of filing

real-time information other than those mentioned in 3 of article 38, such an extension

not the result of the Decree of 18 May 2010 on the obligations imposed on

licensed operators of gaming or paris online for the control data sets by the Authority

regulation of online gaming.

The decree includes a chapter IV, entitled "Information made available to the ARJEL", which includes

Articles 7 to 9.

Article 8 of the Decree lists the data "that the operator is required to make available

Regulatory Authority of online games from the beginning of its activity, as

full or associate. "

This list includes, in 1 °: "Any information held by the operator for each

player, including the following information: full name, sex, date and place of birth,

home mailing address, if any e-mail address, identifying possible

Access to player account, date account opened player, which the balance of payment as

mentioned in the last paragraph of Article 17 of the Act of May 12, 2010 referred to above, which

the operator will transfer, if any, the assets of the player. "

Under Article 7 of Decree:

"The data referred to in Article 8 shall be made available to the regulatory authority sets

online:

1 ° by permanent access to archival material support available to the authority;

2 ° For the periodic transmission of data to the authority, complete or aggregated, extracted

the platform of the operator;

3 Following a specific request made by the authority. "

These provisions can not be regarded as cumulative. Article 7 provides, among

modes of provision of ARJEL data mentioned in Article 8, continued access

hardware support for archiving, but it does not, as such, an obligation to transfer

all data mentioned in Article 8 of the support. Also included in other items

of Article 8 of the data it is clear they are not intended to be included in the support

archival material. Section 7 merely states in what ways the ARJEL can access

various data, the requirement to archive real-time some of them finding their

legal basis in the combined provisions of Articles 31 and 38 of the Act.

Also, if Article 9 of the Decree of 18 May 2010 states that "a detailed list of data

mentioned in Article 8, the frequency of transmission provided for in Article 2 of 7 and

formats are specified in the related case of technical requirements ", this reference entitles

ARJEL not to require operators to archive the archive material support provided by

Article 31 of the Law of the data other than those mentioned in 3 of section 38.

The requirement for operators to include data on behalf of each player, and

including its opening date, of those that must be one-time recording

real hardware support for archiving, resulting only in the case of the technical requirements developed

by ARJEL, is therefore no legal basis. His ignorance, in the state of

relevant legislation, can result in punishment.

The reasoning applies to the same, the second complaint, concerning the lack of registration of

hardware support for archiving information on the acceptance of terms and conditions

sales, which, likewise, is not among the information the archive was made compulsory

by law.

FOR THESE REASONS

And after deliberating under the chairmanship of Thierry Tuot, Ms. Pierrette PINOT,

MM. GUEROULT Antoine and Michel Arnould, members of the Enforcement Committee,

in the presence of Recording Secretary,

RESOLVED:

Article 1

st

: The alleged grievance can not lead to imposition of a sanction.

Article 2: This Decision shall be notified to the company X and the Chairman of the Regulatory Authority

online games.

Article 3: This decision will be published within fifteen days after its

ruled on the website of the Regulatory Authority of online games.

THIS DECISION MAY BE APPEALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANNED II. DE

ARTICLE 44 OF ACT No. 2010-476:

"The decisions made by the disciplinary committee may be a

recourse of full jurisdiction in the administrative courts by individuals

and sanctioned by the President of the Regulatory Authority of online games, with the agreement of

college. "