Ελληνικά
русский
One of the remarkable changes which will be achieved by the new Gaming Act, starting at 1st of July 2018, is that licensees are required to distinguish the people in charge of the key functions as defined at law. Such people are, thusly, required to experience the MGA’s examination all together for the Authority to survey their fitness and respectability. The people who satisfy the vital criteria will then be issued with a key capacity authentication for the important capacity or capacities.
1) Licensees are invited to inform the Authority at the earliest of any key functions which shall be fulfilled by one or more persons that have already been assessed and approved by the MGA, either in their capacity as employees of the licensee or due to the fact that under the Remote Gaming Regulations (S.L. 438.04) they provide the services of Key Official to the licensee. This will allow the Authority to commence preparations for the relevant key function certificate to be issued in due course
2) Persons not already known to and approved by the MGA, who have been earmarked to provide key functions, shall be notified to the MGA between the 1st August 2018 and the 30th September 2018 and shall, during such timeframe, submit all the required documentation.
3) Until such time as all key persons are notified to, and assessed by, the Authority, the responsibility for the vacant key functions shall vest temporarily in the Key Official appointed under the Remote Gaming Regulations.
In terms of article 9 of the Gaming Authorisations and Compliance Directive, the following conflicts in key functions have been identified by the Authority:
1) Compliance-based roles are incompatible with roles centred around the growth of the business. In particular, the Chief Executive role, responsibility for the licensee’s finances (except responsibility for the payment of tax and fees due in terms of law) and responsibility for marketing and advertising are incompatible with the following roles:
(i) Compliance with the licensee’s obligations emanating from the MGA licence/s;
(ii) Player support;
(iii) Responsible gaming.
2) Without prejudice to the above:
a) The person responsible for the prevention of money laundering and financing of terrorism is also expected to refrain from taking on other responsibilities which may conflict with his functions in such role, or which otherwise conflicts with such function or prejudices the person’s effectiveness and independence in such role, including but not limited to the Data Protection Officer;
b) The Data Protection Officer role is incompatible with any other role that manages or otherwise controls personal data, or which otherwise conflicts with such function or prejudices the person’s effectiveness in such role, including but not limited to the Money Laundering Reporting Officer;
c) The person responsible for internal audit is normally expected not to hold any other function.
For the avoidance of uncertainty, the above is implied as at first sight direction and is without partiality to necessities originating from other pertinent enactment in regards to specific capacities, including however not constrained to prerequisites identifying with the Money Laundering Reporting Officer and the Data Protection Officer. The operational structure of every licensee is different, and along these lines it is the duty of every licensee to guarantee that clashing capacities are not practiced by a similar individual.
Despite the above, in light of the way that this isolation of parts is essentially difficult from an assets point of view, start-up endeavors as characterized in the Gaming License Fees Regulations, and perceived all things considered by the Authority in accordance with the Start-Up Undertakings Directive, might be permitted to have a solitary individual lead parts which may by all appearances seem clashing, amid the principal year of activity, if the Authority is fulfilled that the trustworthiness of the authorized task won’t be adversely influenced.
Besides, such endeavor will not be required to have a man in charge of the key capacity of inner review, amid such first year of activity. This is without partiality to prerequisites originating from other relevant laws.
