Entain’s Illegal Betting Operations in Turkey and Bribery Allegations

The UK has charged former GVC executives over fraud and bribery linked to Turkey-facing betting operations. Entain paid a record fine, while Ankara remains silent.

The gambling industry’s global expansion has often revealed how far companies are willing to go in pursuit of profit. A UK court case now highlights this reality once again. Years after the events took place, historic business decisions have turned into an international investigation — one that raises not only corporate accountability issues but also difficult questions for governments.

CPS Charges and Key Figures

The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has brought charges against several former GVC Holdings executives. At the center of the indictment are former CEO Kenny Alexander and former chairman Lee Feldman, both accused of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to bribe.

The list of defendants extends further. Former CFO Richard Cooper, ex-director of trading James Humberstone, and individuals tied to third-party companies are also implicated. Among them are executives from the payments provider Ilixium, as well as directors linked to Conexus and Inteliqo Limited.

In addition, Entain’s former chief governance officer Robert Hoskin, who served between 2020 and 2023, was separately charged in February 2024 with perverting the course of justice. HMRC officials described the wider probe as “complex and international,” underlining the scale of the investigation.

Illegal Betting in Turkey

Between 2011 and 2017, GVC operated in Turkey through its subsidiary Headlong Limited, despite online betting being illegal under Turkish law. During this period, several well-known brands serving Turkish players were part of its portfolio, including Superbahis, Betboo and AnadoluCasino. In addition, Youwin relied on GVC’s infrastructure for years to reach the Turkish market.

In November 2017, GVC announced that it had divested its Turkish-facing business, selling it to Ropso Malta Limited in a performance-related earn-out deal worth up to €150 million. However, UK investigators later questioned whether the company had truly cut all ties and suspected that bribes may have been paid to sustain operations in Turkey’s restricted environment.

The Turkish market’s scale and profitability explain why authorities widened the investigation, seeing it as not only a corporate compliance issue but also an international matter of financial crime.

A Record-Breaking Fine

In December 2023, Entain reached a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the CPS, bringing an end to the corporate side of the investigation. Under the deal, the company agreed to:

• Pay a £585 million financial penalty,

• Donate £20 million to charity,

• Contribute £10 million towards CPS and HMRC’s costs.

The settlement was one of the largest of its kind in UK legal history. Just days after the agreement was approved, Entain’s CEO Jette Nygaard-Andersen resigned with immediate effect. The company insisted her departure was unrelated, while stressing that none of its current leadership team had any involvement in the Turkey case.

Although the agreement resolved Entain’s corporate liability, it did not shield former executives from prosecution, nor did it fully close the book on the reputational damage caused by the scandal.

Turkey’s Silence and International Comparisons

In the UK trial, the charges focus squarely on activities linked to the Turkish market. On one side are the former executives accused of running illegal operations and paying bribes; on the other side, there must logically have been recipients of those payments. Since bribery is by nature not a one-sided act, the question inevitably arises: what is Turkey’s position in this affair?

What stands out is the silence. To date, no official statement has been issued by Turkish regulators or government ministries. This lack of response contrasts with how other countries have typically reacted in similar international corruption scandals.

In past cases, governments often activated their own mechanisms rather than remaining passive:

• In the Siemens bribery scandal, Germany did not wait for foreign courts alone; it launched investigations with its own prosecutors into the company.

• During the FIFA scandal, parallel inquiries were carried out in Switzerland alongside the U.S. Department of Justice case.

• In the BAE Systems affair, the U.S. pursued its own proceedings in addition to the UK process.

These examples show that when allegations of bribery touch their citizens or markets, states usually demonstrate at least some form of internal investigation. Against this backdrop, Turkey’s continued silence appears even more striking.

Questions Beyond the Fine

The Entain case may have been settled on the corporate side with a £585 million penalty, but the fine does not answer all the questions. The scandal is not only about whether bribes were paid; it is also about how illegal betting operations were able to thrive in Turkey for years under the umbrella of a London-listed company.

Brands such as Superbahis, Betboo, AnadoluCasino and Youwin became fixtures in the Turkish market during that period, despite online gambling being strictly prohibited. This raises deeper questions: How could these operations run so openly? Who enabled them to continue despite the legal ban?

Compared to countries like Germany, Switzerland or the U.S., which responded to similar scandals with domestic investigations, Turkey’s silence leaves a gap. Without clarity on the local dimension, the story of Entain’s past in Turkey remains incomplete.

For now, the company has paid its record fine and distanced itself from former executives. But until more is revealed on the Turkish side, the Entain scandal will continue to resonate beyond the UK courtrooms and remain a point of international scrutiny.