UK Bookmakers Linked to Offshore Casino Deal

Published: 01 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Three major UK bookmakers that have repeatedly warned about the growth of unlicensed gambling websites have been linked through a shared business investment to a lucrative agreement with a large offshore casino network, according to documents disclosed in a recent gambling industry leak.

The arrangement involves Sports Information Services, commonly known as SIS, a UK-based gambling content and data provider whose shareholders include major names connected to Ladbrokes, William Hill and Betfred. Documents relating to the offshore gambling group Santeda indicate that SIS entered into a commercial agreement with the network in 2022.

The disclosure has raised questions about the relationship between Britain’s regulated gambling industry and offshore operators at a time when bookmakers have increasingly warned policymakers about the risks posed by gambling companies that operate outside the UK’s licensing and tax framework.

The details emerged from a large collection of confidential material concerning gambling regulation in Curaçao, a Caribbean jurisdiction that has become an important base for online betting and casino businesses serving international customers. The documents include information relating to Santeda, an online casino network that has previously faced allegations concerning its activities in regulated markets.

According to the leaked contract, SIS agreed to provide Santeda-affiliated websites with gambling-related information and content, including live racing and other data services. The agreement was structured for an initial two-year period and contained an automatic renewal provision unless either party chose to terminate it.

The commercial arrangement was significant because SIS provides information that is important to online gambling operators. Its products include live horse racing, greyhound racing and esports content, together with data used by betting businesses to calculate and settle wagers.

The contract also reportedly provided for SIS to receive a percentage of revenue generated from losing bets placed through Santeda’s brands. The available documents do not establish how much money SIS ultimately earned from the agreement, nor do they make clear whether the contract remains active.

SIS has declined to disclose whether the relationship has been terminated.

The arrangement is particularly notable because several of SIS’s major shareholders have publicly warned that the expansion of Britain’s illicit gambling market could be encouraged by higher taxes or additional regulation on licensed operators.

Ladbrokes owner Entain, which holds a significant shareholding in SIS, has repeatedly raised concerns about offshore gambling businesses. Its chief executive, Stella David, has also criticised the involvement of professional football organisations with gambling companies that operate outside the UK’s regulatory system.

William Hill’s parent company Evoke has similarly referred to competition from the illicit market when discussing its online gambling business. The company has argued that unlicensed operators can create a difficult competitive environment because they are not subject to the same regulatory requirements as licensed UK businesses.

Fred Done, the billionaire businessman behind Betfred and a director of SIS, has also warned policymakers about the possible consequences of increasing taxes on gambling products. He has argued that higher costs for licensed operators could encourage some customers to move towards offshore websites that do not pay UK gambling taxes or operate under the same regulatory requirements.

The newly disclosed SIS agreement has therefore created an apparent tension between the industry’s public warnings about offshore gambling and the commercial relationship revealed in the leaked documents.

However, the available information does not establish that the individual shareholders knew about or approved the Santeda agreement when it was signed. Industry sources have suggested that the bookmakers would not ordinarily have access to commercially sensitive information concerning the contracts SIS negotiates with customers.

The ownership structure of SIS is also relevant to the financial implications. Companies House records indicate that SIS shareholders have received at least £37 million in dividends since the Santeda agreement was signed, including approximately £30 million distributed in 2023.

Based on its reported 23% stake in SIS, Ladbrokes appears to have received around £8.5 million in shareholder payouts during the period. William Hill’s ownership interest of close to 20% would indicate dividends of more than £7 million, while Fred Done’s approximately 8% holding suggests that his share of the distributions was close to £3 million.

These figures do not demonstrate that the dividends themselves originated from the Santeda contract. SIS has numerous customers and sources of revenue, meaning the shareholder payments cannot be directly attributed to any single commercial relationship without detailed financial information.

Nevertheless, the timing of the dividends and the existence of the offshore agreement have prompted criticism from gambling reform campaigners.

Matt Zarb-Cousin, a gambling reform campaigner and director of gambling-blocking company Gamban, said the industry should address its own commercial relationships if it wants policymakers to take its warnings about the illicit market seriously.

He argued that major gambling companies should examine whether business arrangements involving offshore operators are consistent with their public position on the dangers of unlicensed gambling.

The controversy also highlights the increasingly complicated relationship between regulated and offshore gambling markets. Licensed British operators are subject to extensive requirements covering customer protection, advertising, responsible gambling, taxation and anti-money-laundering controls. Offshore operators that target British customers without the appropriate UK licence can operate outside many of those requirements.

The UK government and gambling regulators have been attempting to strengthen measures designed to prevent customers from moving towards unlicensed operators. At the same time, gambling companies have warned that excessive taxation or regulation could make licensed businesses less competitive against offshore alternatives.

The Santeda agreement appears to have been designed with geographical restrictions. The leaked contract does not permit SIS products to be used in Britain under the arrangement. SIS has also said that its customers agree to use its products only in jurisdictions where doing so is legal and where the necessary licences are in place.

A SIS spokesperson said customers were contractually required to comply with applicable laws and licensing requirements. The company also said it could take corrective action when it became aware that contractual or regulatory requirements were not being followed, including suspending or terminating agreements.

That response leaves an important distinction between supplying gambling-related information to an offshore business for use in jurisdictions where it may legally operate and directly facilitating unlawful gambling in the UK. The available contract does not by itself establish that SIS products were legally supplied for use by UK customers.

However, concerns remain because previous investigations into Santeda-linked websites have raised questions about whether some of the network’s businesses attempted to attract customers in Britain. The network’s Curaçao licensing arrangements also do not provide permission to operate in every jurisdiction where gambling is regulated.

The issue comes at a sensitive time for Britain’s gambling industry. Policymakers are considering further changes to gambling taxation, while licensed operators are seeking to demonstrate that a regulated market remains commercially viable.

The dispute illustrates the competing pressures facing the sector. Bookmakers want stronger action against offshore competitors while simultaneously warning that additional costs imposed on licensed businesses could push customers towards those same unlicensed alternatives.

For regulators and policymakers, the case also raises questions about how closely commercial relationships within the gambling supply chain should be examined. Content providers such as SIS may not operate betting websites themselves, but the data and services they provide can be essential to the functioning of online gambling businesses.

The leaked documents do not establish that Ladbrokes, William Hill or Fred Done personally negotiated the Santeda agreement. The available evidence instead points to a contract involving SIS, a company in which those interests are substantial shareholders.

Entain has said it was not a party to the commercial or customer arrangements negotiated by SIS. The company said that, after learning of the relationship, it took the matter seriously and raised its concerns with SIS.

The disclosure is likely to intensify scrutiny of the industry’s efforts to combat the illicit gambling market. It also demonstrates how commercial relationships can become more complicated when companies operate across borders and provide services to businesses subject to different regulatory regimes.

As governments continue to debate gambling taxation and consumer protection, the central issue will remain how to prevent vulnerable customers from being drawn towards unlicensed operators while ensuring that the regulated market maintains clear and consistent standards.

For the companies involved, the immediate challenge is to explain how commercial relationships with offshore gambling businesses fit alongside their public warnings about the risks of the illicit market. For regulators, the episode provides another example of the difficulties involved in monitoring an increasingly international online gambling industry.