Betfair under fire over gambling fraud losses

Published: 17 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Pressure is mounting on Betfair to hand over tens of thousands of pounds to the victim of a long-running fraud, after court proceedings exposed how a gambling addict was repeatedly allowed to wager vast sums of stolen money on the platform despite multiple warning signs. The case has reignited debate in the UK over the responsibility of gambling operators toward vulnerable customers and the victims of crimes linked to gambling addiction.

The controversy centres on Andrew Morford, a former finance manager who this week received a two-year suspended prison sentence after admitting to defrauding his employer of £340,000 over a period of nearly five years. The fraud, which ran from May 2019 until February 2024, was uncovered only after Morford’s employer noticed irregularities in its finances. During sentencing, Judge Silas Reid described Morford’s severe gambling addiction as a “very significant mitigation factor,” noting that it had driven him to lose more than £1m through betting.

Much of that money was lost on Betfair’s exchange, part of the £28bn global gambling group Flutter Entertainment. Court documents and internal company records, later reviewed by journalists, suggest that Betfair missed multiple opportunities to intervene as Morford’s gambling spiralled out of control. Campaigners argue that those failures enabled the continuation of criminal activity and left Morford’s employer facing substantial losses.

Morford first opened an account with Betfair as far back as 2005. Even in those early years, he recognised his struggles with gambling and repeatedly asked the company to block his access. In 2008 he formally requested a permanent self-exclusion, a step designed to prevent problem gamblers from continuing to bet. Yet, despite this, Morford was later able to resume gambling by opening a new account under a slightly altered name, registering as “Andy” rather than “Andrew.”

Although he self-excluded again in 2010, that exclusion was reversed two years later. Over the following five years, Morford went on to lose a net £659,000, mostly on football and horse racing markets. His betting activity was so intense that he was awarded “VIP” status by Betfair, a designation typically reserved for customers who wager and lose very large sums. As a VIP, Morford was assigned a personal account manager and offered free hospitality at high-profile sporting events, including cricket matches and major horse racing festivals such as Cheltenham and Ascot.

Internal records from Betfair reveal how staff members tracked Morford’s gambling habits closely, with one interaction even labelled “whale catcher,” a term commonly used in the gambling industry to describe customers who generate exceptionally high losses. Despite this level of scrutiny, decisive action appeared slow. In 2017, Betfair eventually closed Morford’s account, citing concerns about his betting behaviour. However, this did little to stop him.

Shortly after the closure, Morford opened another Betfair account in the name of his father, Gordon. Using this account, he went on to lose more than £600,000, including over £120,000 in just five months during 2018. Remarkably, internal risk assessments reportedly categorised the account as “low end of medium risk,” despite the extraordinary scale of losses. Critics argue that this classification highlights systemic weaknesses in how gambling companies assess and respond to potential harm.

Although Betfair operates as a betting exchange rather than a traditional bookmaker, meaning customers often lose money to other gamblers rather than directly to the company, Betfair still earns commission from each winning bet. Analysis of betting records suggests that the company may have earned around £200,000 in commission from bets Morford lost between 2018 and 2024, a period that overlaps significantly with the years of his fraudulent activity.

There were also apparent warning signs that Morford was using an account registered in his father’s name. In August 2022, he accidentally signed an email to his VIP manager with his own name. The same mistake occurred again in March 2023. On that occasion, an employee searched internal records and discovered Morford’s history of self-exclusion. The employee flagged concerns to colleagues, warning that evidence suggested the customer had previously circumvented exclusion measures. Despite this, the account remained open, allowing Morford to deposit more than £550,000 and continue gambling until it was finally shut down over identity concerns.

Morford’s employer, Co-operative Development Services, uncovered the fraud in 2024 and pursued legal action. The organisation successfully obtained a £575,000 civil judgment against Morford. Part of this sum was recovered through his £100,000 pension and the sale of his 50% share in the family home, worth approximately £110,000. Another gambling firm, SpreadEx, later agreed to contribute an additional £45,000 toward compensation.

Betfair, however, has so far declined to make a similar contribution, prompting criticism from both the victim organisation and campaigners. Jacqui Bell, criminal justice services director at GamLearn, said the case was far from unique. According to her, the charity is currently supporting more than 50 individuals in near-identical situations, where gambling addiction has led to criminal behaviour and significant losses retained by operators despite clear signs of harm.

In a victim impact statement submitted to the court, Co-operative Development Services questioned whether gambling companies had done enough to prevent the fraud, noting that several operators had “profited considerably” while warning signs were missed. The statement added to growing calls for greater accountability within the industry, particularly when gambling-related harm spills over into criminal conduct affecting third parties.

Betfair has suggested it may yet consider handing over the commission it earned from Morford’s betting. In a statement, the company said it has an established divestment process and that the case would be reviewed once criminal proceedings were fully concluded. A spokesperson emphasised that Betfair takes player safety seriously, complies with regulatory obligations, and has shared information about Morford’s case with the Gambling Commission.

The company also argued that Morford had deliberately deceived staff by impersonating his father during phone calls and providing documentation in his father’s name, including during interactions intended to assess safer gambling risks. These reassurances, Betfair said, contributed to delays in identifying the full extent of the deception.

Nevertheless, the case has intensified scrutiny of how effectively gambling firms identify and respond to vulnerable customers, particularly those who exploit loopholes to bypass exclusion systems. For campaigners, the moral question remains whether companies should be allowed to keep profits generated from gambling activity that is later linked to criminal acts.

As regulators, charities and victims continue to press for answers, the outcome of Betfair’s internal review may set an important precedent. Whether the company ultimately returns the money it earned from Morford could signal how seriously the gambling industry is prepared to address the wider social consequences of addiction-driven crime.