Wolverhampton casino worker who resigned over money laundering fears wins employment tribunal

Jayne Bailey was promoted to compliance officer and money laundering reporting officer (MLRO) at Casino 36 in Wolverhampton in 2017 and part of her role was to ensure that they complied with Gambling Commission rules and regulations.

But an employment tribunal heard that when she told her bosses that some clients seemed to be spending beyond their means and that they should be told to produce evidence of their income, she was rebuffed.

Sources of income are supposed to be checked not only to prevent criminal activities but also to protect those addicted to gambling.

One customer, identified only as “LS “ was said to have lost £77,000 in 12 months – and another, identified as “S”, lost £10,800 in three months.

Miss Bailey also told casino owner Adrian Ballard that some customers were breaching rules by using large amounts of loose cash – a clue that money laundering might be involved – but Mr Ballard told her the money was traceable as previous winnings.

While she was off work with stress her line manager Craig Dobson suggested that she “take on a more suitable role” which would be less demanding, claiming that her performance during her probationary period had been unacceptable.

Instead she resigned, and an employment tribunal has upheld her claim of constructive dismissal. The panel also ruled that she had suffered detriments because of the protected disclosures she had made.

In October, 2018, two months after Miss Bailey resigned, the Gambling Commission announced that Casino 36 had to pay a penalty of £300,000 for failing to comply with regulations governing due diligence and checks on customers’ sources of funds.

It followed checks on 33 customers, some of whom “were potentially displaying signs of suffering gambling harm”.

In the judgment, which has just been published, Employment Judge Clifford Miller said there was no evidence to support the argument that Miss Bailey’s performance had been unsatisfactory and that in deciding to remove her from her role as MLRO, Mr Ballard and Mr Dobson “both had regard to the disclosures the claimant made”.

It was clear, said the judge, that she made the disclosures in the public interest, intending to uphold the law.

The judgment continued: “It may be that the claimant was motivated by a wish to do her job as well as she could and take the steps that she considered would protect the respondent from intervention by the Gambling Commission, but it is obvious that the claimant had a clear understanding that to do so was in the public interest, namely the reduction/ prevention of crime and the protection of people vulnerable to gambling addiction.”

A further hearing to decide on a remedy has since been cancelled.