MAGAZINE OF THE EUROPEAN LOTTERIES, 2011, SEPTEMBER ...

PLAYER CONFIDENCE AND TRUST –
ARE WE FIT FOR PURPOSE?
In every business the confidence and trust of its
stakeholders are absolute vital ingredients for success
and nowhere is this more true than in the lottery
world.
If a lottery player ever knew or even suspected that
a lottery operation was corrupt or dishonest their
confidence and trust would undoubtedly be dented
and it is extremely unlikely that they would be willing
to purchase any tickets.
Over the years tremendous efforts have been made
by Lotteries in many operational areas to ensure that
they are safe, sound and secure. For example, staff
in key positions are comprehensively vetted, Gaming
network systems and software are vigorously tested,
the draw process including the equipment is subject
to external audit and the utmost scrutiny, lottery
buildings are physically secure with the latest protective
technology and many other security initiatives
have been implemented.
Yet, despite all of the excellent work and commitment,
three to four years ago, the lottery worlds’ integrity
was badly shaken by disturbing events in Canada
and in Europe.
It was discovered that some lottery retailers, the public
profile and “interactive” face of a Lottery, had
been systematically defrauding players over a long
period of time with the behaviour seemingly endemic.
With the obvious large scale media interest and calls
for investigations and public enquiries the reputation
and integrity of those lottery operators involved
was severely questioned. As a result there were high
profile casualties at a senior executive level and Lotteries
and regulators were very quickly obliged to
review their role, responsibilities and processes to
EL ACTIVITIES
reassure players and attempt to limit the damage of
the revelations.
It was also apparent that many Lotteries around the
world took the opportunity of the “wakeup call” to
review their own retailer processes and procedures
thanking their lucky stars that they were not the organisations
in the “spot light”.
With the passage of time it may be thought that the
events described are now history but at two recent
security seminars it is clear, and rightly so, that retailer
security and the protection of players is still a
very hot topic.
It is fully acknowledged that generally retailers are
very honest and have the best interests and the integrity
of the Lottery at heart. But as in most cash enterprises,
there is always a potential and opportunity for
things to go wrong - despite all the checks, balances
and controls that may be in place a retailer or more
likely a member of their staff can act dishonestly.
A lottery retailer can be dishonest in many ways and
the following are a few examples:
• Checking a winning ticket but declaring to the
player that it is a non winner and later attempting
to claim the prize.
• Deliberately under paying a prize amount and later
attempting to claim the correct prize.
• Selling a ticket to a player and immediately carrying
out a void process (cancellation) and retaining the
payment for the ticket.
• Pre scratching an Instant/ scratch card ticket to
identify winners claiming the prize and selling the
known losing tickets to unsuspecting players.
Following the reported incidents lottery operators
were quick to implement a number of actions designed
to prevent or deter any fraudulent activity.
The following are typical examples of actions taken:
• A statement of commitment signed by the Lottery
CEO is published in the press and on the Lottery
website indicating that security and integrity are
at the forefront and are paramount to the lottery
operation.
• A ‘Zero’ tolerance to retailer / staff dishonesty
which is endorsed and emphasised to all members
of lottery staff at all levels within the organisation.
• For the player, clear user friendly advice on how to
make a complaint if they perceive that they have
been the victim of fraud.
• A recording and monitoring of complaints of under
payment of prizes and general suspicions of
retailer fraudulent activity.
• A comprehensive independent investigation into
complaints of dishonesty or malpractice. An investigation
team separate from all other departments
to ensure there is complete segregation of duties
and transparency. Feedback on investigations given
directly to the complainant and the regulator.
• An awareness programme highlighting the various
22 NEWS 37 SEPTEMBER 2011