ENTAIN Share Price Rises 50% in the last Six Months!

[curious]

AUSTRAC Drops Claims Against Entain, Narrows Investigation

By

Maria Khomeriki

-

12 September 2025

 

AUSTRAC, Australia’s financial crime regulator, has reduced its claims against Entain while continuing to investigate potential breaches of anti-money laundering (AML) rules.

The investigation concerns Entain’s Australian subsidiaries — Ladbrokes and Neds — and was launched in December 2024 over suspicions of the group’s involvement in money laundering and fraud through criminal accounts.

AUSTRAC alleges that the company failed to fully comply with AML procedures, allowing 17 high-risk customers to spend AUD 152 million (£74.2 million / $94.2 million) without proper checks.

In particular, Entain is accused of allowing a player with significant links to drug trafficking to launder over AUD 20 million ($12.6 million) through its operations.

Narrowing Focus

In its updated statement, AUSTRAC removed claims that Entain breached its duties as a remittance provider under AML and counter-terrorism financing laws by failing to report suspicious transactions in and out of customer accounts.

The company argues that it is not a remittance provider, meaning it does not facilitate money transfers as its core service.

AUSTRAC’s decision is partially understandable given its policy regarding companies that fall under the definition of a remittance provider.

The AUSTRAC website notes that some companies, including online gambling providers, may transfer funds overseas on behalf of their customers, but this is secondary to their main business. According to the regulator, such transfers “do not constitute a formal remittance system.”

Entain Remains Under Scrutiny

Despite narrowing its claims, AUSTRAC continues to insist that Entain breached its obligations as a gambling operator.

Specifically, the company allegedly failed to intervene when a player with significant links to drug trafficking wagered over $1 million in a year.

In April, Entain CEO Stella David told iGaming Expert: “We take these allegations extremely seriously and continue to fully cooperate with AUSTRAC. We are committed to keeping financial crime out of gambling and continuing to support a well-regulated and compliant sector for our customers, stakeholders, and the wider community.”

Former CEO Gavin Isaacs, who abruptly left his role in February 2025, previously noted that the group is implementing further improvements to Entain Australia’s AML and CTF compliance measures.

Entain and AUSTRAC remain in mediation, and the group has set aside £51 million ($64.8 million) to address the matter, although Entain claims the amount relates to accounting and does not reflect a potential penalty.

[Chief Stipe]

Well now we await the revised assessment of the local experts e.g. @Transparency , @JJ Flash , @Newmarket and a number of others.

This announcement reinforces my original assessment that ENTAINS discretions (Ladbrokes and Neds before ENTAIN bought them) are at the low end of the scale and any financial penalty will not be substantial and possibly confined to remedial action.

[Kit Walker]

15 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Well now we await the revised assessment of the local experts e.g. @Transparency , @JJ Flash , @Newmarket and a number of others.

This announcement reinforces my original assessment that ENTAINS discretions (Ladbrokes and Neds before ENTAIN bought them) are at the low end of the scale and any financial penalty will not be substantial and possibly confined to remedial action.

Labrokes & Neds were purchased by ENTAIN in 2018. The relevant period of the alleged contraventions are between 16 December 2018 and 16 December 2024 and are certainly not at the low end of the scale. 

The Group has set aside £51 million ($64.8 million) to address the matter, although Entain claims the amount relates to accounting and does not reflect a potential penalty.

They set aside £51 million to address the matter but that doesn't reflect a potential penalty? Yes could be a lot more.

Crown Melbourne and Crown Perth faced significant scrutiny for operating under inadequate AML/CTF measures across their casino premises in Melbourne and Perth. Regulatory investigations uncovered failures in managing high-risk customers, including potential money laundering through junket operators and VIP programs. Crown was ordered to pay a AUD 450 million civil penalty for its breaches of the AML/CTF Act.

Entain will fight its case in court if mediation is unsuccessful. It is due to file a defence by September. They won't want it going to Court just like they didn't in Turkey when without any prompting said they would pay 1 billion dollars as a fine.

-----------------------------------------------------

This was never going to happen.

New opportunities payment $90m The SPA includes a potential new opportunities payment of up to $90m. This payment relates to legislative changes Entain aims to

pursue that were not in place when the agreement began. The payment is contingent on two key developments:

• TAB NZ will receive at least $75m if the New Zealand Government legalises and establishes a licensing system for online casino

products (e.g., online slots, table games, etc.) within 10 years of the agreement's start.

• TAB NZ will receive at least $15m if the government legalises and creates a licensing system for virtual racing and sports

products (both retail and online) within the same 10-year period.

• Both new opportunities payments are conditional on:

• TAB NZ being granted the exclusive licence during this period and appointing Entain as the only manager of that licence. No

more than three licences are granted by the New Zealand Government.

-----------------------------------

 

Quote

 

Whilst we understand TAB NZ’s strategic decision to

release the upfront cash received to the codes, TAB

NZ should consider whether it would be more prudent

to reduce FY27 and FY28 distributions to achieve a

positive equity position at the end of the forecast

period and only increase the distribution if it meets the

legislative net criteria. The baseline forecast should

reflect business as usual.

• We recommend the Directors consider their statutory

duties in light of the net deficit within the forecast

balance sheet, particularly if meeting the legislative

net criteria becomes less likely or is delayed.

 

Further, we note there is significant uncertainty post

FY28 given the minimum guarantee expires in FY28.

 

 

The above quote is a big worry especially with reduced income once the NZ dogs are gone - millions now not payable by Australian bookmakers on consumption tax - and once 15 online casinos get regulated to operate in NZ the gambling dollar on NZ racing will be reduced - and NZ SPORTS Codes are collectively through the Government seeking a bigger % payout.

Edited 12 hours ago by Kit Walker

[Chief Stipe]

Well @Kit Walker that is a mishmash of out of context quotes for thw doomsayers to dine on.  I see even @Freda has joined that team.

10 hours ago, Kit Walker said:

Entain will fight its case in court if mediation is unsuccessful. It is due to file a defence by September. They won't want it going to Court just like they didn't in Turkey when without any prompting said they would pay 1 billion dollars as a fine.

I see mediation so far has been successful for ENTAIN with a significant part of the AUSTRAC claim being dropped.   You haven't mentioned that.

As has been pointed out many times the quantum of the remaining claims are comparatively less than the other cases AUSTRAC have taken.  So to associate with the Turkish bribery and corruption case is disingenuous at best.  The employees at the centre of that case have long been flushed out of the ENTAIN organisation.  Although they are facing individually criminal charges in the UK.

 

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, Kit Walker said:

They set aside £51 million to address the matter but that doesn't reflect a potential penalty? Yes could be a lot more.

Crown Melbourne and Crown Perth faced significant scrutiny for operating under inadequate AML/CTF measures across their casino premises in Melbourne and Perth. Regulatory investigations uncovered failures in managing high-risk customers, including potential money laundering through junket operators and VIP programs. Crown was ordered to pay a AUD 450 million civil penalty for its breaches of the AML/CTF Act

As I've repeatedly posted and which you repeatedly refuse to accept or cogently debate the Crown Casino cases were several quantum above the Statement of Claim (now diminished) filed against AUSTRAC.

The accounting book entry at this stage is just that a book entry to represent a potential liability.  That said if you look at comparative cases it is at the high end of potential liability.  

If you are willing to debate that point then please feel free to.  But posting out of context quotes laced with supposition for whatever motivation is becoming boring.

So here is a challenge to @Kit Walker based on your reading of the now diminished statement of claim when compared to the outcomes of previously completed AUSTRAC cases what penalty and/or enforceable action do you see ENTAIN facing at the conclusion of the legal process?

NOTE: Saying I don't know or I'm not interested isn't an answer.

I also say to @Kit Walker if you are going to quote from other publications please provide a reference cite so readers can assess the context more reliably than just reading your excerpts.  

[Chief Stipe]

I might add that the ENTAIN share price is still significantly up over the last 6 months.  35% currently after a correction due to @curious 's profit taking.  ENTAIN shares still have a BUY assessement by major investment advisers.

[Kit Walker]

32 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

I might add that the ENTAIN share price is still significantly up over the last 6 months.  35% currently after a correction due to @curious 's profit taking.  ENTAIN shares still have a BUY assessement by major investment advisers.

I might add when ENTAIN shares were well below the current price not long ago I said time to buy.

[Kit Walker]

Quote

NOTE: Saying I don't know or I'm not interested isn't an answer.

Nostradamus isn't a distant relative so I don't know the exact amount but if I had to pull a figure I would say it won't be less than 250k.

Quote

possibly confined to remedial action.

Your in cuckoo land if you think there won't be a monetary fine. 

 

 

[Kit Walker]

Quote

ENTAIN shares still have a BUY assessement by major investment advisers.

Some of those advisers are worse than Trackside tipsters

[curious]

4 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

Nostradamus isn't a distant relative so I don't know the exact amount but if I had to pull a figure I would say it won't be less than 250k.

Your in cuckoo land if you think there won't be a monetary fine. 

 

 

250k? Do you mean 250m?

[Kit Walker]

Just now, curious said:

250k? Do you mean 250m?

 

1 minute ago, curious said:

250k? Do you mean 250m?

Yes thanks -$250 million maths was never a strong point

[Kit Walker]

Quote

As has been pointed out many times the quantum of the remaining claims are comparatively less than the other cases AUSTRAC have taken.  So to associate with the Turkish bribery and corruption case is disingenuous at best.  The employees at the centre of that case have long been flushed out of the ENTAIN organisation.  Although they are facing individually criminal charges in the UK.

Read the court document and come back and say why you think the claims are less than other cases.  Be warned it nearly rivals War & Peace page wise. The claims are similar to what occurred in Turkey. Hence the comparison. In Turkey they wouldn't have come up themselves to pay $1 billion. They would have pinned it on the individuals under current charges. A company doesn't pay that sort of money if they were oblivious to what was going on. 

http://chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.austrac.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/Entain Group Pty Ltd - AMENDED Statement of Claim (REDACTED) (sealed).pdf.pdf

[Kit Walker]

http://TAB New Zealand – s.60 Performance and Efficiency Review

Source of other quote - it's scary reading.  In fact it's that bad Stephen King was going buy the rights to it - then he decided no film goer would believe this bullshit.

[Kit Walker]

Quote

This announcement reinforces my original assessment that ENTAINS discretions (Ladbrokes and Neds before ENTAIN bought them)

Quote

 But posting out of context quotes laced with supposition for whatever motivation is becoming boring.

How about admitting your quote is out of context. Not hard to confirm you were wrong when reading the court documents. Lets see what sort of man you are.

[curious]

17 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

 

Yes thanks -$250 million maths was never a strong point

If that's A$250, I'm sure Entain would be delighted. Drop in the bucket for them.

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

Read the court document and come back and say why you think the claims are less than other cases.  Be warned it nearly rivals War & Peace page wise. The claims are similar to what occurred in Turkey. Hence the comparison. In Turkey they wouldn't have come up themselves to pay $1 billion. They would have pinned it on the individuals under current charges. A company doesn't pay that sort of money if they were oblivious to what was going on.

It is nothing like the Turkey case.  That was an issue with bribery and corruption.  How are the claims the same?

If you haven't read the AUSTRAC vs ENTAIN tome then how do you draw the conclusions you do?  Plus it appears that you haven't done any comparative analysis with other AUSTRAC case outcomes.  In terms of claims the ENTAIN one is at the low end of the scale by comparison to the banks - WESTPAC, CBA and Casinos such as CROWN etc.  You are scaremongering to the uninformed.

[Chief Stipe]

22 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

 

Yes thanks -$250 million maths was never a strong point

Obviously.  How did you arrive at $250m?  What AUSTRAC case penalty outcome are you comparing it to?  

[Kit Walker]

Quote

It is nothing like the Turkey case.  That was an issue with bribery and corruption.  How are the claims the same?

You left out money laundering. Use google compare to in the Aust outcomes its not hard to find.

Your still haven't admitted your were incorrect by stating charges were pre Entain purchasing Neds and Ladbrokes - whys that?

 

 

 

[Kit Walker]

Quote

You are scaremongering to the uninformed.

I don't need to scare mongering the above efficiency and performance review done earlier this year does that.

$250 million fine compared to other Austrac fines. I was at $400 - 500 million but reduced as some indiscretions will be pointed at former Entain top Aussie management just like it was in Turkey.

[curious]

28 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

You left out money laundering. Use google compare to in the Aust outcomes its not hard to find.

Your still haven't admitted your were incorrect by stating charges were pre Entain purchasing Neds and Ladbrokes - whys that?

Probably because he's partially right. The charges relate to events from 2014 through 2024. Entain made the acquisitions in 2018