Case Against Sportsbet, Tabcorp and Entain Could Redefine VIP Practices, Compliance Standards and Operator Liability in Australia
A landmark Federal Court action brought by former financial planner Gavin Fineff is set to test the accountability of Australia’s major betting operators and could trigger sweeping regulatory changes across the gambling industry. The case, reported by ABC News, targets Sportsbet, Tabcorp and Entain, alleging that each company failed to question the origins of Fineff’s gambling funds while actively encouraging high-risk behaviour.
Fineff, who is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence for defrauding 12 clients of more than AU$3 million (US$1.9 million), is seeking to compel the operators to return the stolen money that he subsequently gambled away. His claim asserts that the companies, and two former VIP managers, knowingly facilitated excessive betting despite numerous red flags in his activity.
According to the filing, Fineff lost more than AU$4.3 million through BetEasy and Ladbrokes alone, wagering tens of millions in bets despite earning an annual salary of approximately AU$130,000. Regulators have previously sanctioned BetEasy and Entain for failing to identify unmistakable indicators of problem gambling within his betting patterns.
The claim further alleges that VIP managers provided inducements such as bonus bets, cash incentives and hospitality packages to lure Fineff back after periods of inactivity. Regulatory documents cited in the case suggest these staff members were well aware of his mounting multimillion-dollar losses, reinforcing concerns about the incentive structures within the VIP ecosystem. The case will likely place particular scrutiny on commission-based remuneration models that reward staff for customer losses. Sportsbet and Tabcorp have since abandoned such structures, while Entain has not publicly commented.
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie, a long-standing critic of Australia’s gambling industry, noted that victims should not be forced to rely on civil litigation to recover stolen funds. He criticised the operators’ stance, stating that it “beggars belief that gambling companies believe they have a moral right to keep stolen money.”
If successful, Fineff’s action could impose new compliance obligations on betting operators, reshape customer-due-diligence practices, and potentially deliver long-awaited restitution to his victims.
