It looks like the UK is cracking down on YouTubers playing silly buggers.
Yesterday, YouTuber Craig Douglas a.k.a. NepentheZ and busiess partner Dylan Rigby pleaded guilty to FIFA gambling charges and sentencing took place earlier today.
The pair were lucky enough to avoid jail time, but are having to pay whopping fines, according to The Guardian.
Apparently FUT Galaxy made a profit of £96k between July 2015 and February 2016, and Douglas has been ordered to fork out £91k while Rigby is going to have to shell out £174k.
The court heard how one 14-year-old boy lost £586 in a day, and were shown a video of Douglas at the opening of the case saying, “You don’t have to be 18 for this, because this is a virtual currency.”
District judge, Jack McGarva, addressed the pair, saying that, “In my opinion, both of you were aware of the use of the site by children and the attractiveness of it to children. At the very least, you both turned a blind eye to it.”
Shortly after the ruling, Douglas took to Twitter, saying, “I owe a huge apology to my family and close friends for putting them through this process, and appreciate all those that stood by me.”
The UK Gambling Commission’s Sarah Harrison has also commented on the case, Eurogamer reports.
“This was one of the most serious cases that has been investigated and prosecuted by the Commission. Its gravity is reflected in the significant financial penalties imposed by the Judge.
“The defendants knew that the site was used by children and that their conduct was illegal but they turned a blind eye in order to achieve substantial profits. The effect on children of online gambling was rightly described by the Court as ‘horrific’ and ‘serious’.
“All websites offering gambling facilities in Britain must be licensed; it is the only way in which children and vulnerable people can be protected. This case demonstrates that we will use the full range of our statutory powers to investigate and prosecute individuals and companies who try to operate illegally.”
Douglas intends to upload a video “in due course” presenting his side of story, so we’ll how that pans out.
Do you think he had a narrow escape? Should the ruling have been more severe? Was it too harsh? Let us know your thoughts below.