Malta Gaming Authority flags gaps and good practice in betting integrity review

The Malta Gaming Authority published a sports betting integrity review on 27 October 2026 that explains why low volumes of suspicious betting reports do not always signal weak controls, while also identifying specific gaps in monitoring and escalation. The regulator says its findings cover businesses that submitted few or no suspicious betting reports and will inform future guidance and supervision.

What the review found

The review examined firms that had submitted little to no suspicious betting reports and concluded low report figures sometimes reflected risk-mitigation measures rather than an absence of detection. Several businesses had reduced exposure through restrictive betting limits, conservative market selection and removal of vulnerable events, including certain youth competitions. The MGA wrote:

"Low reporting volumes reflected the underlying risk management processes and reliance on external monitoring, rather than a simple absence of detection capability."

At the same time, reliance on external integrity alerts created gaps. Many businesses opened internal investigations only after an integrity partner issued an alert. Without that external prompt, suspicious activity was less likely to reach investigation or reporting. The regulator called for real-time betting monitoring supported by human oversight and said operators using B2B sportsbook suppliers should retain access to betting data so their own teams can assess concerns.

Reporting duties and cross-jurisdictional obligations

The MGA clarified that suspicious activity involving players under an MGA licence must be reported to the Maltese regulator even when a group first detects the pattern under a licence issued elsewhere. Some companies only appreciated that obligation following the regulator's clarification. The review reiterated that financial loss is not the test for reporting: licensees must submit relevant concerns within the prescribed timeframe regardless of whether anyone has suffered financial harm.

Controls, policies and athlete checks

The review set out six areas for attention: reporting behaviour, monitoring, escalation, policies, athlete safeguards and relationships with integrity and sports bodies. For compliance teams the practical task is to document the full route from detecting a concern to submitting a report, naming who handles each stage and when reporting deadlines apply. The document recommends that the responsibilities of the key compliance function be explicitly recorded, together with the requirement to submit suspicious betting reports within the prescribed timeframe.

Written policies should reflect day-to-day operations, including staff training, decisions to suspend betting markets and regular procedure reviews. Licensees can use databases, public information or direct questions to account holders to identify athletes and sports personnel, then restrict accounts where conflicts of interest arise.

How the MGA conducted the review

The exercise ran from Q2 to Q4 2025 and used a risk-based sample of B2C operators and B2B suppliers. The Malta Gaming Authority used supervisory meetings, document reviews and follow-up clarifications to form its findings. The regulator had announced the exercise in its February 2025 supervisory plan and used its Suspicious Betting Reporting Mechanism to identify businesses with little or no reporting. The MGA published aggregated, anonymised findings without naming participants or disclosing the sample size and said its 2025 plan warned that serious failings could lead to enforcement action. The regulator will use the findings in future guidance and supervision; parts of the review reference expectations for ongoing supervision in Malta and cross-border reporting obligations (regulation).