The Malta Gaming Authority has published the findings of a thematic review into how licensed gambling operators spot, investigate, and report suspicious betting. The review, released on October 27, zeroed in on companies that had filed few or no Suspicious Betting Reports since reporting requirements came in, and concluded that low report numbers don’t automatically mean poor monitoring, although several operators still need to tighten their internal procedures.
Both B2B suppliers and B2C operators were covered, with the supervisory work carried out between the second and fourth quarters of 2025. Some companies had cut their exposure to integrity risk through tight betting limits, cautious market offerings, and dropping events seen as especially easy to manipulate, certain youth competitions among them. That goes a long way toward explaining why some operators reported relatively few suspicious transactions despite running active monitoring.
Detection, though, was a weak spot for several companies. Many leaned heavily on external integrity monitoring bodies and only opened their own investigations after a third party raised an alert, which meant suspicious activity those outside monitors missed was less likely to get looked at. The MGA encouraged operators to build up their own monitoring instead of relying entirely on outside providers.
Setups varied a lot from one operator to the next. Some ran real-time sportsbook systems with automated risk indicators, while smaller businesses used simpler tools backed by internal risk teams. Red flags included unusual clusters of bets on single markets, accounts sharing identifying details, and unexpected swings in betting volume, and the MGA stressed the value of pairing automated systems with human judgment, particularly when deciding whether something unusual needs further investigation or a regulatory report.
Operators licensed in several jurisdictions turned out to be inconsistent about their reporting duties. Some didn’t realise that suspicious activity picked up through another jurisdiction still has to be reported to the MGA when it involves players under a Maltese licence. The authority cleared that up in its supervisory meetings and repeated that suspicious activity has to be reported within the required timeframe whether or not any money was lost.
Internal escalation needed work as well. Operators generally had a process for passing suspicious activity from trading or risk teams to compliance, but it wasn’t always written down properly, and in some cases policies didn’t spell out the key compliance function’s responsibilities or the steps between spotting something suspicious and filing a report. The MGA pushed for clearer documentation, regular policy reviews, and staff training so potential integrity issues get handled consistently.
Safeguards meant to stop athletes and sports staff from betting on competitions they’re involved in were also examined. Operators used external databases, manual checks, and account restrictions to catch potential conflicts of interest. None of the reviewed companies had formal agreements with sports governing bodies, and while the MGA noted that kind of cooperation could improve information sharing, it doesn’t currently require operators to set them up.
Sports betting integrity is already one of the MGA’s three main supervisory priorities for 2026, next to regulatory compliance and player protection, and the authority will keep checking operators’ integrity controls through its regular supervision and use the findings to shape future guidance. On October 28, it also told licensees to step up monitoring and report suspicious betting promptly ahead of the Youth Olympic Games, which run from October 31 to November 13.