The Entain Turkey case explained: what happened and where it stands
A bribery scandal involving one of the UK’s biggest gambling companies is still playing out in the courts. Here’s what happened, why it matters, and what’s next.
Bojan is a linguist specialising in English, French and Spanish, with extensive experience in data management and content writing. Throughout his career working at Samsung Food(previously Whisk), he has combined linguistic expertise with analytical thinking to ensure data quality, accuracy, and consistency across large-scale projects. Currently, he works as a Data Manager, where he focuses on organising, maintaining, and improving data processes while supporting high-quality content and information management.
Tago is an online casino and sports betting content expert with experience at some of the most popular casino comparison sites, BonusFinder.com and Gambling.com Group, where he worked alongside Nikola. As an SEO Specialist, he supported content creation across 14 markets, including the UK, Italy, Canada, New Zealand, and Japan. He brings deep expertise and insider knowledge of how the gambling industry operates. Not just as a writer, but as a player who tests the games he covers. He also loves technology (one of the reasons he started Gamblexity) and spends his free time learning to code, currently exploring web3 technologies. His go-to slot is Starburst by NetEnt, which says plenty about his standards.
Entain owns Ladbrokes and Coral. It paid £615 million in 2023 over a failure to stop bribery in its old Turkish business. Eleven people now face criminal trials, and investors are suing for more than £1.6 billion.
If you hold an account with Ladbrokes or Coral, you are betting with brands owned by Entain. It is one of the biggest gambling companies in the world. And for the past few years it has been dealing with the fallout from a business it sold back in 2017.
The story runs from a Turkish-facing betting operation, through a record settlement with UK prosecutors, to criminal trials pencilled in for 2028 and 2029. Here is the plain version, with the bits that are still unproven clearly marked as unproven.
What was the Turkish business?
Entain was called GVC Holdings until December 2020, and its Turkey-facing betting operation ran through a Malta-registered company called Headlong Limited. The brand players saw was Superbahis.
GVC got into Turkey in November 2011. It signed a business-to-business deal to service the Turkish operations that Sportingbet had sold on. In plain terms, GVC ran the back office and took a fee. Headlong later became the label for that whole unit.
Turkey only allows betting through state channels. Most private online gambling is not legal there. So this was a market where a UK-listed company was earning money from something the local law did not permit.
Turkey mattered to GVC’s finances at the time. In 2017, up to the sale, the Turkish-facing business brought in €82.4 million of revenue, about 8% of the group’s €1,008 million total.
How and when did GVC get rid of it?
GVC sold the Turkey-facing business to Ropso Malta Limited, with the deal completing on 19 December 2017. The timing was not an accident. GVC was closing its £4 billion takeover of Ladbrokes Coral, which completed in March 2018.
The sale included an earn-out (a payment that only lands if the business hits certain targets afterwards) of up to €150 million, paid monthly over five years. GVC gave it up as part of the Ladbrokes Coral deal: a notice served on 21 December 2017 ended the earn-out before any payment was due, and the waiver was made public in February 2018.
Entain has always said it cut its ties with the business at that point.
Why did HMRC start investigating?
In November 2019, HM Revenue and Customs served a production order on Entain Holdings (UK) Limited, demanding information about the former Turkey-facing business. A production order is a court order that forces a company to hand over documents.
At that stage the investigation looked at certain former third-party suppliers and employees. It was not aimed at the company itself.
That changed on 20 July 2020. HMRC told GVC the probe had widened to cover potential corporate offending, including section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010. Section 7 is the “failure to prevent bribery” offence. A company can be liable if people connected to it pay bribes and the company had no adequate systems in place to stop them.
Kenny Alexander had stepped down as GVC chief executive days earlier, in July 2020. The group rebranded as Entain that December.
Then it went quiet for nearly three years. On 31 May 2023, Entain told shareholders it was negotiating a settlement and warned of a substantial financial penalty. Its shares fell by a few per cent in early trading that day.
What did the £615 million settlement cover?
On 5 December 2023, the High Court approved a deferred prosecution agreement between the Crown Prosecution Service and Entain, worth £615 million in total. Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, approved it at the Royal Courts of Justice, sitting as the Crown Court at Southwark.
Entain accepted responsibility for four counts of failing to prevent bribery under section 7. The conduct covered July 2011 to December 2017 and happened primarily in Turkey.
Here is how the money splits:
| What it is | Amount |
|---|---|
| Financial penalty plus disgorgement of profits | £585 million |
| Charitable donation | £20 million |
| Contribution to CPS and HMRC costs | £10 million |
| Total | £615 million |
Disgorgement means handing back money you made from the wrongdoing. It is not a fine on top. It is the profit going back out the door.
The charitable donation was a first for a UK deferred prosecution agreement. This was also the first such agreement entered into by the CPS, and the first involving HMRC. Before this, only the Serious Fraud Office had used the tool.
What is a deferred prosecution agreement?
A deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, is a deal where a company avoids going to trial by admitting the conduct, paying up, and agreeing to conditions, all under a judge’s supervision. The charges are drawn up and then put on hold.
Three things worth knowing about it:
- It is not a conviction. The indictment is suspended, not dropped.
- It only covers the organisation. DPAs apply to companies. They never protect individuals.
- It can be pulled. If a company breaks the terms, the CPS can apply to lift the suspension and prosecute on the original charges.
The court approved this one partly because Entain had overhauled its management, culture and compliance procedures, and had co-operated with the investigation.
Who has been charged, and when do the trials start?
On 28 August 2025, the CPS authorised the prosecution of 11 individuals over seven offences connected to the provision of gambling services in Turkey between 2011 and 2018. Entain itself was not charged, and the company says none of those charged work for it or its group.
The offences across the charge sheet are conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to bribe, fraudulent trading, cheating the public revenue, evasion of income tax, acting as a company director while an undischarged bankrupt, and perverting the course of justice. Ten people are charged over conduct in the 2011 to 2018 period. One is charged over an offence relating to the HMRC investigation itself.
Those charged include former GVC chief executive Kenny Alexander, former chairman Lee Feldman and former finance director Richard Cooper. Alexander and Feldman each face counts of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to bribe.
The first hearing took place on 6 October 2025 at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. At a plea and trial preparation hearing at Southwark Crown Court on 3 November 2025, His Honour Judge Baumgartner split the case into three trials.
| Trial | Provisional start | Who it covers |
|---|---|---|
| First | 14 February 2028 | Alexander, Feldman and five co-defendants, listed for about four months |
| Second | October 2028 | Alexander MacAngus, Richard Raubitschek-Smith, Raymond Smart |
| Third | 5 March 2029 | Robert Hoskin |
No pleas have been entered. The judge postponed arraignment until the evidence has been examined more closely. The defence asked for the case to move to Leeds. The judge kept it at Southwark on cost grounds.
Everyone charged is presumed innocent. The CPS has stated that proceedings are active and that reporting or commentary which could prejudice the trials is not acceptable. Alexander has said through the press that the case will be defended.
Nikola’s tip
A charge is an accusation, not a finding. Until a jury returns a verdict, nothing on this charge sheet has been proved. Treat anything you read online about who did what as someone’s version of events.
Why are shareholders suing?
Investors say Entain knew about problems in its Turkish business and did not tell them in time, and the combined claims now exceed £1.6 billion.
The law firm Fox Williams put out a call for claimants on 11 June 2024 and filed a group claim in the Financial List of the High Court on 2 August 2024. Early reports put the figure at £100 million to £150 million. It has grown a lot since.
The claims are brought under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Those sections let investors seek compensation when a listed company publishes misleading information, or leaves out something it should have disclosed, and they lose money as a result.
By 2026 there were two separate claimant groups covering more than 100 institutional and retail investors. In Various Claimants v Entain Plc [2026] EWHC 1622 (KB), Mr Justice Trower ordered a split trial. Questions about what Entain did come first. Questions about whether individual investors relied on it, and how much they lost, come second.
The claimants point to a twelve-year period, 178 allegedly misleading statements and 29 publications. None of that has been decided yet.
Does this affect you if you bet with Ladbrokes or Coral?
No. The conduct in question happened in a business that was sold in 2017, and it has nothing to do with how Ladbrokes or Coral operate in Great Britain today. Both brands are run by LC International Limited, which holds a UK Gambling Commission licence under account number 54743.
One thing worth getting right, because it is widely misunderstood. Online operators in Great Britain must keep customer money in accounts separate from the business accounts. That is called segregation. It is the minimum standard, and the Gambling Commission still rates it as “not protected”. If the operator went bust, segregated money would form part of the company’s assets. There is no guarantee you would get it back.
Higher ratings exist. “Medium protection” and “high protection” involve trust accounts or insurance. You can check any operator’s rating in its terms and conditions, and it has to be shown to you at the point of deposit.
So the sensible takeaway is not “panic”. It is “don’t leave a large balance sitting in a betting account”. Withdraw what you are not using.
While you are in your account settings, the same page usually holds the tools worth switching on:
- Deposit limits, which cap what you can put in per day, week or month
- Time-outs, a short break of a day up to six weeks
- Reality checks, a pop-up reminding you how long you have been playing
- Self-exclusion, which locks you out for six months or more, and GAMSTOP, which does it across every UK-licensed site at once
Setting a deposit limit before you start is a bit like deciding how much cash to take out on a night out. You decide when you are calm, not when you are chasing.
What happens next?
The criminal trials run from February 2028 into 2029, and the shareholder litigation will take years.
A few side threads are still live. Alexander and Feldman have brought a civil claim against Entain and the law firm Addleshaw Goddard over legal advice they say was withheld. Entain has called that claim without merit. The pair were also granted permission on 18 June 2026 to appeal a privacy case against the Gambling Commission.
Separately, the Financial Reporting Council closed its investigation into KPMG’s audit of Entain in April 2026 without further action.
Entain remains under the DPA’s conditions. If it complies, the CPS will not continue the prosecution against the company. If it does not, the suspended charges can be revived.
Facts in this article are current as of September 2026.
Sources
- Crown Prosecution Service, Rex v Entain PLC: Deferred Prosecution Agreement (full agreement text and terms) — cps.gov.uk
- Crown Prosecution Service, “First ever CPS deferred prosecution agreement for £615 million”, 5 December 2023 — cps.gov.uk
- Crown Prosecution Service, charging statement on criminal allegations relating to the provision of gambling services in Turkey, 28 August 2025 (full defendant list and charges) — cps.gov.uk
- HM Revenue and Customs, “Gambling giant agrees to pay £615 million in deferred prosecution”, 5 December 2023 — HMRC press release
- Gambling Commission, “The customer funds insolvency ratings system” — gamblingcommission.gov.uk
- Various Claimants v Entain Plc [2026] EWHC 1622 (KB), coverage of the split trial ruling — Solicitors Journal
- Fox Williams, “Join the Entain group action claim” (claim period, statutory basis, claimant group) — foxwilliams.com
Frequently asked questions
Is Entain a criminal company?
No. Entain has not been convicted of anything. It entered a deferred prosecution agreement in December 2023, which is a court-supervised settlement rather than a conviction.
Are Ladbrokes and Coral safe to use?
They hold Gambling Commission operating licences and are subject to UK regulation. You can look up any operator on the Commission’s public register to confirm its status.
Was the £615 million a fine?
Only partly. £585 million was a financial penalty combined with disgorgement of profits, with £20 million going to charity and £10 million covering CPS and HMRC costs.
Has anyone been found guilty?
No. Eleven people have been charged. No pleas have been entered and the first trial is not listed until February 2028.
Why did HMRC lead a bribery investigation?
HMRC acts as an anti-money laundering supervisor, and the investigation began under that role before widening into bribery and tax offences.
Does Entain still operate in Turkey?
No. The Turkey-facing business was sold in December 2017.
