Bet365 Bonus at Centre of Alleged Fraud as Seven Face Charges

Written By Claudia Hartley | Published at August 18, 2026
March 8, 2025. Birmingham Council House, from Victoria Square, England.

Seven people have been charged over an alleged fraud targeting bet365 and its introductory offers for new customers.

Six men and one woman face charges connected to the alleged scheme, which prosecutors say involved personal details, false representations, and the transfer of criminal funds. At the centre of the allegations is a free betting credit offered by bet365 to attract new customers.

While this case is yet to be decided, it isn't the first time fraudsters have targeted a bet365 bonus. This case also comes at a particularly interesting time for UK betting promotions, after new rules, introduced this year, have substantially altered how welcome bonuses work.

How Did the Bet365 Bonus Fraud Work?

The scheme ran from January 2021 to August 2023, with Guisseppe Sangiovanni, 35, allegedly at the helm.

Prosecutors allege Sangiovanni possessed lists containing people's personal details and used false representations to claim free introductory offers from bet365. He is also accused of then transferring criminal money to other bank accounts.

Patrick White, 31, is accused of falsely obtaining free betting money and transferring criminal property, while Julian Mackie, 32, faces allegations relating to both the introductory offer and transferring proceeds to other accounts.

Stephianne Black, 31, is accused of supplying Primary Account Numbers while knowing they would be used fraudulently, as well as obtaining introductory funds on Sangiovanni's behalf. Benjamin Leach, 32, Simeon Redway, 35, and Adon Bridgman-Simon, 33, also face charges.

The allegations bear remarkable similarities to another major fraud case, also previously committed against bet365.

In the previous case, Jon Howard was jailed for five years after playing a leading role in a syndicate which opened more than 1,000 bet365 accounts under different identities.

The group used details supplied by other people to impersonate them, allowing new accounts to illegally access sign-up bonuses. Bet365 was ultimately defrauded of more than £236,000.

Can Bookmakers Keep Bonuses Simple Without Making Fraud Easier?

New UK Gambling Commission rules came into force on the 19th of January this year, significantly changing how licensed operators can structure promotional offers. The two headline changes are:

The intention is primarily consumer protection rather than fraud prevention. The Gambling Commission said the changes should make promotions simpler and provide customers with greater clarity over what they are signing up for.

However, there is an interesting tension between making bonuses easier for genuine customers to use and preventing them from being exploited.

Wagering requirements have historically served more than one purpose. While high requirements can make it difficult for ordinary players to turn bonus funds into withdrawable cash, they also make it harder to extract guaranteed value from a promotion.

The Gambling Commission recognised this problem when consulting on the new rules. It noted concerns that banning wagering requirements altogether could leave operators more exposed to bonus abuse. In particular, from large or organised groups. Instead, it settled on the 10x limit as a compromise. This would allow the protection of consumers and allow operators to manage the commercial risks associated with promotions.

For bookmakers, that potentially puts greater importance on stopping fraudulent customers.  Identity verification, payment checks and restrictions on multiple accounts have become even more important.

The latest allegations against Sangiovanni and his six co-defendants have not yet been proven. However, alongside the previous £236,000 fraud against bet365, they put welcome bonuses at the centre of a larger debate.

How can bookmakers keep bonuses simple and attractive for genuine customers, without making those same offers more attractive to fraudsters?