MGA Review Finds Low Suspicious Betting Reports Reflect Tight Risk Controls, Not Blind Spots

^{The Malta Gaming Authority published its sports betting integrity review on 27 October 2026. (Photo: TerryDOtt / Wikimedia Commons)}

The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) has found that a low number of suspicious betting reports from a licensee does not, on its own, mean the operator is failing to watch its markets. The regulator published the findings of its sports betting integrity thematic review on 27 October 2026. The 23-page report says low volumes mostly reflected tight risk controls and reliance on outside monitoring, rather than 'a simple absence of detection capability'.

What the Review Covered

The review looked at licensees that had filed few or no Suspicious Betting Reports since the reporting rules were introduced. It followed the MGA's supervisory priorities for 2025, with fieldwork running from the second to the fourth quarter of 2025.

The MGA used supervisory meetings and document reviews with a risk-based sample of B2B and B2C licensees. Results are anonymised and aggregated, so the report names no operators. The authority says it will use the findings to set future guidance and supervisory priorities.

Why Reporting Was Low

Many licensees had set restrictive betting limits, kept their market offering conservative and removed events judged open to manipulation, such as certain youth competitions. The MGA said these measures 'substantially reduced the exposure to integrity risks'.

A second factor was reliance on external integrity monitoring bodies. In those set-ups, internal investigations usually began only when a partner raised an alert, so a quiet feed meant fewer cases to report.

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

The review also found a misunderstanding. Some groups with licences in several jurisdictions mostly saw suspicious patterns under foreign regulators, and were unaware that activity involving players on their MGA licence must also be reported to Malta. The authority says it corrected this during the engagements.

Gaps in Written Policies

Every licensee in the sample had some form of escalation process, but the formality varied widely. Written policies often failed to mention the Key Compliance Function, even though that person handled reporting and acted as the main contact with the MGA.

Some firms described their workflow verbally but had not documented the route from detection to report. Training and market suspension practices were also missing from policy documents in some cases, and the MGA asked for revisions so that written procedures match actual practice.

Good practice included real-time monitoring tools, close cooperation between risk, trading and compliance teams, and checks to stop athletes and other sports personnel betting on their own events. The MGA wants automated alerts paired with human oversight, including for operators that depend on a B2B provider's feed.

Guidance and Sports Bodies

Licensees asked for a clearer definition of 'suspicious' activity and thresholds. The MGA acknowledged the request but prefers an open approach, saying rigid thresholds might discourage firms from passing on information that still deserves review.

None of the sampled licensees had formal agreements with sports governing bodies. The MGA said these are not mandatory, but could formalise communication channels and speed up information sharing. The review is the latest step in how the MGA sets out its regulatory path for the sector. The full thematic review is on the MGA website.