1

Legal Gambling and Crime in the United Kingdom: Is there a relationship?

-An overview of the literature

K. Samantha Russell Jonsson

PhD. Candidate in Sociological research

Department of Sociology

University of Essex

ksruss@essex.ac.uk/kenisha.russell@iffs.se

(+46)760648592

“Fixed odds betting terminals blamed for 8.2% rise in crime at bookies in past year”. Daily

Mirror: August 23, 2014

“Money laundering, addiction and the social cancer of High Street betting shops”. Mail

Online: November 11, 2013

“The gambling machines helping drug dealers 'turn dirty money clean”. The Guardian:

November 8, 2013

Introduction

Gambling has always been shrouded with a mythical allure based on dangerous men,

beautiful women, large sums of money and illicit activities. At least this has been the basis of

the story line in many films and books. Thus the prevailing ideas about the association

between gambling and crime (mythical or not), has continued to have a pervasive influence on

the public’s perception of this relationship and this is evident from the above news headlines.

Therefore these sensational news reports in recent times which have blamed increasing crime

rates on the increasing number of gambling venues and accessibility to gambling across the

United Kingdom might not be wholly based on facts. Yet, despite the continued interest of

the public, operators and policy makers alike, the findings from various studies have not fully

determined whether there is a link between gambling and crime; and if so, the extent and the

nature of the association. Thus the main contribution of this review is to examine the

relationship between gambling and crime in the United Kingdom. Due to the limited number

of studies which has examined this issue, the patterns and findings from both qualitative and

empirical studies from several countries will be discussed. In addition, although there is a

readily available literature on the effects of illegal gambling, the focus of this review will be

2

on impact of legal forms of gambling on crime. More specifically, this study will examine the

following:

(1) A brief overview of contemporary gambling regulations

(2) The link between gambling and crime

(i) Gambling and crime: criminogenic problem gambling

(ii) Gambling-related crimes

(iii) Why do some problem gamblers commit crimes?

(3) Gambling venues and crime

(i) Gambling venues as crime “hot spots”

(ii) Gambling availability, increased spending and crime

(4) Limitations and avenues for future studies

The research into the association between gambling and crime, has been hampered by a lack

of empirical data sources with relevant and up-to-date information necessary to carry out

rigorous empirical analyses. For instance, although the police collects information on crimes

which may have been committed in the vicinity of betting and gaming establishments, these

are not usually explicitly identified as been gambling-related incidents in the reports.

Consequently, many studies that have been conducted, to examine the relationship between

gambling and crime have been limited to individuals who are in treatment for gambling

problems.

Another possible source of information might be the betting shop themselves, however, based

on a copy of a request sent to the Gambling Commission under the freedom of information

act, it is clear that they hold only aggregate level information for each gaming operator. As

such they were unable to fulfil the request to provide1:

(1) Information into the total number of reported crimes arising from betting shops in London;

(2) Information into types of crime committed

(3)Information on the numbers of money laundering offences arising from betting shops in

London

(4)A break down the information between each London borough

1 A copy of this request is available at: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/FOI%20responses%20-

%20Crime%20-%20betting%20shops%20in%20London%20110313.pdf

3

Assessments of the relationship between gambling and crime, based largely on this select

population suffers from one major drawback, and that is, the difficulty in making definitive

statements about the true relationship between gambling and crime. This is especially true in

light of the fact that problem gambling has been shown to be far more prevalent in forensic

populations than the general population (Smith et al., 2003; Mishra et al., 2010; Arthur et al.,

2014)

In addition, the gaming and betting climate in the United Kingdom is slightly different from

many other countries. The studies carried out for example in North America and Australia,

has largely been focused on casinos which are confined to specific states or areas, and are

subject to varying legal statuses based on the jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, there is a

proliferation of legal gaming and betting establishments clustered on the high streets in most

towns across the country2. This has meant increased accessibilty to punters and according to

some reports the increased likelihood of criminal or at least anti-social behaviour (New

Statesman, 2014: May 16-22). Although there have been some studies which has linked

British casinos to criminal activities, such as hidden ownership and general corruption (Pinto

and Wilson 1990), the British gambling landscape is dominated by betting and gaming shops,

and thus findings and generalizations made based on what might be judged as a different

gambling culture may be inaccurate.Thus studies which have examined the link between

casinos and criminal activities might not be entirely generalizable to the British Context.

With these limitations in mind, the present state-of-the-art report aims to present an overview

of the discussion and findings on the relationship between gambling and criminal activities in

the UK, North America, and Australia and across Europe. From a policy perspective, if we are

able to clearly establish a relationship between these factors, then greater restrictions may be

introduced into the legislation on gambling venues, thereby reducing accessibility. This would

satisfy many detractors, who view the increasing freedom of gambling venues as a major

determinant to social ills-such as gambling addiction, intimate partner violence; anti-social

behaviour and though unproven an increase in various other types of crime. On the other

2 A large part of the recent public debate on the effect of crimogenic and social gambling has been focused on

the clustering of betting shops on high streets. The debate has been growing because many of these shops are

located in disadvantaged areas. Two main explanations have been advanced for the increasing number of betting

shops (1) the popularity of FOBTs and the fact that under current regulation only four are allowed per premises

and, (2) Under the current system, planning applications are not required to open new betting shops in a premises

that was previously used for commercial purposes. (New Statesman, 16-22 May 2014)

4

hand, if the research into gambling-related crimes prove to be weak and/or is found to have no

relationship, the supporters and operators of the industry who view legal gambling, as a

deterrent to illegal gambling and corruption, as entertainment and a great source of revenue

for government coffers, may benefit from even greater freedoms.

Contemporary gambling regulations

The betting and gaming industry is regulated differently in different countries and this may

have an impact on the level and perception of criminality which is accorded to it. Betting and

Gaming in the UK has had a turbulent history with sweeping changes in the legislation in the

last 50 years. Prior to the Betting and Gaming Act of 1960, which sought to tackle corruption

and criminality surrounding illegal gambling, there was fierce opposition by the government

to indulge popular society. However, development in social attitudes, the need to curb illegal

activities and the associated gains to tax coffers has led to significant changes.

The introduction of the 2005 Gambling Act, which came into force on 1 September 2007, has

changed the British gaming and betting landscape enormously. The new gaming act

transferred the responsibility for licensing and control of licensed premises from Licensing

Justices to the respective Local Authorities in England and Wales, while a Local Authority

Board was given responsibility for similar roles in Scotland. These Local Authorities, now

regulate all aspects of commercial gambling with the exception of the National Lottery and

Spread Betting. Under the new regulations these licensing bodies became responsible for

issuing premises licenses for the following activities: bingo; betting; adult gaming centers;

family entertainment centers; casinos; and sporting tracks-including horse and dog racing.

(Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2002)

A crucial element of this change in the law, was the removal of the so-called “demand test”-

that is, the need to prove to local magistrates that there was a demand for a new betting and

gaming shop. Instead a free market approach was established, one whereby the government

argued that new betting shops would open and remain open, only if they were profitable. Even

with these largely liberal changes to the laws regulating the industry, the government

maintained that one of the main objectives which underpinned the new legislation was

“preventing gambling from being a source of crime and disorder, being associated with crime

and disorder or being used to support crime” (Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

5

2002). Although such a declaration is important to highlight, rather than being based on

empirical studies, the evidence linking crime and disorder to betting and gaming, and/or

betting venues seems to be largely based on a prevailing societal bias left over from the

period when gambling was illegal, and was therefore more likely to be associated with crime

and disorder.

In comparison to the United Kingdom, Australia has had a long history of legalized gambling

in the form of bookmaking, lotteries, poker machines, casinos among other types of gaming

activities. The lottery for example has been legal since the 1920s (even though different

jurisdictions have different types of lotteries), one of the first Casinos was made legal in 1973

in Hobart and legal poker machines arrived in new South Wales in 1956. Like Britain,

however, there have been waves of objections to gambling based on morals and paternalistic

views, but these have gradually made way for a more liberal view in the 19th and 20th century.

These more liberal views have led to changes in government legislation and a change in the

attitudes of the wider population, who now largely perceive gambling as a “positive source of

entertainment” (Pinto and Wilson 1990). In fact gambling is viewed as a national pastime

with approximately 90% of the population engaged in one form of gambling or another (Pinto

and Wilson 1990).One of the main issues with gambling in Australia has been the lack of

coherency in the laws on gambling in each state and territory, thus reports from the Australian

Institute of Criminology has described a flourishing business of illegal gambling. An

important finding from these reports is that, both legal and illegal gambling is associated with

criminal activities.

A similar issue with the lack of coherency in the law has been reported in Canada (Smith et al.

2003). They report that there are a variety of legal terms and statues which govern gambling,

as such some gambling formats may be legal and managed by the provincial governments of

some provinces while the same format may be illegal in others. In Finland on the other hand,

a singular piece of legislation governs the gaming industry- the Lotteries Act. Under this law

all gaming activities require a permit. However, gambling is largely controlled by under a

legal monopoly (Varvio 2007). In short, one could argue that this lack of coherency in the law

might be a factor in the persistent relationship between gambling and criminality at least in

the Australian and Canadian context.

6

Linking gambling and crime

The academic literature on the impact of gambling on crime is mixed, with approximately

equal amount of studies indicating that gambling has led to an increase in crime with as many

showing that gambling does not impact crime. An extensive review of 49 studies which

investigated the gambling-crime relationship found that the majority of studies reported that

increases in crime rates were indeed associated with gambling, however, a small number of

these studies found no effect of gambling on crime (Williams et al., 2011). In cases where

increases were found these were modest, inconsistent and sometimes other variables could

account for the increases (spurious effects) (Williams et al., 2011, Arthur et al. 2014). For

example, studies reported increases in all types of crimes, or increased crime rates in one

community but not in another. Some of the increases reported may be explained by several

other economic and social societal conditions (Williams et al., 2011). In fact, evidence from

one study indicated that there was a decline in crime rates in counties located nearby one

which had a casino (Falls and Thompson 2014).

Furthermore, based on an examination of the current literature one explanation for the mixed

results of the studies conducted so far may be the variation in the types of crimes examined,

the venues, and limitations related to conducting empirical studies. Thus one suggestion to

overcome these issues and to better understand the mixed results is to investigate the

mechanisms by which legal gambling could impact crime rates (Arthur et al., 2014). Two of

these mechanisms are investigated for this review, they are: (i) the effect of increasing

prevalence of problem gambling and (ii) an examination of how additional gambling venues

may lead to increased crime rates.

Gambling and crime: criminogenic problem gambling

Interestingly, among those studies indicating that gambling has an impact on crime, several

argue that criminogenic problem gambling - i.e. problem gambling that results in the gambler

committing a criminal offence to support the habit of gambling (Rosenthal and Lesieur, 1996)

is one of the main risk factors in the link between gambling and crime. Pathological/problem

gambling has been included as a psychiatric disorder both by the World Health Organization

and the American Psychiatric Association, as a diagnostic category since the early 1980s. In

7

describing the risks associated with these disorders both organizations identified committing

illegal acts to obtain money as a characteristic problem of a pathological/problem gambler3.

Therefore, in connection with the above mentioned mixed patterns of findings in previous

examinations of the relationship between gambling and crime, a large part of the literature has

focused on problem gamblers. Though this strategy allows for the assessment of what might

be seen as a key mechanism in explaining how gambling could affect crime, it is also one of

the main limitations of this area of research. This is because the population under study for

much of the previous research on the impact of gambling-related crime has been based on

individuals who has been identified or self-identify as pathological/problem gamblers and are

undergoing some form of treatment (e.g. in Gamblers Anonymous or other types of

treatment). This usually also means that the population under study is greatly restricted with

small sample sizes. The consequence of this is that the results from studies are limited,

making it difficult to generalize to the wider populations. This is especially true given that

general population studies on the relationship between gambling and crime has indicated a

weak relationship between gambling and crime (Arthur, 2014). For example, Arthur et al.

(2014) using population survey data indicated that only 7.2% of problem gamblers reported

committed a gambling related crime. This rate is much lower when one compares estimations

on individuals in treatment and those based on forensic populations.

Individuals defined as problem gamblers make up a small proportion of total gamblers,

estimates from the United Kingdom based on the British Gambling Prevalence Survey

(BGPS) (2010) approximates that 0.9% of the total gamblers have gambling-related problems.

This figure is significantly higher in Australia, where 90% of the population say they

participate in one form of gambling or another, but estimates of problem gamblers range from

between 1.5% and 3.7% (Productivity Commission 1999). The expenditures of problem

gamblers however, constitute the highest rate of total spending on gambling. This was

estimated at 40% of total money spent on gambling (Productivity Commission 1999).

Although, the number of individuals classified as having gambling related problems varies

3 Problem gambling has been defined as “gambling to a degree that compromises, disrupts or damages family,

personal or recreational pursuits” (Gambling prevalence survey 2010:73), and problem gamblers are described as

individuals who experience moderate or severe problems because of their addiction to gambling (Productivity

Commission 1999).

8

greatly among countries, the pattern of offending and gambling-related crimes across various

countries is very similar. This relationship is discussed in greater details below:

In a study examining the relationship between crime, antisocial personality and pathological

gambling in several English-speaking countries, Blaszcynski et al., (1989), reported that

between 21 and 85% of problem gamblers were involved in criminal activities, of these

between 4 and 13% served prison sentences for gambling related offences.

Based on a survey conducted among problem gamblers in England and Scotland, Brown

(1987), found that 82% of the sample in England and 77% of the Scottish sample reported

committing a gambling offense. Of these 51% and 40 % respectively were convicted of these

offences. It should be stated that the overall sample in this study was quite small, with a

response rate of 35%.

Studies carried out in the German context provides further evidence of the relationship

between problem gambling and criminal behavior. Bellaire and Caspari (1989) who examined

criminal activities among problem gamblers in Hamburg, revealed that 72 % of the

respondents admitted to having committed a crime. These findings were consistent with the

results of a later study conducted by Meyer and Fabian (1992), who found that 54.5% of the

Gambling Anonymous group they interviewed had committed a crime to fund their gambling

habit. Of these 46% had committed crimes exclusively to support their addictive behavior.

There was also some evidence from this study that gamblers who committed crimes “were

more excessive in their gambling behavior and experienced high subjective satisfaction

through gambling” (Meyer and Fabian 1992:61). As such they concluded from this study that

individual characteristics should be considered when the relationship between problem

gambling and crime is considered. The personality of the individual, biography and conditions

of socialization, previous criminal acts, age, social context and the degree of gambling

involvement are important predictors of those who are most likely to commit a crime to fund

as a consequence of their gambling habit (Meyer and Fabian 1992). Findings from other

European countries such as Finland linked 13% of crimes to problem gambling (Kuoppamäki

2013), while 44% of the subjects under study in Sweden had reported committing crimes to

finance their gambling (Bergh and Kuhlhorn, 1994).

9

Reports from what may be termed the largest study on gambling to be conducted in the

United States to date, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC, 1999),

found significantly higher rates of arrest among problem/pathological gamblers when

compared to non-gamblers. The results indicated that the lifetime arrest rate among non-

gamblers was 4%, in comparison the lifetime arrest rates among gamblers were at least twice

this reported figure- low risk gamblers reported a 10% lifetime risk; problem gamblers 36.3%

and pathological gamblers 32.3%.

Turner et al., (2009) using a sample of Canadian male federal offenders examined the

relationship between problem gambling and criminal behavior. They reported that 65% of

offender’s criminal activities was due to problem gambling. On the basis of this study, the

researchers suggested that criminal activities could be linked with crime in three ways: (1) An

unclear relationship whereby a person used the proceeds from criminal activities to gamble

and/or committed property related crimes to pay gambling debts (2) Gambling was sometimes

a part of a criminal lifestyle, where for example the offender learned bookmaking skills in

prison and (3) As a consequence of a gambling habit individuals were forced into crime.

Overall, a review of the literature indicates that a significant number of criminal offenders

have met the criteria to be diagnosed as pathological gamblers. Examples of such studies may

be found in the United Kingdom (e.g. Brown 1987, Kennedy and Grubin 1990), the United

States (e.g. Lesieur and Klein 1985; Westphal et al. 1998; McCorkle 2002), New Zealand

(e.g. Brown 1998; Abbot and Mckenna 2000; Abbot et al., 2000), and Australia (e.g.

Blaszcynski et al., 1989; Jones 1990). Based on these studies, Williams et al., (2005) suggests

that approximately 33% of criminal offenders have pathological gambling problems.

Furthermore, a recent European study conducted by Zurhold et al., (2013) indicates that

almost half of problem gamblers (46.7%), who are serving prison terms are doing so for

gambling related offences.

This discussion highlights what may be deemed as a clear link between problem gambling

and crime. Yet, it has failed to establish a link between overall criminality, criminal behavior

and gambling, and this is one of the limitations of previous research. It however underscores

an important aspect of the research, and that is, the types of crime which gamblers are most

likely to commit.

10

Gambling-related crimes

In a study on the effects of problem-related gambling on crime using data from police records

from the City of Edmonton (Canada) Smith et al.,(2003) has argued that gambling-related

crimes may be characterized as follows:

(1) Illegal gambling- that is gambling activity that is counter to the criminal and

jurisdictional code, such as bookmaking, illegal gaming house, cheating at play.

(2) Criminogenic problem gambling- this includes activities such as forgery, embezzlement

and fraud, and these are usually committed to support a gambling addiction.

(3) Gambling venues- these are crimes that occur in an around gambling locations such as

theft, assault, vandalism, prostitution, loan sharking and money laundering

(4) Family abuse-victimization of family members caused by another family member’s

involvement (e.g. Intimate partner violence, child neglect etc.).

This characterization emphasizes that multiple relationships exist between gambling, criminal

activities and different types of crimes. This has indeed proven true, a cursory review of the

literature indicates a wealth of studies linking gambling to multiple types of crimes, from

juvenile delinquency (Griffiths 2002; 2003,2008), anti-social behavior (Mishra et al., 2010),

intimate partner violence (IPV) (Korman et al., 2007; Brasfield et al, 2011) to money

laundering.

The results from several studies indicate that the majority of crimes that are committed by

problem gamblers are non-violent income generating offences. These include embezzlement,

cheque and credit card fraud, forgery, larceny, tax evasion, and family disputes (Blaszcynski

and Silove 1996; Smith et al, 1996).The results of a national survey of 2,417 adults

commissioned by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (1999), also reported

similar findings. Schwer et al., (2003) in their study found that 63% of Gamblers Anonymous

members reported writing bad cheques and 30.1% reported stealing from the work place.

Financially motivated related crimes, however, are not the only type of crime that has been

linked to gambling. A review of the literature indicate that a small proportion of problem

gamblers has committed more serious offenses (Blaszcynski and Silove 1996). A recent

study on the relationship between gambling related offences and intimate partner violence

11

provides such an example. From a sample of 341 males that were sent to court mandated

batterer intervention programs for offenses related to intimate partner violence (IPV),

Brasfield et al. (2012) found that in comparison to the general population, 9% of the sample

met the criteria for pathological gambling and 17% may be classified as problem gamblers.

In general, they found that gambling increased the likelihood of physical and sexual

aggression (Brasfield et al. 2012). Also, Korman et al. (2008), who conducted a study among

248 problem gamblers indicated that 63% of problem gamblers reported either being a victim

of IPV or perpetrating IPV in the past year.

In addition, there have been several studies which has examined the role of gambling on

juvenile delinquency. Research from the United Kingdom has spent considerable efforts to

establish if there is a link between playing the slot machines (typically referred to as “fruit

machines”) and criminal activities among adolescents. In an early work by Griffiths (1990),

he asserted that gambling is treated as an adult phenomenon, but that there is some evidence

that problem gambling among adolescence may be more widespread than is acknowledged.

Since then, there is a growing body of work suggesting a strong correlation between criminal

activities (such as stealing, fraud, robbery and other minor criminal offences) and excessive

gaming among young people (Yeoman and Griffiths 1996).

Based on a study conducted in Plymouth Yeoman and Griffiths (1996), found that

approximately 4% of crimes among adolescents was related to playing the slot machines.

This finding they argue provides some evidence that they committed these crimes to maintain

their gambling habit. Additional evidence of the propensity to commit gambling-related

crimes among young people, come from a study conducted by Clark and Walker (2009) in the

United States using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health),

which had a sample of 6,145 young adults aged between 18 and 27 years (average age 22).

The results supported findings from adult populations that higher gambling losses increased

the likelihood that an individual will commit a crime. However, the results did not support the

findings from several studies which indicated that casino gamblers tend to cause crime (Clark

and Walker 2009). This result could be due to the fact that a younger population was under

study.

12

Although, a recent British national study indicated that gambling prevalence among

adolescents is approximately 9% (Ipsos MORi 2009) down from 17% in 2006

(MORI/international Gaming Research unit, 2006). It is clearly important to establish the

extent of the relationship between adolescent gambling and criminal activities. Nevertheless

there is no evidence linking betting shops in England to commercial gambling among

adolescents. This is mainly due to the restrictive laws which require photographic

identification for anyone who appear to be under the age of 21(Griffiths 2011).

Overall, there is a wealth of previous studies, linking gambling to criminal activity. However

the mechanisms at play are not clearly understood. Therefore some researchers have stressed

the importance of more extensive research to analyse the causal relationship between

gambling and criminal offending (Lahn 2005).

Why do some problem gamblers commit crimes?

The evidence emerging from several developed countries such as the UK, USA, Australia,

New Zealand and several other European countries suggests that problem gambling and

criminal behavior are related, but the direction of causality is subject to much debate. One

study which may shed some light on the relationship between gambling related addiction and

crime was conducted in New South Wales (Australia). Blaszcynski and McConaghy (1994),

found that 9% of problem gamblers in treatment admitted to committing at least one criminal

offence during their gambling careers, the majority of which was a gambling related offence.

18% of these individuals admitted to committing at least one non-gambling related criminal

offence. Although the majority of crimes caused by problem gamblers seems to be related to

their issues with gambling, the results from this study seem to suggest that some of this crime

would have occurred independently of the gambling related problems.

In line with this, some researchers point out that not all problem gamblers commit crimes

(Smith et al., 2003; Lahn (2005). Surveys from the general population shows only a modest

association between criminal activities and problem gambling (Smith et al., 2003; Lahn 2005;

Mishra et al., 2010). One such example comes from the work of Arthur et al., (2014), who

found that, gambling related incidents (0.6%) represented only a small percentage of overall

crime in Alberta.

13

On the other hand, there are very high rates of criminal involvement and offending among

survey populations which are drawn from among problem gamblers (Blaszcynski et al., 1989;

Meyer and Stadler 1999). Moreover, research among individuals who have been arrested also

point to the fact that problem gamblers are between 3 and 4 times more likely to commit a

crime when they are compared to other offenders. Meyer and Stadler (1999), argue however

that a significant number of gamblers who commit crimes had prior convictions. Therefore

there are are some issues of causality when examining the association between gambling and

crime. Despite these findings, it is true that people who are in treatment report more frequent

involvement in criminal activities (Blaszcynski and Silove 1996; McConaghy 1997; Williams,

Royston, and Hagen 2005; Smith et al., 2003). The question then is, why do some problem

gamblers commit crimes?

One explanation for the high rates of offending among gamblers has been put forward by

Blaszcynski et al., (1989). Findings from their previously mentioned study which examined

the relationship between crime, anti-social personality disorders and pathological gambling

indicated that 14.6 % of the individuals who admitted to committing gambling related

offenses were diagnosed as having an anti-social personality. In a follow-up paper, conducted

by Blaszcynski and McConaghy (1994), on the prevalence of anti-social personality disorder

and its relationship to criminal offenses in pathological gamblers, they found that 48% of the

subjects that were under study had committed a gambling related offense, 6 % a non-

gambling offense, and 11% both types of offense. The results from the study further indicated

that in total 15% of the subjects under study were diagnosed according to DSM-III with a

personality disorder. Although, not all problem gamblers were diagnosed with a personality

disorder, those that were, had a greater likelihood of committing an illegal of offense.

Also, using a sample of 180 male students Mishra et al., (2011) investigated whether

individual differences in personality traits were associated with risk-taking and its relationship

to both gambling and crime. They found that anti-social tendencies were highly correlated

with gambling, and that this association is due to the fact that both gambling and anti-social

behavior are different manifestations of similar personality traits. The results from this study

demonstrated that even moderate anti-social behavior was significantly related to personality

traits related to risk-acceptance; and risk-acceptance have been shown to be associated with

criminal behavior among forensic populations (e.g. Longshore et al.2006; Lynam et al.2000).

14

Moreover, problem gambling has been shown to occur in individuals who have issues with

other addictive behaviors, such as alcohol or substance abuse (Bergh and Kuhlhorn 1994;

Cunningham et al., 1998, McCorkle 2002). According to Cunningham et al., (1998)

approximately 50% of problem gamblers are struggling with issues relating to substance

abuse. More recently, a study by McCorkle (2002) indicated that more than 80% of

pathological gamblers were at risk for alcohol and or drug dependency.

Another perspective which has been presented as an explanation for why some problem

gamblers commit crimes, is that problem gamblers are forced by their situation to engage in

criminal activities. The is reflected in the view presented by the Australian-based Productivity

Commission (1999), who states that problem gamblers experience a set of events which

forces them into an untenable position and leads to criminal activity. The sequence of events

are as follows: they experience high asset losses, accumulating debts; they then exhaust all

legal means of obtaining the necessary funds, to either continue gambling or to reduce

accumulating debt, including pensions and drawing on savings, and/or borrowing from family

and friends, cash advances from credit cards and other legal financial institutions. Thus their

only option is to commit a crime. Meyer and Fabian (1992) describes these individuals as

having a greater dependency on gambling and more psychosocial problems.

Gambling venues and crime

Beyond the fact that there have been mixed results in linking increased crime rates to

gambling, the findings from several studies which have sought to link gambling venues to

increased rates of crime have also been inconclusive (Ochrym 1990; Smith et al.,2003; Barthe

and Stitt 2009; Barthe and Stitt 2007; Falls and Thompson, 2013). While some studies have

reported that there are increased crime rates in and around the vicinity of gambling venues.

Other studies minimize the criminogenic roles of these venues, arguing that the increased

crime rates may not necessarily be due to the presence of a gambling venue (Albanese 1985;

Giacopassi and Stitt 1993).

Gambling venues as crime “hot spots”

In line with this debate, one strand of the literature has focused on whether or not we are able

to classify gambling venues (largely based on work relating to casinos) as crime “hot spots”.

15

Hot spots have been defined as locations that are conducive to criminal activity (Barthe and

Stitt 2009). The argument is that any “hot spot”, which has restricted and forbidden elements

could lead to higher crime rates. Gambling venues, especially casinos are susceptible to this

because: (a) the medium of entertainment is money (b) of the location- this means that tourists

are usually relaxed in this environment and let their guard down (c) alcohol is served, and it is

known to lower both inhibitions and vigilance (d) consistent with the routine activities

theory casinos may actually attract criminals, and finally (e) due to the excitement/stimulation

related to gambling there is a greater likelihood that individuals who relate to such behaviors

are drawn to these venues (Barthe and Stitt 2007).

Stitt et al., (2003) in a study examining crime in new casino jurisdictions, agreed that although

casino environments were conducive to crime, they did not automatically contribute to

increased crime rates. They reported mixed results from this study, showing increased crime

in some jurisdictions and decreases in others. Based on this they concluded that “no definitive

conclusion regarding the effect of casinos” may be determined (Stitt et al., 2003:280). In a

later study, Barthe and Stitt (2009) examined the relationship between casino and "hot spots"

in Reno Nevada. Their aim was to investigate the impact of the "population at risk"4 on a

casino’s crime problem and the spatial "reach" of casinos in terms of their effects on street

crimes ("spill -over effect") using Kernel density maps. They concluded that when the

population at risk is taken into account, casinos do not appear to be "hot spots". The results

also indicate that there is little spillover of casino crimes to neighborhoods in the vicinity of

the casino. Only 7% of the total number of city wide crimes occurred 200 feet of the top 9

casinos in region. If illegal behavior is going to occur the majority (75 %) does so within 600

feet of the casino. They argue that measures taken by casinos-extra security guards, cameras,

the ease of parking, frequent police visits- seem to discourage criminal activity.

Another aspect of the relationship between gambling venues and crime that have been

investigated is the type of crimes being committed. Rather than examining increases in total

crime rates, some studies have sought to examine the relationship between gambling venues

and particular crimes. In line with this, Smith et al., (2003) has categorized five types of

4 Unlike previous studies examining the relationship between a gambling venue and crime, the authors sought to

base the number of actual crimes, on the total “population at risk”. This is calculated by assessing the total

number of people who normally reside in the area (from census data), in addition to the number of potential

visitors to the area based on occupancy rates for county hotels and the average number of visitors.

16

criminal related behaviors most likely to be committed in an around the vicinity of gambling

venues. Many of these are based on activities in and around casinos, but this does not rule out

the possibility of occurrence in the vicinity of betting shops. The crime related behaviors

identified were:

(1) Fraud: Examples of this include counterfeit currency, fake credit or ID cards, and meal by

fraud.

(2) Theft: Examples of this include purse snatching, removal of cash from slot machines,

employee theft (e.g., cash, chips, materials), car break-ins, and winning players being robbed

in the washroom or parking lot.

(3) Rowdiness, creating a public disturbance, assault: Examples include fights between

patrons or patrons and staff, intoxicated or drugged individuals who disturb other players

and/or interrupt the smooth flow of the games, spousal disputes, vandalism, vagrancy,

loitering and pandering.

(4) Cheating at play: Examples include player/dealer conspiracies (use of marked cards,

overpayment of a winning hand), and pressing and pinching bets (adding or subtracting chips

from a bet based on the dealer’s up card).

(5) Other Criminal Activities: Examples include prostitution, drug trafficking, money

laundering, loan sharking, bookmaking, and child neglect.

An investigation of the impact of casinos in Michigan on the rates of property crimes (rates

of burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft), in casino host counties as well as neighboring

counties reported mixed results in the rate and type of crimes committed in an around the

vicinity of casinos (Falls and Thompson 2014). The findings from this study indicated that the

presence and size of casinos in or near Michigan County appear to have no effect on overall

property crime rates. The results indicated however, that the size of the casino has a small but

positive effect on motor vehicle theft, but this disappears as the casino ages. In addition, the

presence of a casino can actually lead to a decline in crime rates, burglaries being the

exception. When they examined the specific impact of the number of patrons that frequent a

casino, the results indicated a decline in larceny and motor vehicle thefts but as casino

revenues increase motor vehicle thefts also increased (Falls and Thompson 2013).

On the whole, very little empirical data collected is available for the purposes of conducting

research on the effects of gambling venues on crime. This is even more true in the case of the

17

United Kingdom, where there is a proliferation of betting and gambling shops. As such, the

research on the effects of gambling venues on crime has been limited a certain types of

gambling venues, namely casinos. Given the sheer number of betting shops and other types of

gambling venues, it is hard to draw overall conclusions about the effect of gambling venues

on crime rates or even to generalize the findings of studies conducted in other countries to the

British context.

Gambling availability, increased spending and crime

Similar to countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States, legislative changes

across Europe has led to growing facilitation and acceptance of Gambling. In the early 1990s,

the gaming industry in the European community was the 12th largest industry (Hand, 1992).

By 2011, the annual revenues from gambling across Europe was estimated to be around €84.9

billion, with annual growth rates of around 3%. Of these, online gambling was the fastest

growing service activity in this sector, with annual growth rates of almost 15%. Annual

revenues in 2015 are expected to be €13 billion, compared to €9.3 billion in 20115. In Spain

and Germany, for example it was estimated that families spend 15% of their incomes on

betting (Hand, 1992). With such enormous growth in the gambling industry, the question is,

what is the relationship between increased gambling availability and crime? Though, a wide

variety of variables (based on social, economic, demographic, behavioral and psychological

individual and communal level characteristics) has been found to be associated with criminal

behavior. Of particular interest in this review is the link between increased availability and

accessibility of gambling and its relationship to crime (New Statesman, 16-22 May 2014).

In discussing the increasing number of individuals registered in gambling related therapy

many now conclude that increasing accessibility and liberalization of gambling is to be

blamed for the increasing number of problem gamblers, and subsequent increases in crime.

The Chief Clinician at Gamcare –an organization that deals with gambling related problems in

the UK- states that “where there is more gambling, there are more addicts” Atherton

(2006:30) . Given the rapid expansion of gambling in the United Kingdom, it is difficult not

to agree with this perspective. Atherton (2006) points to a 20% increase in the total turnover

in the amount spent on gambling (£53 billion) from the previous 7 years. He further states that

“William Hill saw increased profits of 110 per cent and 219 per cent respectively between

5 Source http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/gambling/index_en.htm.

18

2002 and 2005, and Ladbrokes has two million users in 200 countries wagering more than one

million bets per day” Atherton (2006:30).

Furthermore, on the basis of findings reported from national surveys and reports such as the

Gambling Prevalence Survey in Britain (1999, 2007 and 2010); the Australian Productivity

Commission (1999) and the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (1999), it is hard

to objectively deny a relationship between increased accessibility and increased problem

gambling, which has been shown to be related to criminal activities. For example, the results

of the 1999 Gambling Prevalence Survey indicated that 72 per cent of individuals (aged 16

and over) admitted to gambling in the preceding year, of these 0.6% (approximately 275,000

people) were diagnosed as problem gamblers. In 2010, 73% of the adult population states that

they had participated in some form of gambling in the past year. This is an increase from the

rate observed in 2007 where 68% of individuals has participated in at least one type of

gambling activity in the previous year. Of the people surveyed, using the DSM-IV, as a

measure of problem gambling6 , problem gambling prevalence was higher in 2010 (0.9%)

than in 2007 and 1999 (0.6% for both years) . This equates to around 451,000 adults aged 16

and over in Britain.

An even more stark example of the link between gambling and crime, and specifically the link

between availability, spending and increased crime is the growth in fixed odds betting

terminals (FOBTs) and other forms of electronic gaming machines (EGMs).Within the United

Kingdom, the increasing number of betting shops (9,128 in 2012 up from 8,862 in 2009)7

and the sheer increase in the availability of fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs), has

increased conjecture about the extent to which crime is driven by this gambling format (New

Statesman, 16-22 May 2014). It has been reported that there are currently more than 33,000

FOBTs located in 8,700 betting shops nation wide, with additional machines available in

pubs, arcades and clubs. 82 % of gamblers say that FOBTs are addictive while 40% of the

revenues from these machines are estimated to come from at-risk gamblers (New Statesman,

6 A second measure of problem gambling prevalence rates was measured using the PGSI. Based on this method

of diagnosis, gambling prevalence rates did not increase significantly between survey years. Estimates were

0.5% in 2007 and 0.7% in 2010 (p=0.23). This equates to around 360,000 adults aged 16 and over in Britain. http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/British%20Gambling%20Prevalence%20Survey%202010.pdf

7

19

16-22 May 2014). With all this information regarding accessibility it has still not been

possible to directly quantify the link between gambling on these machines and crime.

By way of example, the relationship found between EGMs and problem gambling in Australia

could serve to highlight the potential risk that FOBTs pose. The Australian Productivity

Commission (1999) reported that the total gambling expenditure of the country more than

doubled over the course of a decade (between 1980s to the late 1980s). This increase has been

explained by the introduction of the new forms of gambling and increased accessibility to

others such as electronic gaming machines (EGMs), more casinos, lotto games etc. In

addition, Wheeler et al., (2008) points to the fact that approximately 5% of EGM players have

been identified as problem gamblers, and there are fewer problem gamblers in areas with

fewer EGMs, such as Tasmania and Western Australia where 0.44 % and 0.7% of players has

been identified as problem gamblers. In comparison, in areas with a higher number of EGMs

and increased opportunities to spend a far greater number of people are identified as problem

gamblers. New South Wales and Victoria are two such areas, with 2.55 and 2.14% of people

have been identified as problem gamblers (Wheeler et al., 2008).

Limitations and avenues for future studies

In order for us to make more definitive statements about the relationship between gambling

and criminal behavior, we are required to conduct more empirical studies to rigorously

analyse the extent to which criminal behavior is linked to gambling. Furthermore, a large part

of the discussion which have thus far assessed this relationship has been conducted based on

limited data or qualitative studies. These studies provide both insights and direction for future

studies but are usually limited to theory. Thus large scale empirical data analysis is needed to

test the theoretical assumptions and hypotheses from these studies, and to control for a range

of variables which may partly explain observed criminal behaviors and its relationship to

gambling. Moreover based on these studies, it is not possible to make definitive statements

about the relationship between gambling and criminality- the consequence of this is that the

conclusions offered are conservative.

Beyond this, it is also hard to generalize the findings of previous studies. Firstly, it is difficult

to generalize the previous studies to the British context when the majority of the studies thus

far has been conducted in North America and Australia. These countries have had a longer

20

and somewhat different history of gambling when compared to Britain. While gambling rights

in the Australia have undergone a slow process of change and acceptance, legal gambling in

Britain has been introduced fairly rapidly. Furthermore, different types of gambling with a

mix of legal statuses and jurisdictions may be found in Australia, while in countries like the

United States gambling has largely been confined to a few states, and to offshore gambling

cruises. The gambling laws in Britain have been far more flexible in terms of location, leading

to a clustering of betting shops in certain areas.

A second limitation of previous research is the fact that problem gamblers have been the main

focus of these studies. It is therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship

between gambling and criminal behavior of the general population. Large scale empirical

analyses is necessary to overcome this weakness. This area of research might benefit from

working more closely with police agencies to create a database which focuses specifically on

gambling-related crimes.

A third limitation of the research thus far has been the fact that this research has been focused

on certain types of gambling venues (casinos). Therefore it is hard to draw overall conclusions

about the effect of gambling on crime or even to generalize to a wider number population. As

such, future research especially in the British context could benefit from analyses which focus

specifically in an around betting shops as venues of potential criminality.

From the current research it is also difficult to assess whether and if specific types of

gambling has a stronger or weaker impact on types of criminal activities. Several studies has

indicated that money laundering for example might have a stronger link to internet gambling,

(Brooks 2012; Cabot and Kelly 2007, Hugel and Kelly 2003) and as such the Department for

Culture, Media and Sport in Britain has enacted certain regulations to minimize the risk of

this occurring8. In the United States, however, due to strict money laundering laws the

government has been slow to enact laws allowing online gambling. Although, several court

cases indicate that this does occur (Hugel and Kelly 2003).

8 David Webb (New Statesman, 16-22 May 2014:6 ) has, however, argued that the 2005 Gambling Act which

was put in place to regulate online and remote gambling has failed, and this he says is demonstrated by the fact

that the government is reviewing the current regulations.

21

Another limitation, which is heavily debated in the literature on crime and gambling is related

to some of the measures used/not used to test the effect of gambling on crime, specifically in

the casino crime literature. Walker in a series of articles (2008a; 2008b, 2008c and 2010) ,

argues that research on the effects of casino and crime should include for example measures

of the scale of operation such as (i) the number of patrons who frequent a venue and/or (ii)

information on the revenue stream of the casino. The suggestion is that by accounting for

these variables one will account for the level of gambling in the area. Previous studies which

have introduced these relationships with the proposed outcomes. For instance Reece and

William (2010) found a negative and statistically significant relationship between six crimes

and the number of patrons visiting a casino. Falls et al., (2014) however found a small

significant relationship between the size of the casino and motor vehicle thefts and the

revenue of the casino and burglaries. Walker (2010) further suggests that the quality of the

crime data is weak because it does not take into account the true population of both potential

perpetrators and victims. This argument of whether the true “population at risk” is being

studied has also been discussed by several other researchers (such as Albanese, 1985;

Oberwittler and Wiesenhutter, 2002; Stitt et al., 2003; Saco, 2005).

As previously stated, the prevailing belief among the general public, is that there is a link

between gambling and crime, however, empirical research has not been able to overcome the

many limitations which are associated with an examination of the relationship between

gambling and crime to make more definitive statements about the observed patterns.

REFERENCES

Albanese, J.1985.The effect of casino gambling on crime. Federal Probation 48:39–44.

Arthur, JN et al., .2014. The relationship between legal gambling and Crime in Alberta. Revue

canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale/ Canadian Journal of Criminology &

Criminal Justice.

Pinto, S. and P. Wilson.1990. Gambling in Australia. Report prepared for the Australian

Institute of Criminology.

Barthe, E & B.G, Stitt. 2007. Casinos as hot spots and the generation of crime. Journal of

Criminal Justice 30:115–40.

Barthe, E & B.G, Stitt .2009.Temporal distributions of crime and disorder in casino and non-

casino zones. Journal of Gambling Studies 25(2):139–52.

22

Bergh, C & E. Kulhorn. 1994. Social, psychological and physical consequences of

pathological gambling in Sweden. Journal of Gambling Studies 10(3):275–285.

Blaszcynski, A, McConagy, N & A, Frankova .1989. Crime, antisocial peronality and

pathological gambling. Journal of gambling Behavior 5(2):137-152

Blaszczynski, A & N. McConaghy.1994. Antisocial personality disorder and pathological

gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies 10(2):129–45.

Blaszczynski, A & D, Silove .1996. Pathological gambling: Forensic issues. Australian and

New Zealand. Journal of Psychiatry 30(3):358–69.

Brasfield, H et al.2012. Male Batterers’ alcohol use and gambling behavior. Journal of

Gambling Behavior 28:77-88.

Brooks, G. 2012. Online Gambling and money laundering: views from the inside. Journal of

Money Laundering Control, 15(3).

Brown, R.I.F. (1987). Pathological gambling and associated patterns of crime: comparisons

with alcohol and other drug addictions.Journal of Gambling Behavior 3:98-114.

Cabot, A and J.Kelly.2007. Internet, Casinos and Money Laundering. Journal of Money

Laundering Control, 2 (2).

Chang, S .1996. The impact of casinos on crime: The case of Biloxi, Mississippi. Journal of

Criminal Justice 24(5):431–36.

Clarke, C and D.M. Walker.2009. Are gamblers more likely to commit crimes? An empirical

analysis of a nationally representative sample of US young adults. International Gambling

Studies, 9(2):119-134.

Cunningham-Williams, R. M., Cottler, L. B., Compton, W. M., & Spitznagel, E. L. (1998).

Taking chances: Problem gamblers and mental health disorders: Results from the St. Louis

Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. American Journal of Public Health, 88:1093-1096.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport.2002. A sure bet for sucess-Modernising bBritain’s

gambling laws. http://rgtinfohub.org.uk/browse/entry/a-safe-bet-for-success-modernising-

britains-gambling-laws

Hugel, P and J. Kelly. 2003.Internet gambling,credit cards and money laundering. Journal of

Money Laundering Control 6(1).

Giacopassi, D & B.G, Stitt. 1993. Assessing the impact of casino gambling on crime in

Mississippi.American Journal of Criminal Justice 18(1):117–31.

Giacopassi, D, B.G, Stitt & M.W,Nichols.2001.Community perception of casino gambling’s

effect on crime in new gambling jurisdictions. Justice Professional 14(2-3):151–70.

Griffiths, M.D. 2002. Gambling and Gaming Addictions in Adolescence. Leicester: British

Psychological Society/Blackwells.

23

Griffiths, M.D. 2003. Adolescent gambling: Risk factors and implications for prevention,

intervention, and treatment. In D. Romer (Ed.), Reducing Adolescent Risk: Toward An

Integrated Approach. pp. 223-238. London: Sage.

Griffiths, M.D. 2008. Adolescent gambling in Great Britain. Education Today: Quarterly

Journal of the College of Teachers. 58(1), 7-11.

Griffiths, M.D. 2011. Betting shops and crime: Is there a relationship?Internet Journal of

criminology.

Griffiths, M.D. 1993. Factors in problem adolescent fruit machine gambling: Results of a

small postal survey. Journal of Gambling Studies 9:31-45.

Hakim, S & A.Buck .1989. Do casinos enhance crime? Journal of Criminal Justice 17(5):

409–16.

Ipsos MORI. 2009. British survey of children, the National Lottery and gambling 2008-09:

Report of a quantitative survey. London: National Lottery Commission.

Korman, L.M et al.2008.Problem gambling and intimate partner violence. Journal of

Gambling Studies 24:13-23.

Kuoppamäki,S, Kääriäinen,J & L, Lind.2013. Examining gambling-related Crime Reports in

the National Finnish Police Register. Journal of Gambling Studies, 2013 Jun 6. [Epub ahead

of print].

Lahn, J.2005. Gambling among offenders: results from an Australian survey. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49(3):343–355.

Longshore, D., R &, S. T., & Stein, J. A. (2006). Self-control in a criminal sample: An

examination of construct validity. Criminology, 34:209–228.

Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Wikstrom, P. H., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000).

The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of

impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 109:563–

574

McCorkle, R. 2002. Pathological Gambling in Arrestee Populations. Report prepared for

National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice, Rockville, MD.

Meyer, G & T, Fabian.1992. Delinquency among pathological gamblers: A causal approach.

Journal of Gambling Studies 8(1):61–77.

Meyer, G & M, Stadler.1999. Criminal behavior associated with pathological gambling.

Journal of Gambling Studies 15(1):29–43.

Mishra, S, Lalumiere, M.L, Morgan, M & R.J, Williams. 2011. An examination of the

relationship between gambling and antisocial behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies 27:409-

426.

24

MORI/International Gaming Research Unit (2006). Under 16s and the National Lottery: Final

Report. London: National Lottery Commission.

National Gambling Impact Study Commission (1999). Final report. Washington DC:

Available at: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/fullrpt.html

Ochrym, R.G.1990. Street crime, tourism and casinos: An empirical comparison. Journal of

Gambling Studies 6(2):127-137.

Productivity Commission.1999. Australia’s Gambling Industries. Inquiry report. Canberra:

AusInfo. Available at http://www.pc.gov.au/.

Reece, W.S. 2010.Casinos, hotels, and crime. Contemporary Economic Policy 28(2):145–61.

Rosenthal, R and H, Lesieur.1996. Pathological gambling and criminal behavior. In

Explorations in Criminal Psychopathology, ed. Louis B. Schlesinger. Springfield, IL:Charles

C. Thomas.

Schwer, R. K., Thompson, W. N., & Nakamuro, D. (2003, February). Beyond the limits of

recreation: Social costs of gambling in southern Nevada. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Far West and American Popular Culture Association, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Stitt, B. G., Nichols, M., & Giacolassi, D. 2003. Does the presence of casinos increase crime?

An examination of casino and control communities. Crime and Delinquency, 49(2):253–284.

Smith, G. & Wynne, H. 1999. Gambling and Crime in Western Canada: Exploring Myth and

Reality. Report Prepared for the Canada West Foundation, Calgary, AB.

Smith, G., Wynne, H. & Hartnagel, T. 2003. Examining police records to assess gambling

impacts: a study of gambling-related crime in the city of Edmonton. Report for the Alberta

Gaming Research Institute.

Turner, N. E., Preston, D. L., McAvoy, S., & Saunders, C. 2007. Problem gambling in

Canadian federal offenders: Prevalence, comorbidity, and correlates. Guelph, Ontario: Ontario

Problem Gambling Research Centre. (Submitted to the Ontario Problem Gambling Research

Centre).

Walker, D. M. 2008a. Evaluating crime attributable to casinos in the U.S.: A closer look at

Grinols and Mustard’s ‘casinos, crime, and community costs’. Journal of Gambling Business

and Economics 2(3):23–52.

Walker, D. M. 2008b. Do casinos really cause crime? Econ Journal Watch, 5(January(1)), 4–

20.

Walker, D. M. 2008c. The diluted economics of casinos and crime: A rejoinder to Grinols and

Mustard’s reply. Econ Journal Watch, 5(May (2)), 148–155.

Wardle, H et al.2011. British Gambling Prevalence Survey. National Centre for Social

Research 2011, Prepared for: The Gambling Commission.

25

Wheeler, S, Round, D.K , Sarre, R & M, O’Neil. 2008. The Influence of gaming expenditure

on crime rates in South Australia: A local area empirical investigation. Journal of Gambling

Studies 24:1-12.

Williams, R. J., Royston, J., & Hagen, B. F. (2005). Gambling and problem gambling within

forensic populations: A review of the literature. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 32(6):665–

689.

Williams, R.J., J. Rehm, & R.M.G. Stevens.2011. The Social and Economic Impacts of

Gambling. Final Report to theCanadian Interprovincial Consortium for Gambling Research.

March 11, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/10133/1286.

Varvio, S. 2007. Review of the Finnish Gaming System [Katsaus Suomen

rahapelija¨rjestelma¨a¨n]. Helsinki: Stakes, Working papers 24/2007.

Yeoman, T. & Griffiths, M. 1996. Adolescent machine gambling and crime. Journal of

Adolescence, 19, 183-188.

Zurhold, H., Verthein, U. & Kalke, J. 2013. Prevalence of problem gambling among the

prison population in Hamburg, Germany. Journal of Gambling Studies 2013 Jan 20. (Epub

ahead of print).