1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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).