Gambling profits, UK regulation and the Badalyan’s

This is the first in a series of investigative articles that will examine how the business empire of Vigen and Vahe Badalyan has extended across multiple jurisdictions. Over the next few weeks Malta Media will publish in-depth coverage on Malta, offshore structures, Armenian political financing, cryptocurrency initiatives and ties to Turkish and Northern Cypriot networks.

We begin in the United Kingdom. Here the Badalyans, through Vivaro Limited trading as VBET, hold a licence from the Gambling Commission. At first glance, the operation looks like any other regulated bookmaker. Yet closer inspection reveals a pattern of systemic failings and uncomfortable questions about how British-generated revenues are repatriated and used abroad.

The place of Vivaro in the UK gambling sector

Vivaro Limited, trading under the consumer brand VBET, has positioned itself as a legitimate participant in the UK gambling market. It has enrolled in national initiatives such as GAMSTOP, which enables self-exclusion for vulnerable players and IBAS, the Independent Betting Adjudication Service that mediates disputes. These measures present VBET as compliant with best practice and integrated into the same framework as established operators such as Bet365 or William Hill.

But legitimacy on paper does not always translate into robust practice. Gambling in the UK is governed by strict objectives: preventing crime, ensuring fairness and protecting vulnerable persons. When Vivaro’s internal systems failed to meet those objectives, the regulator intervened.

The £337,631 settlement

On 17 January 2023 the Gambling Commission announced a £337,631 settlement with Vivaro Limited. The regulator found that the company had “significant weaknesses” in its procedures to prevent money laundering and ensure safer gambling.

The public statement accompanying the settlement noted that these failings were not isolated mistakes. They persisted for a sustained period and affected the core licensing objectives. Customers who should have been identified as higher risk were not. Transactions that might have triggered red flags were processed without adequate checks. The result was a system that allowed risk to go undetected.

Vivaro did cooperate. It engaged openly with the Commission, acknowledged the problems and implemented remedial steps. Those actions helped mitigate the penalty. But the admission of systemic failings in a market considered one of the most tightly regulated in Europe is serious.

From UK profits to foreign politics

Settlements and fines are not unusual in the gambling sector. Operators frequently fall short of expected standards and regulators apply sanctions to correct behaviour. What makes the Vivaro case different is the destination of its revenues.

Unlike UK-based operators whose profits remain largely within Britain, Vivaro’s ultimate beneficial owners are Armenian nationals who also hold Maltese passports.

Dividends flow to the Badalyan brothers and are then channelled through a web of companies in Malta, the Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands and Armenia.

The practical effect is that revenues generated under the protection of a UK licence are used to support business and political networks abroad. In Armenia, investigative outlets have linked these funds to political donations to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party. In Malta, the same revenues sustain companies that benefit from EU market access.

This chain of transfers raises the question: does the Gambling Commission’s oversight end at the UK border or does responsibility extend to how licensed profits are ultimately deployed?

Comparisons with British political controversies

The British political system has already shown how sensitive the issue of gambling money can be. In 2024 media outlets reported that both Labour and the Conservatives had accepted significant donations from gambling industry figures.

Peter Coates of Bet365 gave £25,000 to Labour leader Keir Starmer’s office, while Betfred’s Done brothers contributed £375,000 to the Conservatives in 2016–17.

These donations were lawful, declared and within the rules. Yet the public reaction was strong. Critics argued that the gambling industry was buying influence and shaping policy. Demands for reform quickly followed. The debate illustrated how even transparent contributions can undermine trust in political life.

Placed beside Armenia, the comparison is striking. In Britain, donations are at least visible and subject to scrutiny. In Armenia, investigations by OCCRP and its local partners suggest that donations are obscured through straw donors and charitable foundations, with many listed contributors denying they gave money at all.

The common thread is gambling money flowing into politics, but the Armenian case is more opaque and arguably more damaging to democratic accountability.

The role of reputational cover

By holding a UK licence, Vivaro benefits from reputational cover. The Gambling Commission is recognised globally as a strict regulator. Operators licensed in Britain can claim legitimacy and reliability and this in turn strengthens their brand in other jurisdictions.

For the Badalyans, this cover is valuable. Vivaro’s UK presence lends credibility to their wider empire, including operations in Malta and Armenia. It enables sponsorships, partnerships and award nominations that might otherwise attract scepticism.

When Vigen Badalyan is celebrated at industry conferences as an innovator, the fact that his company holds a UK licence is part of the narrative.

Yet reputational cover can become reputational laundering. If UK-licensed revenues are used in ways that raise questions abroad, the licence itself becomes part of the problem.

A system under strain

The Gambling Commission has faced criticism for being under-resourced and slow to act. While it has imposed record fines on operators, questions remain about its ability to monitor the complex networks that link licensed companies to offshore structures.

Vivaro’s case illustrates the challenge.

The Commission’s investigation identified weaknesses in customer monitoring and AML processes. But the broader issue of where profits go once they leave Britain is outside its immediate remit. That gap allows companies like Vivaro to operate within the rules domestically while using their revenues internationally in ways that may not align with the spirit of UK regulation.

The wider network

Understanding Vivaro requires placing it within the Badalyans’ larger portfolio. The company is only one element of a structure that includes SoftConstruct, BetConstruct, SCGO Ltd, V Venture Ltd and Fastex.

Each has its own jurisdiction, its own licence and its own regulatory environment.

The UK is where the network gains legitimacy. Malta is where it secures EU presence and citizenship. The Isle of Man and the British Virgin Islands provide offshore discretion. Armenia is where revenues are reinvested into politics and business. The UK role is therefore not peripheral. It is foundational.

Public accountability

The settlement of £337,631 might appear small against the backdrop of UK gambling revenues, which run into billions annually. But the symbolic weight is significant. It shows that Vivaro failed in areas central to the Commission’s mandate.

Public accountability demands more than fines. It requires transparency about where licensed operators’ profits flow. When those profits are connected to political financing abroad, especially in fragile democracies, regulators cannot look away.

The integrity of the UK system is compromised if licences are used as a springboard for questionable practices elsewhere.

Final thoughts and conclusion

Vivaro Limited’s record in the UK exposes deeper concerns than one compliance breach. The company admitted to systemic weaknesses in anti-money-laundering and social responsibility, then paid a settlement to close the case. Yet the consequences extend beyond Britain. Licensed revenues flow out of the UK, through offshore centres and into the hands of the Badalyan brothers, who have been linked by multiple investigations to Armenia’s ruling party financing.

This article is the first in a broader Malta Media series. In the coming weeks we will examine Malta’s role as a second home for the Badalyans, the offshore routes they use, the suspicious patterns of Armenian political donations, the integration of crypto tokens into financing and the ties to Turkish and Northern Cypriot betting networks.

Each part of the series will build on the picture presented here: those UK-licensed gambling profits are the foundation of a much larger and more troubling system.

FAQs

Who owns Vivaro Limited and operates VBET?
Vivaro Limited, trading as VBET, is owned by Armenian nationals Vigen and Vahe Badalyan.

What license does Vivaro hold in the UK?
Vivaro is licensed by the UK Gambling Commission to operate as a bookmaker.

Why was Vivaro fined £337,631 in January 2023?
The Gambling Commission found systemic weaknesses in Vivaro’s anti-money laundering procedures and safer gambling measures.

Did Vivaro cooperate with the Gambling Commission?
Yes, Vivaro acknowledged the failings, engaged openly with regulators, and implemented remedial actions.

How are Vivaro’s UK profits used abroad?
Revenues are channeled through offshore companies in Malta, the Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands, and Armenia, including political financing.

What political connections are linked to Vivaro’s profits?
Investigations suggest funds were connected to donations to Armenia’s Civil Contract party led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

Does the UK Gambling Commission monitor where profits go internationally?
The Commission’s remit primarily covers UK operations; it does not oversee how profits are deployed abroad.

What is reputational cover, and how does Vivaro benefit from it?
A UK licence lends Vivaro credibility, enhancing its brand in Malta, Armenia, and other jurisdictions.

What broader network are Vivaro and the Badalyans involved in?
Vivaro is part of a portfolio including SoftConstruct, BetConstruct, SCGO Ltd, V Venture Ltd, and Fastex, spanning multiple jurisdictions.

Why is Vivaro’s case significant beyond the fine?
It highlights systemic compliance failures and the use of UK-licensed gambling revenues to support opaque political and offshore networks.

 

Legal disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available information, regulatory decisions from the Gambling Commission and investigative reporting by established outlets including the OCCRP, Amphora Media, Rstmedia, Hetq and others. It represents analysis and commentary intended for public interest reporting.

No allegations of unlawful conduct are made beyond those already documented by regulators or acknowledged in official statements. The individuals and companies mentioned are entitled to respond and provide clarification.

Malta Media does not claim or imply criminal wrongdoing unless determined by a competent court or authority.