I have answered this question at length here.

Briefly, cheating in the offence of cheating has its common meaning, which may be “act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage”.

The question of whether someone has cheated is a question of fact, not law. This means that a jury (or magistrates or district judge in the magistrates' court) would decide whether particular behaviour is cheating or not.

The law (Gambling Act s 42(3)) specifies cheating is most commonly a 'deception' or 'interference' with the way that gambling is conducted, or with the event being bet on. Therefore, if someone removes a chip from the table after the roulette has been spun, they have committed the crime of cheating.

The mentions of 'deception' or 'interference' does not circumscribe the meaning of 'cheating', which has the 'general meaning'.

I think it is a mistake to conflate insider dealing/trading with cheating, because that relates to a specific offence in relation to securities (shares). It doesn't seem to be particularly related to 'cheating at gambling'.

There has been extensive discussion of whether the use of inside information is or should be cheating, and gambling industry figures have given different views:

1. inside information is an integral part of gambling, particularly in horseracing, and banning its use might not be desirable
2. betting AGAINST your own horse because you know it's sick is less honest (perhaps should be deemed cheating) than betting on your own horse when you know it's running well
3. the Gambling Commission has considered the issue and concluded that inside information may be unfair and such bets should be refused or could be voided under the s 336 powers, but it is not cheating, unless it relates to a separate cheating event (e.g., you know or have reason to suspect that a game will be rigged by others, and bet on the outcome accordingly).

The Gambling Commission also concluded that 'courtsiding' (betting at an event, before oddsmakers relying on delayed TV signals update) is not cheating.

Therefore, while it is open for a jury to decide that betting based on inside information is cheating, this does not seem to be the consensus of industry figures. A 'betting on inside information' offence (as in New South Wales) would need to be created to regulate this behaviour.

I have answered this question at length here.

Briefly, cheating in the offence of cheating has its common meaning, which may be “act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage”.

The question of whether someone has cheated is a question of fact, not law. This means that a jury (or magistrates or district judge in the magistrates' court) would decide whether particular behaviour is cheating or not.

The law (Gambling Act s 42(3)) specifies cheating is most commonly a 'deception' or 'interference' with the way that gambling is conducted, or with the event being bet on. Therefore, if someone removes a chip from the table after the roulette has been spun, they have committed the crime of cheating.

The mentions of 'deception' or 'interference' does not circumscribe the meaning of 'cheating', which has the 'general meaning'.

I think it is a mistake to conflate insider dealing/trading with cheating, because that relates to a specific offence in relation to securities (shares). It doesn't seem to be particularly related to 'cheating at gambling'.

There has been extensive discussion of whether the use of inside information is or should be cheating, and gambling industry figures have given different views:

1. inside information is an integral part of gambling, particularly in horseracing, and banning its use might not be desirable
2. betting AGAINST your own horse because you know it's sick is less honest (perhaps should be deemed cheating) than betting on your own horse when you know it's running well
3. the Gambling Commission has considered the issue and concluded that inside information may be unfair and such bets should be refused or could be voided under the s 336 powers, but it is not cheating, unless it relates to a separate cheating event (e.g., you know or have reason to suspect that a game will be rigged by others, and bet on the outcome accordingly).

The Gambling Commission also concluded that 'courtsiding' (betting at an event, before oddsmakers relying on delayed TV signals update) is not cheating.

The specific reason why I believe this is not cheating is that placing a bet is unlikely to constitute cheating of itself, unless there is some separate dishonest or unfair act. For example, if I am a boxer and bet on myself to win, knowing I am much stronger than my opponent, that's not cheating. However, if I hide razor blades in my gloves, to ensure I win, that would clearly be cheating. Likewise, if I play against poker against an opponent who inadvertently exposes his cards, it's not cheating if I go on to win all his money. However, if I have hidden a camera focused on his cards, or have an associate behind his shoulder, that's clearly cheating.

Therefore, while it is open for a jury to decide that betting based on inside information is cheating, this does not seem to be the consensus of industry figures. A 'betting on inside information' offence (as in New South Wales) would need to be created to regulate this behaviour.