The UK Gambling Commission has imposed a £10 million penalty on Platinum Gaming Limited for significant anti-money laundering and social responsibility failures.
Systemic Failures
The operator, which runs unibet.co.uk and uk.bingo.com, employed a flawed customer interaction system. It failed to identify a player at risk who lost £5,000 within 24 hours of registering and over £16,000 in three months. Another customer who lost over £31,000 in nine months and hit loss limits six times was not interacted with.
The licensee also did not identify a customer who exceeded a £2,500 loss limit just 16 minutes after account registration. Anti-money laundering failures included a deficient risk assessment that allowed previously blocked customers to open new accounts, alongside unclear due diligence policies.
Compliance Audit
In addition to the financial penalty, Platinum Gaming received a formal warning and must undergo a third-party audit. The audit will ensure its anti-money laundering and safer gambling policies are effectively implemented. This marks the second enforcement action against the company, which was penalised £2.9 million in 2023 for similar compliance failures.
John Pierce, Commission Director of Enforcement, said:
While industry wide progress has been made in reducing unchecked high spending, the failings at Platinum Gaming are particularly disappointing.
The case revealed serious shortcomings in customer interaction systems, including failures to identify and act on clear markers of harm.”
These included consumers losing thousands within hours or days of registration, repeatedly breaching loss limits, and exhibiting patterns of binge and high-velocity gambling without appropriate intervention.”
Significant anti-money laundering failures were also identified. ”
These included gaps in the licensee’s risk assessment, which failed to account for previously blocked accounts linked to money laundering concerns, and a lack of clarity in the AML policy around due diligence thresholds. ”
Customer reviews did not consistently consider high-risk factors, despite these being outlined in the licensee’s own framework.”
