The UKGC has settled with bet365 on a sanction of £582,120 after the operator was found to have had shortcomings when it comes to the anti-money laundering and social responsibility requirements of its bingo and casino business. 

The decision comes after a Commission compliance assessment took place in March last year, which discovered the bet365 failings.

Kay Roberts, Executive Director of Operations at the UKGC, emphasised that the failings aren’t as severe as other gambling businesses in recent years. However, she stated that the braches didn’t stand up to the high standards the regulator expects from operators.

She stated: “We expect high standards from operators in terms of keeping gambling safe, fair and crime-free, and will always take action to correct any failings. This operator is very aware that a repeat of these failings will result in escalating regulatory action.”

One of the failures stemmed from the firm’s interactions with customers, which were frequently not tailored to the specific customer journey or spectrum of harm and therefore interactions were deemed ‘not meaningful’.

Meanwhile, bet365’s Early Risk Detection System was found to be ‘not demonstrably effective’ in understanding the impact of individual interactions on a customer’s behaviour and whether further action was required.

Furthermore, the investigation was further concerned with the company’s approach to customer care evaluations, as it was unable to effectively determine whether a customer had read and understood the information or advice provided within its interactions.

The operator provided public responses accepting the assessment, in which it stated that bet365 will direct £582,120 towards socially responsible causes as part of the regulatory settlement.  

Additionally, bet365’s anti-money laundering failures included enhanced customer due diligence and ‘know your customer triggers’ which were found ineffective at managing money laundering risk.

bet365 also failed to undertake financial sanctions checks on new customers prior to their first deposits, as well as independent verification checks and over-relied on customers’ annual self-verification of KYC information, e.g. ID documents.