Videoslots hit with £2m settlement for AML and social responsibility breaches


Videoslots Limited will pay £2 million after social responsibility and anti-money laundering failures were uncovered during a UK Gambling Commission investigation.

The £2m UK settlement follows a €9,874,000 fine in the Netherlands.

The operator – which runs, and – will pay the money as part of a settlement with the Commission.

Social responsibility failures included, not ensuring that customers displaying risk behaviours were identified as potentially experiencing harm because responsible gambling reviews were not undertaken as early, or as well, as they should have been.

Failing to identify whether a customer was at risk of experiencing harm by not considering whether the amount being deposited or lost was appropriate. Allowing customers showing indicators of harm to continue to gamble significant amounts after interactions despite their behaviour continuing.

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) failures included: Not implementing its own risk-based processes appropriately due to significant delays in conducting the required action, such as an AML review or request for source of funds following a trigger in its processes.

It allowed customers showing indicators of harm, and those of medium and high risk, to continue to gamble significant amounts after interactions, despite their behaviour continuing. For example, Customer A deposited £112,225 and lost £58,725 between 21 November 2021 and 7 January 2022.

During that period this customer hit a number of triggers such as gambling for long periods, gambling in the early hours and losses exceeding thresholds based on declared source of wealth. As a result of the triggers the Licensee completed three account reviews (one being as a result of the customer being a top winner) and sent an automated email. However, for this customer an account review was missed on 8 December 2021 and delayed on 29 December 2021.

The operator’s approach to interactions set out in their responsible gambling policy and procedures was not implemented as it should have been. The customer not amending their behaviour demonstrates that the interactions, as a result, were not effective in minimising the risk of harm.

It did not carry out effective interactions where it had information (such as numerous markers of harm triggered) which may have demonstrated that an enhanced approach or intervention was required. Its process for escalating interactions or intervening were ineffective due to an over reliance on customer responses and source of wealth declarations

In some of the customer accounts reviewed, there were instances where, contrary to the Licensee’s policy, affordability was not fully considered by responsible gambling analysts in allowing customers to continue to gamble.

Not fulfilling elements of customer due diligence as early as intended in accordance with its own risk-based approach. Not having sufficient AML analysts to process the volumes of data or undertake the AML account reviews in accordance with its procedures.