Swedish Regulator Spelinspektionen Rejects Mr Green’s Appeal Against SEK 31.5 M Fine
Mr Green a subsidiary of William Hill was fined a total of SEK 31.5 million (€3.1m) for lack of due diligence and AML, which are requirements by Swedish regulator Spelinspektionen to protect players.
Lack of Care
The updated Swedish Gambling Act 2018, stipulates operators must follow anti-money laundering protocol, and keep records of financial transactions up to date. Failures in customer care duties accounted for a lack of care regarding limiting customer spending although they had been flagged as a potential risk.
Spelinspektionen found a total of fifteen customers had displayed problematic behaviour or potential AML criminal intent while depositing at Mr Green between January 2019 to June 2020.
Some customers were able to deposit huge million SEK deposits without any affordability checks, Mr Green did not ask customers to produce source of funds (SOF) confirmation before making such huge deposits. One customer, in particular, was able to continue gambling even though they had already deposited more than six times their salary.
Appeal
In its appeal, Mr Green counter-argued that the players in question were already registered before the reformed Gambling Act took place in 2019.
Mr Green’s customer care protocol was compliant with the Malta Gaming Authority regulation at the time.
The operator had already alerted Spelinspektionen of the overhauling of its internal customer service approach to meet the updated Gambling Act. However, the Administrative Court of Linkoping agreed with the Swedish regulator, citing, that at the time the fine was deemed ‘fair and proportionate’ and considered the infringements extremely serious.
Mr Green was found to have violated routine and protocol regarding due diligence and anti-money laundering checks on its customers.
Spelinspektionen said, “The court further considered that the company had not fulfilled its obligations under the duty of care regarding the customers in question. The warning was considered a sufficient measure, and the decided sanction fees were considered proportionate.”
