QuinnBet to pay £609,104 over AML and safer-gambling failures

Britain’s Gambling Commission has concluded a section 116 licence review of QuinnBet (Gibraltar) Limited with a £609,104 regulatory settlement over anti-money laundering and customer-interaction controls.

The Commission opened the review after a compliance assessment identified weaknesses. The public statement records AML failures from March 2023 to August 2025 and remote-customer-interaction failures from October 2023 to August 2025.

The settlement does not create a new rule. It records control failures across deposit limits, vulnerability checks, betting-pattern alerts, source-of-funds controls and Suspicious Activity Report timing.

What the review found

One customer placed about 4,800 bets in one day and 7,000 the next without the activity being flagged. The Commission also found that high deposits, short high-velocity sessions, increasing stakes, bet counts and turnover were not always captured for review.

In another case, a customer staked more than £215,000 in one day, including several wagers above £5,000. The activity was not identified until a report ran the following day.

The AML findings concerned a separate control process. One customer supplied payslips showing monthly income of about £2,000, then deposited and lost £9,000 in four days.

The Commission also found cases where QuinnBet assumed deposits represented recycled winnings without establishing source of funds. It found insufficient controls for submitting Suspicious Activity Reports as soon as practicable.

The public statement links some failures to QuinnBet’s migration to a new platform. Human and software-update errors affected deposit-limit controls, while some customers who should have received financial-vulnerability checks were not checked at the intended time.

The statement says 194 customers were able to deposit and potentially lose funds above intended limits. When the delayed vulnerability checks were eventually run, 41 customers would have failed and 136 would have required account restrictions.

Most harm indicators fed into a report produced the next morning rather than in real time. Occasional staffing delays pushed a small number of reviews into a second day.

The control test for other operators

The Commission’s statement asks operators to test source-of-funds evidence rather than rely on assumptions, verify that customer-interaction algorithms use relevant harm indicators and ensure strong indicators trigger timely automated action. It also asks them to test controls before and after changes to IT infrastructure.

The settlement includes £193,118 in disgorgement, publication of the statement of facts and a contribution to investigation costs. QuinnBet put an action plan in place, co-operated with the investigation and made early voluntary reports of some failings.

The published record does not set a new remediation deadline, announce a wider rule change or identify a further supervisory event. It closes the review with a settlement and a defined set of control failures for operators to compare against their own practices.

The next event is implementation of QuinnBet’s action plan; the public statement sets no further date or supervisory milestone.