Rank's three casino operators to pay £5m for AML and safer gambling failures

Grosvenor Casinos Limited will make a payment in lieu of a financial penalty of £5,012,261 after a Gambling Commission licence review found failings in its anti-money laundering (AML) and social responsibility controls. The terms are set out in a public statement published on 7 October 2026. Grosvenor proposed the settlement and the Commission accepted it on behalf of the licensee and the wider group, Grosvenor Casinos (GC) Limited and Gaming Group Limited, because the group uses the same policies, procedures and controls. The Commission's announcement says the three are owned by Rank Group PLC and run 51 casinos across Great Britain. They will also undergo a third-party audit.

The Commission is aiming the case at the whole premises-based sector. Sue Young, its executive director of operations, said the risks "are equally alive in the land-based sector". She advised all premises-based operators "to take a careful look at this case" so that they "do not face costly and inevitable Commission action". The Commission counted two aggravating factors. Grosvenor had already received formal advice on similar areas of concern, and the Commission had already published statements on similar issues at other operators.

What the review found

The section 116 review began after information reached the Commission and Grosvenor submitted key event notices. Further intelligence prompted a targeted compliance assessment at one venue on 13 June 2025. The Commission found breaches of licence condition 12.1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3, on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing. It also found breaches of social responsibility code provision 3.4.1, paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and paragraph 2, on premises-based customer interaction.

On AML, the Commission found:

- Policies had not properly accounted for 2020 changes to the Money Laundering Regulations, so a customer was not rated high risk when that would have been appropriate.
- Venue managers had decision-making autonomy. The Commission called this "not problematic in principle", but it meant source of funds or wealth evidence was not always obtained and scrutinised. In one case evidence was obtained but never sent to central compliance teams, and the customer lost significant funds "that may or may not have been their own".
- For cryptocurrency used as a partial source of funds or wealth, Grosvenor's processes "appeared to have required only" that the assets be verified as converted into fiat currency through an appropriate bank account.
- A customer using cryptocurrency as a source of funds and a customer identified as a student from China were not moved up a risk level. Grosvenor's own policies say such customers will not be "standard risk".
- A cash-only customer recycled about £85,000 over roughly 11 weeks. Enhanced due diligence was not adequately carried out until losses reached about £13,000.

On safer gambling, staff used customers' perceived wealth or winnings to justify "perfunctory" interactions. A long-standing customer won about £260,000 and then lost about £250,000 in 12 days with no interaction recorded. Another lost about £50,000 with no interaction. A customer returning from self-exclusion and playing with verified winnings from another operator lost about £25,000 before any interaction. Grosvenor then failed to escalate with time or spend limits or reduced debit card access. Repeated reality checks and loss alerts at the same level did not change one customer's behaviour, and losses passed £73,000. The Commission saw no evidence that such events were evaluated to change policy or retrain staff.

In Atlas's view, the venue-autonomy finding is the one multi-site operators should test themselves against. The Commission accepted local discretion but expects evidence gathered in a venue to reach central compliance.

Settlement terms

The settlement has four parts:

- the £5,012,261 payment, directed to the Consolidated Fund;
- agreement to publication of a statement of facts;
- a payment towards the Commission's investigation costs;
- a third-party external audit of the business.

The Commission credited Grosvenor for swiftly implementing remedial changes and for full co-operation.

The statement asks every operator to consider five questions. These include whether its AML controls "would bear objective scrutiny" and whether its staff are trained to recognise the indicators of harm in the Commission's guidance. Grosvenor has committed to complete the external audit within six months of the conclusion of the Commission's licence review.