UK Gambling Commission settles with Rank Group-owned operators over land-based RG failures

• Gambling Commission settles with Rank Group PLC-owned land-based operators
• The three named operators, owned by Rank Group PLC, will pay a £5m settlement
• The company’s operators breached AML and social responsibility obligations

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has reached a seven-figure settlement with three operators owned by Rank Group PLC.

Seven-figure settlement handed down on Rank Group operators

The settlement, determined at £5m, comes in the wake of established anti-money laundering and social responsibility failures in the land-based operations of the operators.

Grosvenor Casinos Limited, Grosvenor Casinos (GC) Limited and Gaming Group Limited, which run 51 casinos across Great Britain, will now have to be subject to an independent third-party audit to ensure that they meet anti-money laundering and safer gambling policies, procedures and controls.

Commenting on the latest enforcement action, Sue Young, Executive Director of Operations, had this to add:

"Larger enforcement cases are often associated with online gambling but, as today’s announcement shows, the risks of anti-money laundering and social responsibility failures are equally alive in the land-based sector."

Young used the recent settlement announced by the regulator to serve as an example and warning to other physical venues. Specifically, regarding the offenses, the UKGC identified several breaches of existing anti-money laundering obligations.

Among these were a failure to update the company’s AML policies to take account of changes to the Money Laundering Regulations in 2020. Another issue was found with implementing AML Policies, procedures and controls, which allowed inconsistent decisions to be applied to customers with elevated money laundering risk, as well as:

• implementing unclear policies, procedures and controls which resulted in inappropriate risk levels being ascribed to high-risk customers and high-risk sources of funds being used by customers without appropriate scrutiny
• not carrying out enhanced customer due diligence checks when its own policies required it.

According to the regulator, the properties also failed to carry out interactions with a customer during a period in which they lost £50,000. Another customer who won £260,000 in a short period and lost £250,000 over 12 days had no record of safer gambling interactions.

Not least, the regulator said the company was "not carrying out safer gambling interactions with a customer who was returning after a period of self-exclusion, until they had lost £25,000."

Image credit: Unsplash.com