Gibraltar Regulator Reaches £45,000 Settlement
The Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner has agreed to a £45,000 regulatory settlement with a licence holder after identifying shortcomings in areas related to customer risk management, deposit limit controls, and audit obligations. The case highlights repeated delays in implementing remediation guidance previously issued by the regulator.
Settlement and Background
The settlement replaces a formal financial penalty and follows a review showing that several compliance gaps remained unresolved despite earlier guidance. The case focused on the effectiveness of the operator’s internal controls rather than intent.
Although the operator had updated its policies for handling higher-risk 18–24-year-old customers, the regulator found that these measures did not work consistently in individual cases. The shortcomings indicated that the improved procedures were not fully embedded or effective during the period under review.
Incorrect Deposit Limit
One customer account included an error where the operator failed to apply a revised net deposit limit after receiving documents related to the customer’s source of funds and wealth. Based on the verified income, the limit should have been reduced, but the oversight was attributed to human error.
The Commissioner also noted that the operator had not completed a recent independent audit covering AML, CFT and CPF systems and controls. The company has since taken steps to commission the required review.
Previous Warnings
A key aggravating factor was the slow remediation of issues already highlighted in past public statements. While the regulator did not question the operator’s intentions, it stressed the need for timely and effective responses to supervisory advice.
The case underscores the importance of acting immediately on remediation instructions and ensuring that policy updates translate into operational effectiveness. The regulator also emphasised the need for stronger internal triggers that identify higher-risk behaviour falling below standard thresholds.
The failures were considered sporadic, and the review found no indication of money laundering or terrorist financing.