Kindred Group (32Red, Unibet) Fined £7.1 Million

The Gambling Commission must have money flowing into their accounts at the moment.

At the same time as William Hill were issued with the biggest ever fine in the UKGC’s history, two brands that are part of the Kindred Group’s portfolio have also found themselves in hot water.

As always with these things, the fines relate to past offences as the investigations always take a long time to complete before any fine can be issued, so Kindred are claiming these lapses would not happen today.

Still, they must be feeling relieved that the fines were not worse considering how slap happy the UKGC have been with big bills recently.

Campaigners have complained that, since the fine amounts to just 10% of Kindred’s profits last year, it runs the risk of being written off as the cost of doing business, but nevertheless, the fine must fit the crime.

It’s not a huge story this one, but the details are below.

Unibet and 32Red at Fault

Unibet and 32Red Fine

Back in 2021, Kindred said they were aiming to make no money at all from problem gambling by 2023.

How they planned to achieve this i’m not sure, but it’s safe to say they haven’t.

Both the 32Red and Unibet brands, each owned by Kindred, have been found lacking in the social responsibility and anti money laundering departments, with the UKGC explaining that they “failed to identify and protect potential problem gamblers”, and when they did manage it, they “were superficial and lacked depth”.

Basically then, their thresholds for checking on potentially harmful behaviour were set too high, and when when they were triggered, the checks carried out were not thorough enough.

As a result, 32Red Limited have been fined £4,195,655, and Platinum Gaming Limited, which runs Unibet, has been fined £2,937,599.

Speaking about the situation, Kay Roberts of the UKGC said:

“These failures highlight clearly that both operators failed to interact with customers in a way which minimises the risk of them experiencing harms associated with gambling,”

“Our investigations also showed that policies and procedures were overlooked, both around customer accounts and anti-money laundering practices.”

“Ultimately, it is an example which all gambling operators should take notice of to ensure they protect their customers at all times.”

With the government white paper on gambling due any week now, companies have never had to be more careful in their handling of potential harmful gambling behaviour, and this is just one more example of that.

Failures Listed by the UKGC

Serious Business People UKGCThe Commission have published information on specific failures that they felt were deserving of punihsment.

Social responsibility failures noted by the UKGC were as follows:

  • 32Red customer gambling session times should have prompted earlier identification of customers who may have been experiencing gambling related harm.
  • 32Red controls were not effective as they failed to identify and protect potential problem gamblers. For example, one customer was allowed to deposit £43,000 and lose £36,000 within seven days.
  • Customer interactions at 32Red were being carried out and logged, however it was found that they were superficial and lacked depth and probing, with the operator settling for customer assurances that they were comfortable with their level of gambling and that they could afford it.
  • Platinum Gaming failed to have effective policies and procedures designed to identify separate accounts held by the same individual. For example, self-excluded or blocked customers were able to register on Platinum Gaming after being blocked or self-excluded on the 32Red platform.
  • Platinum Gaming failed to identify and interact with customers who may have been experiencing harms associated with gambling.

Meanwhile, anti money laundering failures looked like this:

  • 32Red failed to thoroughly implement the measures described by the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer Regulations 2017).
  • The customer account reviews identified that financial triggers for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) reviews at 32Red were too high and not appropriate to effectively manage money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Inappropriate controls allowed significant levels of gambling to take place within a short space of time without the operator knowing anything about customers’ financial situations.
  • 32Red customers subject to a Source of Funds (SOF) / Source of Wealth (SOW) request were, in most cases, not restricted from depositing and gambling during the two-week period allowed by the operator to respond to the request. This resulted in further significant depositing and loss activity occurring.
  • In relation to 32 Red, there was an over reliance on confidence that funds coming through Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulated firms mitigated/removed proceeds of crime risk.
  • One 32Red account was not deposit blocked, in line with its own policy and procedures, after an information request deadline had expired. This allowed the customer to continue depositing, gambling £16,280 in total and losing £8,321 for a further two weeks until their account was blocked.
  • Platinum Gaming’s policies, procedures and controls in relation to AML were not appropriate.
  • Platinum Gaming failed to ensure that it’s policies, procedures and controls were kept under review and revised appropriately to ensure that they remained effective.

Speaking about the fine, Kindred CEO Henrik Tjärnström, said:

“While we accept the outcome, and the acknowledgment that we have already taken significant steps to strengthen our processes, we also recognise that we need to work even harder to ensure a safe and compliant business,”

He went on to say that the failures would be unlikely to happen today because of changes that have already been made, which is something we have heard before from other companies.

It may be then that this string of recent fines is simply a case of the headlines catching up with what is happening on the ground, since fines often come a few years after the offences themselves.