iGamingExpert

Leading gambling treatment charities have accused the UK government of “shifting the goalposts” as they prepare for the implementation of the statutory levy.

A spokesperson for Gordon Moody revealed fears for the future of charity, telling The Guardian that sustainability remains uncertain beyond March 2026 – as it adapts to the NHS becoming the main administrator for the treatment and prevention of gambling harms.

“This approach is leaving longstanding, expert and proven organisations like Gordon Moody uncertain about their future beyond March 2026, and is already impacting on frontline services and the people with the most severe gambling harms,” the spokesperson said.

“We are calling on the government to approve interim funding for charities delivering essential treatment and prevention activities for the next 12 months and to initiate a comprehensive evaluation of all treatment providers.”

These worries were also shared by Victoria Corbishley, Chief Executive of GamCare, who revealed to The Guardian that services like GamCare still “don’t know what commissioners want from us from April”.

It’s a lack of clarity that should raise alarm bells for the government, with it significantly risking the ability of such organisations to provide support to problem gamblers.

What is the statutory levy?

Following changes made by the government, UK operators are now required to contribute to a statutory levy to support research, education and treatment (RET), with contributions determined by companies’ gross gambling yield.

As such, the NHS has replaced GambleAware as the leader of allocation funding for the treatment and prevention of gambling harms. Previously, GambleAware, which is undergoing a managed closure until March 2026, distributed funds garnered from voluntary contributions from the industry.

20% of the expected £100m annual yield will be allocated to research, while the Prevention Commissioner, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), will receive 30% of the levy funding.

Finally, the remaining 50% will go to the NHS, which will commission treatment and support services in collaboration with the third sector.

Continued concern

However, concerns have refused to die down over how the funding will be allocated and the future of charities like Gordon Moody.

As far back as March, Shafaq warned that the uncertainty over funding was being exacerbated by calls from some within gambling reforms to exclude organisations “tarnished” by taking money from the industry in the past.

Speaking on a recent episode of iGaming Daily, Dan Waugh, Partner at Regulus Partners, echoed these concerns, saying that many charities will be “put in a real pinch” due to the “ideological purity” that public health insists on.

“These charities have been told you cannot seek money from the gambling industry, which has funded you for the past 25 years or more, you’re not allowed to. Charities will be put in a real pinch,” he said.

“The commissioners under the levy generally are self-interested. So OHID and the NHS both have their own services. They will likely prioritise them, which means that charities will be at the back of the queue.”

Minister for Gambling, Baroness Twycross, who is being charged with leading the NHS-led approach to addressing gambling, has previously promised that the new levy will build on the work of organisations within the third sector.

She said: “As the new statutory gambling levy system comes into effect, managing a smooth and stable transition is an absolute priority, and we are taking significant steps to maintain service provision. The new levy system will build on the successes of the current system to improve and expand efforts to further understand, tackle and treat harmful gambling.”

However, as the new year draws closer and the industry adapts to the new framework, as well as a significant upheaval in the UK’s tax regime, the future of the third sector remains shrouded in an uncertainty that the government will need to work quickly to clear to ensure vital treatment isn’t disrupted.

NetBet Enterprises Limited has been ordered to pay a £650,000 penalty after an investigation by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) discovered anti-money laundering and social responsibility failures.

The operator, which runs netbet.co.uk, will also undergo an independent audit into its operations and will pay the money as part of a settlement with the commission, with all £650,000 going to socially responsible causes.

“This case highlights the serious consequences of failing to meet anti-money laundering and social responsibility obligations,” stated John Pierce, Director of Enforcement at the UKGC.

“We expect all operators to take note and ensure their systems are not only well-designed but are working effectively to protect consumers and to keep crime out of gambling.”

AML failures

Regarding AML, the UKGC noted that failures by NetBet included being over-reliant on financial triggers, with examples of customers being able to spend disproportionately to their net income.

According to the commission’s report, one customer was not referred to the Money Laundering Reporting Officer and remained AML low risk “despite depositing circa £2,000 within four active days, via an e-wallet (Apple Pay), and working in a higher-risk occupation”.

The customer later submitted a pay slip which “showed monthly net pay of circa £2,800, however, disproportionate spend was not considered when the customer deposited £1,650 within a two-hour period”.

The UKGC also discovered examples of “significant gambling activity” where customers were still considered low risk despite demonstrating concerning behaviours.

In addition, the operator’s money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessment also “omitted some key risks, including the management of third-party business relationships, high stakes gambling and controls relating to third-country nationals residing in the UK”.

Exhausted monthly deposit limit in minutes

Regarding social responsibility, the UKGC listed that NetBet’s failures included not implementing effective customer interaction systems and processes to minimise the risk of customers experiencing harm associated with gambling.

NetBet also failed to identify indicators of harm promptly, such as overnight play, velocity of deposits/exhausting limits and escalated gameplay. These indicators were often also only identified after a manual review had taken place.

According to the commission’s report, one customer “routinely exhausted their monthly deposit limit within a few minutes” depositing £15,000 within 40 minutes in one session, then four weeks later £15,500 within two hours.

The customer was also able to “deposit £31,000 in a two-day period at the end of one month (£15,500) and the beginning of the next month (£15,500), because the limits set were per calendar month”.

However, the behaviour was only identified as an indicator of harm after the customer’s account was manually reviewed.

It was noted by the commission that “low-level interventions were occurring, and systems have since been strengthened”.

The UKGC added that inaccurate information was submitted by NetBet when the operator filed its regulatory returns.

“The operator was instructed to take immediate action and make significant improvements to its systems and controls,” Pierce stated.

“This included strengthening their risk assessments, improving how they identify and respond to indicators of harm, and ensuring the accuracy of the data they report to us.”

Action plan

Regarding mitigating factors, the UKGC stated that NetBet had:

Swiftly put in place an action plan to remedy the failings and provided updates

Fully cooperated with the investigation and provided information by agreed deadlines

Accepted the failings at an appropriately early stage in the investigation.

An independent audit of NetBet’s operations will also be carried out to make sure that the improvements being made are effective.

iGaming Expert has reached out to NetBet for comment on the penalty it has received from the UKGC.

Pierce added: “Alongside the £650,000 financial penalty, the operator is also required to commission an independent audit of its policies, procedures, and controls to ensure the necessary improvements they have implemented are properly embedded and remain effective in practice.

“Our focus is on ensuring operators meet the standards we expect, and where they fall short, we will intervene.”

Betfred has told iGaming Expert that it has found “no evidence of criminal spend” in any of its betting shops after a UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) investigation discovered social responsibility and anti-money laundering failures.

The UKGC investigation resulted in a £825,000 fine for Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Limited, who run Betfred’s land-based operations, as well as a warning and the operator will undergo a third-party audit to ensure AML and safer gambling policies, procedures and controls are being implemented effectively.

Between May 2024 and March 2025, AML failures listed by the commission through its investigation included:

Unable to effectively identify and manage money laundering risks associated with customers using B3 gaming machines. Machine alerts and daily reports were used, but practices in 2024 meant the operator was unable to assess overall customer spend and the associated money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

Not having an effective policy in place to identify and handle customers who may be subject to financial sanctions.

Thresholds for enquiries regarding customers’ income source not being appropriately risk-based – thresholds set at £15,000 losses and at £125,000 stakes in 365 days.

Between May 2024 and November 2024, the UKGC discovered the following social responsibility failures:

Not being able to adequately identify spend and any associated financial indicators of gambling harm for customers using B3 gaming machines.

Customer interactions were not always taking place after a risk indicator was identified, or when they did, interactions were not conducted in a way which minimised gambling-related harm risk.

Quality of interactions, in particular, understanding the interaction’s impact, did not meet the standards required.

Betfred defence

In response to the investigation, Betfred has told iGaming Expert that it has made improvements to its operations and that it did not discover any information that pointed towards criminal spend.

“Following a review of our UK-based betting shops by the Gambling Commission, we have further strengthened our Anti-Money Laundering and Social Responsibility policies,” said a Betfred spokesperson.

“During the review, the Commission found no evidence of criminal spend in our shops. Betfred is committed to ensuring a safe gambling experience for all our customers.”

This is the second time Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Limited has faced regulatory action, as the operator paid a £3.25m regulatory settlement for social responsibility and AML failures in 2023.

John Pierce, Director of Enforcement at the UKGC, said: “While the failings identified during the 2024 Compliance Assessment were predominantly technical breaches rather than arising from specific customer examples, they were nevertheless unacceptable, particularly with thresholds appearing too high and insufficiently risk-based when assessed in practice, and deficiencies in some processes and procedures adopted by the Licensee.

“We fully acknowledge the improvements the operator has already made since these issues were identified, and the independent audit will be key to confirming these changes are sustained so that the operator continues to be fully compliant with social responsibility and anti-money laundering requirements.”

Online regulatory action

Betfred’s online platform operator, Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited, also recently received a £240,000 penalty from the UKGC for having online slot features which breached its Remote Technical Standards (RTS), including “hosting games which failed to display the consumer’s net position and games which celebrated losses as wins”.

RTS requires all gaming sessions to clearly show a customer’s net position, and a gambling system must not celebrate returns that are less than or equal to the total stake gambled.

Concerns about the celebratory effects’ fairness when a customer was in an overall losing position were raised by the UKGC, which stated that it may “negatively impact a player’s ability to interpret their gameplay accurately and make informed choices”.

According to the report, action was immediately taken by Petfre (Gibraltar) to decommission the affected titles.

A Betfred spokesperson told iGaming Expert: “When we identified the issue with games provided by a third-party supplier, we acted quickly to remove them and reported the issue to the Gambling Commission. This experience has helped us improve and strengthen our safeguards.

“We’re committed to player protection and ensuring the very best and most transparent experience for all our customers.”