Jumpman Gaming And Progress Play Fined By UKGC For Multiple Failings

UKGC Jumpman Gaming Progress Play

Mobile gambling operators Jumpman Gaming Limited and Progress Play have been fined by the UK Gambling Commission for multiple failings.

The Gambling Commission announced the regulatory action in a news post, revealing that the two businesses will pay a total of £675,000 in settlements after investigations found social responsibility and anti-money laundering failures.

The Commission’s report states that Jumpman Gaming Limited, the operator of 243 websites, will pay £500,000, and Progress Play, the operator of 201 websites, will pay £175,718 to the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms.

Speaking about the failings, Leanne Oxley, the Gambling Commission Director of Enforcement and Intelligence, said: “We will always clamp down on operators who fail in their obligations to keep gambling safe and crime-free.

“We encourage other operators to consider the failings identified in these cases carefully, and consider what improvements they can make in their own businesses.”

The news comes after the Gambling Commission announced new rules in April to protect at-risk customers, requiring operators to monitor a diverse range of indicators to identify gambling harm.

Jumpman Gaming’s Failings

According to the Gambling Commission, the organisation’s investigation between February and July 2020 found failings in the operator’s implementation of anti-money laundering policies, procedures and controls, and deficiencies in its responsible gambling policies, procedures, controls and practices, including weakness in implementation.

The Commission found that customers at Jumpman Gaming websites were able to deposit and lose well in excess of the average UK income before reviews were conducted and that the operator failed to comply with its own policy when customers met AML alert triggers.

Examples shared by the Commission include a customer who gambled and lost in excess of £5,000 before the first email customer due diligence (CDD) documents were sent. Another example includes Jumpman Gaming requesting CDD documents from a customer after they met the deposit trigger but allowing the customer to continue gambling until they list £23,500.

In relation to social responsibility failings, the Commission found that Jumpman Gaming allowed a customer to lose over £15,000 in less than a month without sufficient evidence gathered, which confirmed if they could afford to do so.

The operator also allowed a customer to lose over £20,000 in approximately six weeks before any consideration was given to their affordability, and another customer lost almost £19,000 in four months without sufficient evidence.

As a result of the above, Jumpman Gaming accepted the findings and the Gambling Commission’s penalty of £500,000, which will be directed to the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms with £13,594.30 covering the Commission’s costs of investigating the case.

Progress Play’s Failings

Meanwhile, the Commission found that Progress Play failed to apply its own source of funds (SOF) policy when customers hit triggers, lacked a clear rationale regarding decision-making over SOF, failed to effectively review the SOF information provided, and failed to perform ongoing customer due diligence checks.

Following an investigation into the operator, the Commission found that customers were given 14 days to provide information to support their SOF but were able to continue gambling during the period.

The organisation also found that it failed numerous social responsibility policies, including a lack of evidence that Progress Play undertook reviews regarding the effectiveness or impact of its interactions with customers, failed to implement proactive gambling control measures, did not conduct affordability assessments on individuals picked up by existing or new thresholds or triggers, and more.

As a result, Progress Play has been hit with a £175,718 penalty directed towards the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms with £12,466.35 covering the Commission’s costs of investigating the case.