Asked by: Lord Lipsey (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what risk assessment they carried out before parliamentarians were classified as politically exposed persons for the purpose of holding a betting account.
Answered by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay - Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)
The Money Laundering Regulations 2017 require firms in regulated sectors, including those regulated by the Gambling Commission, to obtain and verify certain information about their customers. Firms must have in place appropriate risk management systems and procedures to determine whether a customer is a Politically Exposed Person (PEP), or a family member or known close associate of a PEP. This is in line with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force.
Original measures on PEPs were put into UK law via the transposition of the European Union’s fourth money laundering directive in June 2017, as was the legal requirement at the time. There was therefore no risk assessment undertaken specifically by the UK but the impact assessment from this process can be found here. The Financial Action Task Force is the international standard-setter in anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing, and its guidance on PEPs can be found here.
HM Treasury is currently undertaking a review of the 2017 Regulations. As part of this review, the proportionality of current requirements regarding domestic PEPs is being considered and balanced alongside the risks posed to the UK’s financial system, and our international obligations to mitigate these risks. The Review will be published this summer.
Asked by: Lord Bishop of St Albans (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay on 17 November (HL3696), what is their estimate of the total number of stolen funds that are used for gambling purposes each year.
Answered by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay - Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)
The Written Answer of 17 November set out amounts divested by licensed operators in cases where there was both identified anti-money laundering failings and criminal spending and an individual was criminally convicted. The Gambling Commission does not hold further data on stolen funds used for gambling purposes.
All gambling operators have a responsibility to keep financial crime out of gambling. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 places an obligation on operators to be alert to attempts by customers to gamble money acquired unlawfully, either to obtain legitimate money in return or simply using criminal proceeds to fund gambling.
Asked by: Lord Bishop of St Albans (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many times gambling companies have paid compensation for failing to prevent money laundering when an individual criminally convicted of theft used stolen funds to gamble; and what was the total amount paid by gambling companies in such cases.
Answered by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay - Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)
The Gambling Commission can fine a gambling operator if a licence condition has been breached. In some circumstances, the Commission may decide to agree a regulatory settlement instead of issuing a fine. While fines are paid to the exchequer, regulatory settlements are divested by the company to third parties. In circumstances where a victim of crime can be identified, for example an employer whose money was stolen by someone who went on to gamble with those funds, the Commission would expect funds to be divested back to the employer.
The information we hold shows that in the last three years, the Commission has required four operators to pay compensation to victims where stolen funds have been used to gamble and an individual has been criminally convicted. The total amount paid by each gambling company is as follows:
Betway - £5,068,577
Gamesys - £460,472
Platinum Gaming - £629,420
Petfre - £140,000
In addition to these figures, all regulatory actions taken by the Gambling Commission are accessible on their Public Register which may be found at the following link.
Asked by: Carolyn Harris (Labour - Neath and Swansea East)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has made an assessment of the potential effect of new bank transfer based payment methods offered by gambling providers on the efficacy of gambling transaction blocks as a tool to support people struggling with gambling harms.
Answered by John Glen
The Government has made no such assessment in relation to the effect of new bank transfer based payment methods. However, licensed gambling operators are only permitted to use payment methods where they are able to ensure they are compliant with all Gambling Commission licence conditions and requirements, including anti-money laundering and safer gambling measures.
The Government also recognises that the financial services industry plays an important role in helping their customers monitor and manage their gambling spending, including by offering gambling transaction blocks. In recent years there has been considerable voluntary progress in this area by the industry, with almost all the largest UK banks, as well as the larger digital banks, now offering gambling transaction blocks for debit and credit card transactions.
The Government welcomes this progress and continues to work together with industry to identify what more can be done in this area. As such, I will soon be hosting a roundtable with the financial sector to discuss what action has taken place to date on this issue and look at opportunities for additional progress which further support UK consumers. This will include looking at wider payment methods.
Asked by: Carolyn Harris (Labour - Neath and Swansea East)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the efficacy of oversight arrangements for white label licensing arrangements in tackling (a) money laundering and (b) wider criminal activity.
Answered by Nigel Huddleston - Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
All gambling companies providing gambling facilities to consumers in Great Britain, wherever they are based, must be licensed by the Gambling Commission and comply with the conditions and codes of practice of their operating licences. Operators who provide services marketed under a different brand as part of a ‘white label’ agreement are held accountable for the actions of their commercial partners, and are expected to carry out all necessary due diligence to satisfy themselves that the relationship will not compromise their own regulatory compliance. Further detail about the Gambling Commission’s compliance and enforcement work in this area can be found in the relevant section of its Compliance and Enforcement Report for 2019 to 2020 and its Reminder to licensees regarding white label gambling websites. These can be accessed at: https://beta.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/strategy/raising-standards-for-consumers-compliance-and-enforcement-report-2019-20/white-label-partnerships
Licensed gambling operators and their white label partners are entitled to enter into commercial arrangements with sporting bodies, as long as any sponsorship activities are carried out in a socially responsible way. The Commission expects licensees to ensure that all parties are aware of, and compliant with, the relevant advertising and sponsorship rules and regulations. The government and the Gambling Commission do not hold information on exposure to gambling advertising and marketing in other jurisdictions.
The government launched its Review of the Gambling Act 2005 on 8 December with the publication of a Call for Evidence. As part of the wide scope of that Review, we have called for evidence on whether white label agreements pose a risk to consumers in Great Britain, and on the impact of gambling sponsorship arrangements across sport, esport and other areas.
Asked by: Carolyn Harris (Labour - Neath and Swansea East)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, how many times he has had discussions with the Secretary of State for Justice on (a) gambling policy and (b) money laundering associated with gambling in (i) 2018, (ii) 2019 and (iii) 2020.
Answered by Nigel Huddleston - Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) works closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, HM Treasury, and wider government on matters related to gambling policy. Since 2018, DCMS officials have met regularly with their counterparts across government to discuss a wide range of gambling-related issues.
Details of ministerial meetings are publicly available. They are published quarterly on the government’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/search/transparency-and-freedom-of-information-releases?content_store_document_type=transparency&organisations%5B%5D=department-for-digital-culture-media-sport.
Asked by: Carolyn Harris (Labour - Neath and Swansea East)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, whether gambling using cryptocurrency is legal; and whether UK bookmakers are permitted to offer this service.
Answered by Nigel Huddleston - Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Cryptoassets are not illegal, but licensed gambling operators are only permitted to accept them as a payment method where they are able to ensure they are compliant with all Gambling Commission licence conditions and requirements, including anti-money laundering and safer gambling measures.
Operators are required to declare any changes to the arrangements through which they accept payment from customers to the Commission. This includes changes to the payment methods (including cryptoassets) or payment processors made available to customers to pay for gambling services. To date, no licensed operators have notified the Gambling Commission that they are accepting digital currencies or cryptoassets directly as payments but several have reported indirectly accepting funds derived from cryptoassets via a third party payment provider. In these cases, funds accepted by the licensee for gambling have been converted to fiat currency (£).
Asked by: Wes Streeting (Labour - Ilford North)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with representatives of the gambling industry on tackling money laundering in that industry; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by John Glen
The UK’s anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) supervisory regime is comprehensive, seeking to regulate and supervise those firms most at risk from money laundering and terrorist financing. In December 2018, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for AML/CTF, found that the UK had one of the toughest systems for combatting money laundering and terrorist financing of any country it has assessed to date.
The Gambling Commission is the supervisory authority for casinos under the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs). The FATF Mutual Evaluation Report found that the Gambling Commission had a good understanding of the money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the gambling sector and applied a risk-based approach to supervision.
The Gambling Commission supervises the casino sector and regulates the gambling industry as a whole. It conducts a yearly money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessment based on emerging and inherent risks in the gambling industry. This evaluation informs its supervisory and regulatory activity ensuring it is targeted, relevant and proportionate. In the reporting period of 6 April 2018 - 5 April 2019, the Gambling Commission issued financial penalties worth £17 million in total against its supervised population for cases that included AML/CTF failings.
In his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor has not had personal discussions with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or representatives of the gambling industry on money laundering, though there are regular official level engagements focussed on identifying these risks and demonstrating evidence of continued improvements in their effectiveness, as there are with all AML supervisors.
Asked by: Wes Streeting (Labour - Ilford North)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with the (a) Home Secretary and (b) Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on tackling money laundering in the gambling industry; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by John Glen
The UK’s anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) supervisory regime is comprehensive, seeking to regulate and supervise those firms most at risk from money laundering and terrorist financing. In December 2018, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for AML/CTF, found that the UK had one of the toughest systems for combatting money laundering and terrorist financing of any country it has assessed to date.
The Gambling Commission is the supervisory authority for casinos under the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs). The FATF Mutual Evaluation Report found that the Gambling Commission had a good understanding of the money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the gambling sector and applied a risk-based approach to supervision.
The Gambling Commission supervises the casino sector and regulates the gambling industry as a whole. It conducts a yearly money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessment based on emerging and inherent risks in the gambling industry. This evaluation informs its supervisory and regulatory activity ensuring it is targeted, relevant and proportionate. In the reporting period of 6 April 2018 - 5 April 2019, the Gambling Commission issued financial penalties worth £17 million in total against its supervised population for cases that included AML/CTF failings.
In his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor has not had personal discussions with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or representatives of the gambling industry on money laundering, though there are regular official level engagements focussed on identifying these risks and demonstrating evidence of continued improvements in their effectiveness, as there are with all AML supervisors.
Asked by: Wes Streeting (Labour - Ilford North)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on effective data sharing between gambling operators to tackle money laundering in the gambling industry; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by John Glen
The UK’s anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) supervisory regime is comprehensive, seeking to regulate and supervise those firms most at risk from money laundering and terrorist financing. In December 2018, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for AML/CTF, found that the UK had one of the toughest systems for combatting money laundering and terrorist financing of any country it has assessed to date.
The Gambling Commission is the supervisory authority for casinos under the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs). The FATF Mutual Evaluation Report found that the Gambling Commission had a good understanding of the money laundering and terrorist financing risks in the gambling sector and applied a risk-based approach to supervision.
The Gambling Commission supervises the casino sector and regulates the gambling industry as a whole. It conducts a yearly money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessment based on emerging and inherent risks in the gambling industry. This evaluation informs its supervisory and regulatory activity ensuring it is targeted, relevant and proportionate. In the reporting period of 6 April 2018 - 5 April 2019, the Gambling Commission issued financial penalties worth £17 million in total against its supervised population for cases that included AML/CTF failings.
In his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor has not had personal discussions with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or representatives of the gambling industry on money laundering, though there are regular official level engagements focussed on identifying these risks and demonstrating evidence of continued improvements in their effectiveness, as there are with all AML supervisors.