Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. About us
  3. 2023 Consultation on proposed changes related to financial penalties: Consultation Response

Consultation response

2023 Consultation on proposed changes related to financial penalties: Consultation Response

This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation on the proposed changes to the Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties.

Published
10 July 2025

Last updated
10 July 2025 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Contents

Proposal 18: Indicative sanctions guidance

The Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties (SoPfDFP) is supported by the Indicative sanctions guidance (“ISG”), specifically the section on “Financial Penalties” from paragraph 2.18 to 2.20. In order to ensure consistency across these 2 documents we proposed amendments to paragraphs 2.18 to 2.20 of the current version of the ISG to reflect the changes made to the SoPfDFP.

The proposed amendments to the ISG included:

  • the deletion of the third point in paragraph 2.18 of the current version of the ISG
  • the replacement of paragraph 2.19 with a new paragraph 2.19 outlining the factors that the Gambling Commission must have regard when considering the imposition of a financial penalty by virtue of section 121(7) of the Gambling Act
  • the replacement of paragraph 2.20 with a new paragraph 2.20 outlining the factors that the Commission may have regard to when considering the imposition of a financial penalty
  • the renumbering of the existing paragraph 2.20 to paragraph 2.21.

We sought views on whether the proposed amendments to the ISG adequately reflected the proposed amended version of the SoPfDFP.

Consultation questions

Question 60, as detailed in Annex 2, related to this document.

Respondents’ views

In relation to the proposed change to paragraph 2.18 of the ISG, most respondents disagreed with the proposed deletion of point 3 in paragraph 2.18 on the basis that the proposal resulted in inconsistencies between paragraph 2.18 as proposed, section 121 of the Act, and paragraph 2.1 of the existing version of the SoPfDFP.

Some of the feedback received suggested that we retain the existing wording of paragraph 2.18 and one group of respondents suggested the following alternative wording for the introductory text of paragraph 2.18:

“Financial penalties can only be imposed if the Commission thinks that a Licence condition has been breached. The primary aims of financial penalties will be to …”

Our position

The amended version of the ISG includes these sections as proposed exceptsave that minor changes have been made to the wording of paragraphs 2.18 and 2.20 to mirror the changes made to the amended SoPfDFP.

Final wording

This requirement will come into force on 10 October 2025.

Paragraphs 2.18 to 2.21 of the amended ISG

Financial penalties

2.18. Financial penalties can only be imposed when the Commission consider that a licence condition has been breached. A financial penalty should aim to:

  • change the behaviour of the licensee
  • eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance with licence conditions
  • deter future non-compliance of other licence holders.

2.19. By virtue of section 121(7) of the Act, in considering the imposition of a penalty, the Commission must have regard to:

  • the seriousness of the breach of condition in respect of which the penalty is proposed
  • whether the licensee knew or ought to have known of the breach
  • the nature of the licensee (including, in particular, the licensee’s financial resources).

2.20. The Commission may also have regard to such matters as it considers relevant including (this is not an exhaustive list):

  • whether the breach of a licence condition is an example of repeat behaviour by the licensee and whether the licensee has previously been subject to regulatory enforcement action
  • whether the licensee has adequately demonstrated its consideration of previous Commission cases and their published lessons learnt
  • the timeliness of the licensee’s admissions and remedial actions for licence condition breaches
  • whether the licence condition breach was intentional or reckless
  • whether the licensee could have prevented the licence breach
  • a breach of a licence condition arising from a systemic failure
  • where the licence condition breach gave rise to financial gain for the licensee
  • whether the breach of a licence condition caused or had the potential to cause harm to consumers, and if so the extent of any such harm
  • whether the licence condition breach could reasonably be expected to have undermined public confidence in the gambling industry
  • whether the licensee was aware of the licence condition breach but did not report it
  • whether the licensee’s response to licence condition breaches and failures was timely and effective
  • where a financial penalty is necessary to deter future contraventions or failures and to encourage compliance.

2.21. More detailed guidance on financial penalties can be located in the Commission’s ‘Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties’. Decision makers considering a financial penalty must apply the principles outlined in this document.

Previous section
Proposal 17: Procedural matters, payment plans, time limits and payments in lieu of financial penalties Next section
Proposal 19: Impact of the proposals on protected characteristics stated in the Equality Act 2010
Is this page useful?
Back to top