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

Edward William Mackrill

Account number

53336

Location

BROOK


Regulatory actions

Sanction
What is a sanction?

When a licence holder has not followed rules and regulations aimed at ensuring gambling is fair, safe and crime-free, we can take action and impose the following sanctions:

  • Give the licensee a warning
  • Add, remove, or amend a condition to the licence
  • Suspend a licence
  • Revoke a licence
  • Impose a financial penalty

Decision date: 4 April 2022

Outcomes: Warning

Details of action

Following a licence review, the Commission decided to issue Mr Edward Mackrill with a warning under section 117(1)(a) of the Gambling Act 2005.

The reason for this decision was because, as a Personal Management Licence holder, responsible for regulatory compliance and as the MLRO at BGO Limited (BGO), he failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the way in which he carried out his responsibilities in relation to licensed activities did not place BGO in breach of their licence. In particular:

  • Breach of licence condition 12.1.1(1), (2), and (3)Anti-money laundering -Prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing
  • Breach of licence condition 12.1.2 Anti-money laundering –Measure for operators based in foreign jurisdictions
  • Failure to comply with social responsibility code provision 3.4.1(1)(e), relevant at the time of the failings-Customer interaction. Compliance with a social responsibility code of practice is a condition of the licence.

In reaching our decision we concluded Mr Mackrill was not solely accountable for the failings within the business.Mr Mackrill has been open and transparent throughout our engagements with him.

Is this page useful?
Back to top