Home > News > Social Responsibility Failures Cost William Hill £6.2 Million

Social Responsibility Failures Cost William Hill £6.2 Million

Published:

23 Feb 2018

Earlier in the week we reported on a fine to ElectraWorks of £350,000 from the Gambling Commission, today we are looking at the details around a fine levied against William Hill for a staggering £6.2 MILLION!

Like a number of other brands before them, the William Hill fine has been given for social responsibility and money laundering failures.

The Gambling Commission go as far as to say that these failures were ‘systematic’!

Gains Made From Criminal Offences By William Hill

Similar to the 888 fine of £7.8 million [read more here], the Gambling Commission investigation revealed that between November 2014 and August 2016 William Hill breached anti-money laundering and social responsibility regulations.

During this period the Gambling Commission were able to identify 10 customers who had been able to deposit large amounts of money linked to criminal activity. These deposits resulted in a financial gain on £1.2 million for William Hill.

Examples Of William Hill’s Failures

The figures used in the following examples are approximate and taken directly from the news article from the Gambling Commission that can be read here.

  • A customer who lived in rented accommodation and worked in an accounts department earning approximately £30,000 a year was able to deposit £654,000 in just nine months! William Hill did not carry out fund checks to ascertain the source of the money.
  • It took just 14 months for another customer to deposit £541,000. Whilst a William Hill operator assumed that the potential income for this customer could be £365,000 from a verbal conversation, they did no further investigation. It transpired that this customer was also earning approximately £30,000 and was stealing from his employer to fund his gambling habit.
  • Deposits totalling £653,000 over 18 months did trigger a financial alert at William Hill but whilst the alert resulted in an ‘amber’ grading and was passed to a manager for review, a system failure meant the customer continued to gamble for a further six months!

£1.2 million of the fine will be paid back to victims of any criminal activity that is identified. Should any further failures in this case be found, William Hill will be required to divest any gains made.

Who is next?