The Swedish Gambling Authority, known as Spelinspektionen, is reportedly taking a more punitive approach in its regulatory enforcement, particularly in the realm of anti-money laundering (AML) supervision, contrasting sharply with other Swedish regulatory bodies. This assertion comes from a new report commissioned by the Swedish Trade Association for Online Gambling (BOS) and compiled by the law firm Nordic Legal.
The report highlights the stark differences in the supervisory techniques employed by Spelinspektionen in comparison to other agencies with similar oversight roles.
Gustaf Hoffstedt, the secretary general of BOS, shared insights with iGB on the motivation behind the report, urging that Spelinspektionen has strayed from “the standards and procedures that typically characterize Swedish public authorities.”
Hoffstedt pointed out that the Swedish Gambling Authority tends to be more heavy-handed, prioritizing sanctions over constructive dialogue and collaborative efforts to resolve issues. He stated, “We therefore commissioned Nordic Legal – acting independently, notwithstanding our role as the client – to examine the matter and produce a report.” He added that the licensed gambling market in Sweden would benefit from the Swedish Gambling Authority adopting practices more in line with those of other government bodies.
Nordic Legal’s comparative analysis delves into three specific areas for evaluating cross-authority supervision: AML oversight, the application and size of sanction fees, and the evaluation of suitability for owners and senior managers.
In the report, Spelinspektionen is contrasted with the Financial Supervisory Authority (FI), the Stockholm County Administrative Board (Lst Stockholm), and the Swedish Schools Inspectorate.
While both FI and Lst Stockholm utilize a system-level, risk-based approach to AML supervision, assessing comprehensive risk assessments and utilizing samples from customer files to verify the effectiveness of procedures, Spelinspektionen’s approach has been criticized as often being sample-based and driven by specific customer cases. Nordic Legal reviewed 12 AML-related decisions made since 2021 and found that 11 primarily depended on examining small samples, typically ranging from five to 15 customer files. Moreover, Spelinspektionen frequently omitted the overall risk assessment and policies of the operators from these reviews.
The report also scrutinizes the financial penalties imposed by each authority, considering their maximum legal limits to illustrate differences in fee structures and organizational sizes. In cases examined, Spelinspektionen often imposed sanctions near the legal maximum: out of nine decisions reviewed from 2022 to 2025, seven carried fines at or beyond 50% of the maximum, with two penalties reaching close to 91% and 100%.
By contrast, penalties handed out by FI in significant banking cases ranged from roughly 20% to 27% of its maximum, while Lst Stockholm’s fees were typically lower, though they could impose higher penalties for serious violations.
Earlier this month, Spelinspektionen confirmed warnings and enacted financial penalties totaling SEK4 million ($401,010) for the gaming sector and SEK40 million on the sports betting division of Hillside Group. The authority did not comment on the findings of the report when contacted.
