L & L Europe Limited has agreed to pay £900,000 to the UK Gambling Commission after a regulatory review found that the online operator delayed some customer withdrawals, had shortcomings in anti-money-laundering controls and failed to apply safer-gambling measures consistently across its website portfolio.
The Commission recorded the sum as a financial payment in lieu of a penalty, together with its costs and a public statement. Its action, dated Oct. 21, followed a compliance assessment and a review under section 116 of the Gambling Act 2005. The failings occurred between October 2024 and October 2025.
The operator runs seven sites, including allbritishcasino.com, casinocasino.com and hypercasino.com, the Gambling Commission said. Its remote operating licence is numbered 038758-R-319451-015.
One central issue was a contractual term permitting customers to request only one withdrawal at a time, requiring authorisation before another request could be made. The Commission ruled the clause unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Officials also found withdrawals had been withheld for reasons other than legal or regulatory requirements. For some customers, L & L Europe manually reviewed every fifth or tenth withdrawal and requested additional information before processing it. The company accepted that the procedure delayed payments and that some information could have been requested earlier in the customer relationship.
L & L Europe has since changed the process so that withdrawals are not withheld unless a legal or regulatory reason applies. Sue Young, the Commission’s executive director of operations, said consumers should be able to withdraw winnings swiftly and that checks at the withdrawal stage may be justified for legal obligations, but were not justified in this case.
The review also found concerns with the operator’s AML and counter-terrorist-financing policies, procedures and controls, including instances in which it did not follow its own processes. In one example, it accepted a customer’s source of funds as a gambling account without addressing the fact that the associated bank account had been opened only two weeks earlier, or establishing whether the money originated from employment, business income or savings.
Safer-gambling controls were not applied across the entire site portfolio. Alerts based on time spent gambling, failed deposits and the number of deposits operated on some websites only, and were generated only where two indicators occurred on the same day. At the time of assessment, losses within 24 hours were the system’s sole strong indicator of harm.
The Commission cited cases in which the system did not identify risk indicators. One customer made 84 failed deposits in seven days because of insufficient funds without a potential-harm response. A 21-year-old lost £6,500 in the three days after opening an account without their age-related risk being considered, while an 18-year-old lost £4,000 in eight minutes without relevant indicators being identified.
Manual safer-gambling reviews often lacked sufficient detail and did not consider the effect of previous interventions. In another case, a customer returning from self-exclusion set a £1,000 net monthly deposit limit but deposited £2,898 and withdrew £1,800 over nine days, exceeding the limit by £98.
The enforcement action also concerns withdrawal delays. In July 2024, the Commission said it received about 2,000 complaints a year concerning withdrawal delays, its largest complaint category, and told operators to verify customers before they deposit and gamble rather than create friction at withdrawal.
