Sweden’s online gambling trade association BOS has called for changes to the country’s regulatory approach after a new report found that Spelinspektionen imposes comparatively high anti-money laundering (AML) penalties.
Published on 27 October 2026, the Nordic Legal study compares the gambling regulator’s enforcement practices with those of other Swedish authorities, raising questions about risk-based supervision and the proportionality of financial sanctions.
BOS commissioned Nordic Legal to compare Spelinspektionen’s supervisory practices with those of other Swedish authorities.
Eleven of 12 AML decisions reviewed since 2021 relied primarily on samples of five to 15 customer files.
Seven of nine AML penalties issued between 2022 and 2025 reached at least 50% of the applicable statutory maximum.
Two sanctions amounted to approximately 91% and 100% of the maximum permitted penalty.
The report also questions the regulator’s emphasis on administrative reporting requirements when assessing company management.
According to the official BOS announcement, Nordic Legal examined how Spelinspektionen supervises gambling businesses compared with Sweden’s Financial Supervisory Authority (FI), Stockholm County Administrative Board and Schools Inspectorate.
The 50-page research report identifies differences in AML oversight, management suitability assessments and financial sanctions.
Researchers reviewed 12 AML decisions issued since 2021. Eleven primarily examined small samples of 5 to 15 individual customer records rather than operators’ broader risk-management systems. By comparison, the financial and county authorities generally assessed business-wide risk controls, policies and procedures, using customer records to evaluate their effectiveness.
The report argues that focusing heavily on individual cases may provide a narrower assessment of an operator’s overall compliance framework. However, it does not establish that Spelinspektionen’s methodology is unlawful.
The study also examined how frequently different regulators imposed penalties close to their statutory limits. Of nine Spelinspektionen AML sanction decisions reviewed between 2022 and 2025, seven reached at least 50% of the maximum permitted amount. Two penalties reached approximately 91% and 100% of their respective limits.
By contrast, the financial regulator’s penalties in the banking cases examined generally represented around 20% to 27% of the applicable maximum. Nordic Legal acknowledges that different regulatory responsibilities and penalty frameworks limit direct comparisons.
The findings therefore do not prove that Swedish gambling sanctions are generally disproportionate. They indicate that Spelinspektionen used a greater proportion of its available penalty range in the cases examined.
BOS Secretary General Gustaf Hoffstedt said:
In our view, the SGA is more heavy-handed and less focused on dialogue or collaborative problem-solving compared to other Swedish authorities.
The association wants Spelinspektionen to place greater emphasis on operators’ overall risk assessments and compliance systems.
The report also examines management suitability checks and finds that 31 operators received interventions, including warnings or remarks and financial penalties, for late reporting of ownership or management changes.
In those cases, authorities later assessed the individuals as suitable. Spelinspektionen declined to comment when approached about the report.
The findings come as Sweden continues strengthening its gambling compliance framework.
In September, Sweden extended AML requirements to commercial land-based gaming, introducing additional obligations for affected operators.
At the European level, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority’s consultation on risk-based supervision has also highlighted the importance of proportionate regulatory assessments.
Meanwhile, separate enforcement action, including Charm Entertainment’s temporary licence revocation, demonstrates the regulator’s wider focus on operator suitability.
For licensed sportsbooks, online casinos and compliance providers, the BOS findings raise important questions about inspection methods, documentation and the predictability of penalties.
The report does not change existing regulations or remove operators’ AML obligations. Its significance lies in the debate over how Swedish authorities should assess compliance failures and determine appropriate sanctions.
