A Gambling Commission consultation on where betting companies’ fines should go has drawn a sharp line between operators on one side and charitable organisations on other.

Between February-April 2026, the regulator consulted on whether regulatory settlements should be paid into the government’s Consolidated Fund. The Commission ultimately decided that money from enforcement actions should head to the fund, which is the UK government’s account with the Bank of England.

A total of 28 responses were given to the consultation. Gaming businesses and “a trade association”, presumably the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), “agreed strongly” with the Commission’s proposal that operator financial penalties be paid into the fund.

As it stands, gambling firms’ financial penalties do not need to go into the fund. The Commission found that charity and third sector organisations, members of the public, and those affected by gambling harm were strongly in favour of this remaining case.

Instead, charities and other respondents are of the view that operator financial penalties should be integrated into the newly created statutory levy for gambling harms, which companies have been paying into for a year now as a mandatory licensing condition.

All in all, the 28 responses can be divided as follows: 

• Half were against the proposal and want operator financial penalties to continue being paid into the Consolidated Fund. These came from the general public, charity organisations, and people affected by gambling harm.
• A third, mostly gambling businesses and the trade body, agreed strongly with the proposal.
• The remaining eighth were neutral in their views.

The industry view

Gambling companies largely seem to be of the view that the Consolidated Fund is the best destination for money from financial penalties. 

The companies’ argument is based on three principles:

• The lack of any dedicated body or bodies tasked with receiving and spending regulatory settlement funds leaves the Consolidated Fund the best option.
• The inconsistency of financial penalties makes the integration of these payments into the statutory gambling harms levy unsuitable.
•  The government can still choose to spend regulatory settlement funds on gambling prevention treatment via the Consolidated Fund if possible.

The argument around inconsistency is an interesting one, as it – to be fair to the respondents who echoed this view – could affect the stability of the statutory levy system by making it more reliant on operator financial penalties, which are never a guarantee.

So far this year, the Gambling Commission has charged three operators financial penalties:

• Stakelogic BV was charged £122,835 for running slots too fast
• Betfred Online was charged £900,000 for regulatory failures
• Evolution was told to pay £4.75m for AML failings

Two of these penalties were issued in June, while the latest (Evolution) was issued in July.

These timings do back up the argument of a lack of consistency. 

However, with the statutory levy being paid into mandatorily by operators anyway, a counterargument could be that the penalties would serve as complementary funding, and not as a consistent and expected source.

The charity view

The opposing viewpoint – which as mentioned above came from a range of stakeholders but notably included voices from the UK’s gambling harm treatment sector – was that funds would leave the gaming ecosystem if heading into the Consolidated Fund.

The general concern is that gambling settlements paid into the government’s Bank of England account could ultimately be used by the government for non-gambling priorities. 

This is more than reasonable concern in this writer’s view, given that the government has an endless list of priorities beyond the gambling sector.

“There was a belief that without this connection, regulatory settlements would no longer act as a deterrent,” the Commission explained, with consultation respondents being overall in favour of regulatory settlements being added to the overall levy pot.

Respondents were also concerned that the Commission’s proposal was focused too much on efficiency and simplicity, while others were worried that removing regulatory settlements from the levy could cut off a lucrative funding stream – albeit an inconsistent one.

It’s understandable why charities want to see this money remain as part of the levy. Adapting to the new statutory levy has been a challenge for many, although major players like Gordon Moody, GamCare, Gamstop and others have been able to secure major contrast – some being in the millions.

Under the levy, funding duties are divided between three bodies:

• NHS England – though soon to be abolished under the Labour government’s plans, the administrative body is responsible for all gambling treatment funding commissions under the levy system. This responsibility is shared with the Scottish and Welsh governments, with 50% of levy funds heading this way.
• UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) is responsible for research grants and funding, working alongside the Commission. UKRI receives 20% of levy funding.
• The final 30% heads to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), which takes the commissioning lead for gambling harm prevention projects in England. LIke NHS England, it shares this role with counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh governments.

With this adjustment now complete, the Commission has ultimately decided that regulatory settlements will not form part of it. The regulator’s main rationale is based on complexity, while it remains confident that its existing penalties and enforcement system will remain a deterrent for non-compliance.

“We acknowledge that our decision to send future regulatory settlements to the Consolidated Fund will be unpopular with some respondents, particularly those who have received regulatory settlement funding in the past,” the regulator’s statement continued.

“However, despite the lack of overall support for the proposal, given the limited alternative options available to us we still believe that in the absence of a central commissioning body or bodies that can receive and spend regulatory settlement funds in a coordinated way, that sending regulatory settlements to the Consolidated Fund in future remains our only viable option.”