Inpay faces iGaming onboarding restriction after Danish AML inspection

Danish payments company Inpay A/S is facing a regulatory restriction on entering into new agreements with iGaming businesses following an inspection by Denmark's financial regulator, Finanstilsynet. The regulatory action relates to identified weaknesses in anti-money laundering procedures and customer due diligence within the company's iGaming business.

The restriction means Inpay cannot onboard new iGaming customers while it works to address the deficiencies identified during the regulatory review. The measure does not amount to a general suspension of the company's payment activities. Instead, it specifically affects the establishment of new business relationships with companies operating in the online gaming sector.

The development places additional regulatory attention on the compliance framework surrounding Inpay's iGaming operations. The company provides cross-border payment services and has historically served customers across several sectors, including iGaming, financial services and corporate businesses.

Finanstilsynet has previously described Inpay's business model as carrying elevated inherent money laundering and terrorist financing risks because of its cross-border payment activity, international customer base and exposure to customers operating in higher-risk sectors. A 2023 inspection also examined Inpay's customer knowledge procedures and monitoring arrangements.

Customer due diligence is at the centre of the findings

The regulatory concerns primarily relate to the way customer relationships were assessed and documented. According to the regulatory findings described in the case, Inpay was not always able to demonstrate that it had sufficiently established the purpose and intended nature of certain business relationships.

Customer due diligence is a fundamental part of an effective anti-money laundering framework. For regulated payment institutions, it involves obtaining and verifying information about customers, understanding ownership structures and assessing the risks associated with the relationship.

The importance of those controls becomes greater when a payment provider serves businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions. Complex corporate structures, international ownership and transactions involving several countries can make it necessary for a financial institution to obtain a more detailed understanding of the customer and its activities.

The inspection also identified shortcomings in the assessment of customers considered to present higher risks of money laundering or terrorist financing. Such assessments are generally expected to be proportionate to the risks associated with the customer, the services provided and the geographical and transactional profile involved.

The regulator's findings were not described as being confined to a single customer relationship. Instead, the concerns were considered relevant to a substantial part of Inpay's iGaming portfolio. That distinction is important because it concerns the effectiveness of processes applied across a customer segment rather than an isolated onboarding decision.

Why the iGaming sector receives particular attention

Online gambling is widely treated as a sector requiring careful financial crime risk management. Payment flows can involve customers and operators located in different jurisdictions while funds may move through multiple financial institutions and payment channels.

For payment providers serving iGaming businesses, this creates compliance obligations that extend beyond simply processing transactions. Providers must have appropriate procedures for understanding customers, identifying beneficial owners, assessing risk and monitoring activity where required.

Inpay's own published compliance material states that the company operates an AML and counter-terrorist financing framework covering areas such as customer identification, verification, risk rating, transaction monitoring and sanctions screening. The company also states that its framework is subject to ongoing review.

The regulatory action therefore highlights the distinction between having compliance policies in place and being able to demonstrate that those policies are being implemented effectively and consistently.

For Inpay, the immediate regulatory priority is to demonstrate that the deficiencies have been addressed. Until the regulator is satisfied with the corrective measures, the restriction on new iGaming relationships remains an important limitation on the company's ability to expand within that customer segment.

Existing customers remain part of the compliance process

The restriction on new agreements should not be interpreted as a general prohibition on Inpay's existing payment operations.

The measure described in the regulatory case is focused on new relationships with iGaming businesses. This is materially different from a broad order requiring the company to stop processing payments or discontinue its existing commercial activities.

At the same time, existing customers can remain relevant to the remediation process because customer due diligence obligations do not end when an account or business relationship is established.

Financial institutions are generally expected to keep customer information and risk assessments up to date and to obtain additional information where circumstances require it. The 2023 Finanstilsynet inspection of Inpay similarly required the company to strengthen customer due diligence procedures for existing business customers in a particular segment and to obtain information about beneficial owners where necessary.

This means the corrective work could involve more than revising onboarding procedures. It may also require a review of how existing relationships are documented, risk-rated and monitored.

Inpay's position as a regulated payments provider

Inpay operates from Denmark as a regulated financial services company specialising in cross-border payments. Its published materials describe services covering international payments and payment flows for sectors including financial services, iGaming, corporate customers and NGOs.

The company has also developed API-based infrastructure for payment services. Its documentation describes functionality for payouts, pay-ins, reconciliation and related payment processes. Transaction processing can also involve compliance reviews where additional information is required.

Its position as a regulated payment provider makes regulatory compliance particularly important. The company's ability to operate across international payment corridors depends not only on technology and banking connectivity but also on meeting the requirements imposed by its supervisory authorities.

Inpay's regulatory history shows that AML compliance has previously been an area of supervisory attention. Finanstilsynet's 2021 inspection identified several areas requiring corrective measures, while Inpay subsequently announced that the regulator had accepted its information demonstrating compliance with those requirements and considered that earlier case closed.

That history provides useful context for the latest development without implying that the earlier regulatory matter and the current restriction are identical.

What Inpay must demonstrate before expansion resumes

The central question now is whether Inpay can provide sufficient evidence that its AML and customer due diligence framework has been strengthened.

In practical terms, this can include clearer documentation of the purpose and intended nature of customer relationships, stronger risk assessment procedures and improved controls for higher-risk customers. It may also require evidence that revised policies are being applied consistently by relevant teams.

Regulatory remediation is generally evidence-based. A regulated institution must be able to demonstrate not only that new procedures have been written but also that they operate effectively in practice.

For an iGaming-focused payment provider, this can be particularly significant because customer risk can change over time. Changes in ownership, licensing status, geography, payment activity or business model may require customer files and risk assessments to be reviewed.

The restriction consequently creates a direct commercial incentive for Inpay to resolve the identified compliance issues. New customer acquisition in the iGaming sector cannot proceed normally until the regulator is satisfied with the corrective work.

Implications for iGaming payment relationships

The case also illustrates the wider compliance pressure facing payment providers serving online gambling businesses.

Operators increasingly depend on payment partners that can provide reliable cross-border transactions while maintaining robust financial crime controls. A regulatory restriction affecting a payment provider can therefore have implications for how operators evaluate prospective payment relationships and conduct their own due diligence on suppliers.

For iGaming companies considering a new payment provider, regulatory status, licensing arrangements, customer due diligence procedures and the provider's approach to financial crime risk are important considerations.

The development also demonstrates why payment infrastructure cannot be assessed solely on transaction speed, geographic coverage or technical integration. Regulatory resilience is an equally important part of the relationship between payment providers and regulated gambling businesses.

Conclusion

The regulatory restriction affecting Inpay represents a significant compliance development for the Danish payments company, particularly because the measure concerns new iGaming relationships rather than a single isolated customer matter. The immediate issue is not the continuation of Inpay's wider payment business but its ability to demonstrate that customer due diligence and risk assessment procedures meet the expectations of its financial supervisor.

The case also underlines the continuing importance of effective AML controls in the payments infrastructure supporting online gambling. For providers operating across jurisdictions, understanding customers, ownership structures, business purposes and financial crime risks is central to maintaining a sustainable regulated business.

Inpay's next stage will therefore depend on remediation and regulatory review. If the company can demonstrate that the identified deficiencies have been addressed effectively, the restriction could ultimately be lifted and normal expansion of its iGaming customer base could resume. Until then, the regulatory measure places compliance at the centre of Inpay's strategy in the online gaming payments market.

FAQs

What is the current regulatory issue involving Inpay?
Inpay is subject to a restriction concerning the establishment of new business relationships with iGaming companies following regulatory findings relating to AML and customer due diligence procedures.

Who imposed the restriction on Inpay?
The restriction was imposed by Finanstilsynet, Denmark's financial supervisory authority, following a regulatory inspection of Inpay's procedures.

Can Inpay continue serving existing iGaming customers?
The restriction described in the case concerns new iGaming business relationships. It should not be interpreted as a general suspension of Inpay's existing payment operations.

What compliance areas were identified as needing improvement?
The findings concern customer due diligence, documentation of the purpose and intended nature of business relationships and risk assessment procedures for customers presenting higher money laundering or terrorist financing risks.

Does the restriction apply to all Inpay customers?
No. The measure described is specifically connected to new business relationships with companies in the iGaming sector rather than a general restriction covering every Inpay customer.

Why is iGaming considered a higher-risk sector?
Online gambling can involve international customers, cross-border transactions and complex payment flows. These characteristics can increase the need for effective customer due diligence and transaction monitoring.

Is Inpay's payment licence suspended?
The restriction described in the case is not a general suspension of Inpay's payment activities. It concerns the onboarding of new iGaming relationships while corrective measures are being addressed.

What must Inpay do to have the restriction lifted?
Inpay must demonstrate to Finanstilsynet that the identified compliance deficiencies have been addressed and that its AML and customer due diligence controls have been strengthened sufficiently.

Has Inpay faced AML-related regulatory scrutiny before?
Yes. Finanstilsynet conducted earlier inspections of Inpay's AML framework, including inspections in 2020 and 2023. The 2021 follow-up to an earlier inspection stated that Inpay had addressed the relevant requirements and that the earlier matter was considered closed.

What does the development mean for iGaming operators?
The development highlights the importance of conducting appropriate due diligence on payment providers. Operators may need to consider a provider's regulatory status, compliance framework and ability to maintain reliable payment services when assessing commercial relationships.