Danish payments firm Inpay A/S restricted from new iGaming business after AML review

Danish payments provider Inpay A/S has been temporarily barred from entering new business agreements with iGaming companies after Finanstilsynet, Denmark’s financial regulator, found “serious violations of the Money Laundering Act.” For PSPs serving online gaming, the useful part here is not the headline drama but the mechanism: the regulator says the issue goes to customer due diligence, ownership checks, and risk assessment across most of the portfolio.

1. Finanstilsynet conducted a review in March to inspect Inpay’s internal anti-money laundering procedures, then restricted the company from taking on new iGaming customers until it sufficiently proves the violations have been addressed.
2. Inpay is licensed under the Danish Payments Act as an e-money institution and specialises in international cross-border payments as an alternative to traditional SWIFT wire transfers. Its customer base includes corporate entities, financial institutions, crypto enterprises, and online gaming companies.
3. During the March inspection, the regulator said Inpay could not provide enough evidence that the required level of customer due diligence had been met when monitoring transactions within the iGaming segment. The cited failures included not properly identifying the purpose and intended nature of flagged business relationships and not conducting proper assessments of business customers classified as high risk for money laundering and terrorist financing.
4. The Danish FSA said the violations are serious, and that the scope, the type of customer, and the complexity of ownership structures and activities across many countries make the case more significant. It also said the violations concern “the majority of the company’s portfolio” in online gaming.
5. Finanstilsynet noted that these iGaming customers operate in an industry with an increased risk of money laundering, and that the majority are located outside Denmark and often outside the EU. For providers, that combination usually means more pressure on onboarding files, source-of-funds logic, and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction licence checks before the money moves.