Home/news/Inpay barred from new igaming agreements in Denmark after Finanstilsynet AML review
news
Inpay barred from new igaming agreements in Denmark after Finanstilsynet AML review
Payments High Risk
18 Aug 2026 · 1 min read
Denmark’s Financial Supervisory Authority has told Inpay A/S to stop onboarding new online gaming clients until it proves that shortcomings in its anti-money laundering controls have been fixed. For PSPs in high-risk verticals, the message is plain enough: if your customer due diligence is thin, your growth into igaming stops where the regulator says it does.
Finanstilsynet imposed the temporary restriction after a March inspection of Inpay’s anti-money laundering controls found “serious violations” of Denmark’s Money Laundering Act. The company is now prohibited from expanding its igaming portfolio until it can show the identified issues have been corrected.
Inpay A/S holds a licence under the Danish Payments Act as an e-money institution authorised to provide international payment services as an alternative to traditional SWIFT transfers. Its client base includes corporate entities, financial institutions, crypto businesses and online gaming companies.
The regulator said Inpay had failed to provide sufficient evidence of adequate customer due diligence for igaming clients. The breaches included not properly identifying the purpose and nature of flagged business relationships and not carrying out thorough assessments of high-risk customers with higher exposure to money laundering or terrorist financing.
Finanstilsynet said the violations were serious, and that the scope and type of customer, including the complexity of ownership structures and activities across many countries, were aggravating factors. It also said the issues affected “the majority” of Inpay’s igaming portfolio.
The regulator added that these customers operate in online gaming, “an industry with an increased risk of money laundering,” and that the majority are located outside Denmark and often outside the EU. In practice, that is exactly the kind of portfolio where weak AML file hygiene tends to become a licensing problem, not just an internal compliance note.
