Casino Cosmopol, a subsidiary of state-owned Svenska Spel, recently had its licence extended, with the Swedish Gambling Authority renewing the licence for Sweden’s only land-based casino operator for five years. The decision was made despite the Authority having found shortcomings in Casino Cosmopol’s anti-money laundering procedures at the end of 2018. The seriousness of such a lapse for a business that handles large amounts of cash can’t be stressed enough.
The Gambling Authority only awards five-year licences to operators who uphold the highest standard for the parameters the Authority uses to assess a gaming company’s conduct and suitability. In the absence of a spotless record, the Authority has the option to award a shorter licence term of two years.
Rejecting a licence application is, of course, the most serious form of sanction the Gambling Authority can issue, but the seriousness and implications of only granting a two-year licence cannot be overstated. Such a decision is noted by regulators in other jurisdictions, who may question whether they should award a licence to an operator their Swedish counterpart has found wanting. A second-tier licence is also noted by investors and creditors, who will demand compensation for the increased risk associated with a more time-limited licence.
However, this was not the fate that befell Casino Cosmopol, which was instead granted a full five-year licence term. This story has reignited a question that is always smouldering in the Swedish gaming market: does the Swedish state treat its own gaming company differently from other players in the market?
