Danish Regulator Bars Inpay From New iGaming Clients Over AML Failings

Finanstilsynet has ordered the Copenhagen payments firm to stop taking on new online gaming business customers until it can document that serious money-laundering control failures have ceased. Inpay says its board had already paused that onboarding three weeks before the ruling landed.

• Denmark's Financial Supervisory Authority has issued Inpay A/S with an injunction over what it calls serious violations of the Money Laundering Act, temporarily barring the firm from establishing new business customers in the online gaming sector
• The order follows a money-laundering inspection carried out in March 2026 and cites insufficient customer due diligence when a customer's circumstances change, plus a failure to assess the purpose and intended nature of high-risk iGaming business relationships
• The regulator says the violations concern the majority of Inpay's customer portfolio, which accounts for a significant portion of its total transaction volume and largely originates outside Denmark or the EU
• Inpay says its board decided on its own initiative to halt new online gaming onboarding on 27 July, before the decision was issued
• Existing business customers in online gaming and other sectors are unaffected, and the company describes the measure as a temporary pause on new iGaming clients only

The Order Targets Onboarding, Not Existing Business

Denmark's financial regulator, Finanstilsynet, has issued the Copenhagen fintech Inpay A/S with an injunction over what it describes as serious violations of the Money Laundering Act. Announced on Monday, the order temporarily bars the company from establishing new business customers in the online gaming sector until it has documented to the regulator that the violations have ceased.

Inpay, founded in 2008 and licensed under Denmark's Payments Act, offers cross-border payment services for the online gaming industry alongside other sectors, covering both fiat and crypto payments. It has offices in Copenhagen and London, and in 2022 was named the fastest growing company in Denmark in the Financial Times' FT 1000 ranking.

The ruling follows a money-laundering inspection the regulator carried out in March 2026. Finanstilsynet set out three areas of failure: insufficient implementation of customer due diligence procedures when a customer's circumstances change, a failure to assess the purpose and intended nature of business relationships with iGaming clients carrying a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing, and insufficient outgoing monitoring of transactions.

The regulator's assessment of scope is the part that should give the sector pause. Finanstilsynet said the violations concern the majority of the company's customer portfolio, that this portfolio accounts for a significant portion of total transaction volume, and that it largely comes from outside Denmark or the EU as a whole.

"The deficiencies in the company's customer due diligence procedures and transaction monitoring entail a real and significant risk that the company supports illegal gaming activities and the provision of payment services without a permit, which entails a particularly high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing," the regulator said.

The order requires Inpay to stop establishing new business customer relationships within online gaming until it has documented that the violations of Section 10(1)(1) and Section 11(1)(4) and (5) of the Money Laundering Act have ceased.

Inpay Says It Moved First

In a statement, Inpay said it takes the decision seriously and confirmed the order stems from the March inspection, which it said included an assessment of its control environment in the anti-money laundering area.

The company also said the pause predates the ruling. "Inpay's board decided on its own initiative to halt the establishment of new business customer relationships within online gaming, rather than wait for the decision," the statement said, giving the date as 27 July.

Inpay confirmed that existing business customers, in online gaming and other sectors, are not affected and will experience no changes, and that this is a temporary pause on new iGaming customers only.

The Finding Is About Portfolio Composition, Not a Handful of Bad Accounts

Most payments enforcement in this sector concerns specific relationships that should have been exited. This one does not read that way. The regulator's language points at the majority of the customer portfolio, a significant share of transaction volume, and an origin profile largely outside Denmark and the EU, which together describe a business model rather than a control lapse. That distinction matters for how long the remediation takes. Fixing named accounts is a project with an end date; demonstrating that due diligence and monitoring are adequate across a portfolio whose risk profile is the commercial proposition is a different order of work, and the injunction has no fixed expiry. It lifts when Inpay can document that the violations have ceased, which puts the timetable in the regulator's hands.

Getting There First Is Worth Something, and Less Than It Looks

Inpay's point that its board acted on 27 July, three weeks before the decision, is a real one and worth stating. A firm that pauses onboarding ahead of a ruling is behaving differently from one that has to be stopped. It does not, however, change the regulator's findings, which concern the period the March inspection examined, and it does not shorten the documentation burden. The more useful reading for other payment providers is about sequencing: the inspection was in March, the board acted in late July, and the public order came in August. That is roughly five months between an inspection and a market-visible restriction, which is the window in which a firm's own remediation either gets ahead of the finding or does not.

The Real Exposure Here Is Counterparty Risk for Operators

For licensed operators, the transferable question is not whether Inpay recovers. It is what a payment partner's AML posture does to their own regulatory position. The regulator explicitly raised the risk that the company supports illegal gaming activity and unlicensed payment services, which is the precise allegation that turns a supplier problem into a licensee problem in most European jurisdictions. Operators using any specialist iGaming payments provider should be able to answer, on paper, what due diligence their provider performs on the other merchants in its book, because a regulator that finds the majority of a payment firm's portfolio inadequately assessed has effectively raised a question about everyone in it.

The injunction is temporary and narrow by design. The finding underneath it is neither.