An independent, stack-agnostic reading of your iGaming platform against what regulators actually test — AML, player protection, and jurisdiction-specific data controls — in writing, by someone with no platform to sell you.
Your platform runs, players are onboarded, and compliance processes exist. What you don’t have is an independent, technically literate reading of whether the AML transaction monitoring, player verification, and jurisdiction-specific data residency controls would actually survive a regulator testing them operationally — not just reviewing the policy documents.
That is what this engagement is.
€15,000. Three to four weeks. Delivered in writing, with a presentation to whoever needs to hear it.
Fixed fee. No implementation work. No commissions. Stack-agnostic — independent of any platform, aggregator, or PAM vendor.
Why clients commission this review
- A licensing regulator has signalled an upcoming technology audit and the board wants an independent baseline first.
- The operator has expanded into a new jurisdiction and needs confirmation the platform’s compliance architecture genuinely enforces that jurisdiction’s specific rules, not just the operator’s home-market rules with a flag on top.
- AML transaction monitoring exists but has never been independently tested against actual typology coverage.
- The board wants confirmation that player-protection and responsible gambling controls are genuinely enforced in the platform, not just documented in policy.
- An acquisition or investment is being considered, or prepared for, and independent technology compliance evidence is needed.
Who this is for
Boards and compliance functions at licensed iGaming operators wanting independent confirmation the platform’s technical controls would hold up under regulatory scrutiny.
Operators expanding into new jurisdictions who need confirmation the architecture genuinely supports multi-jurisdiction compliance, not just documentation claiming it does.
Who this is not for
Buyers or investors evaluating an acquisition target — that’s Technology Due Diligence, with different scope and commercial terms.
Operators wanting the platform, aggregator relationships, or monitoring tooling built or implemented. We identify and recommend; we do not implement.
What you receive
The Review tells you three things in writing: where your platform’s compliance architecture genuinely stands, where the priorities are, and what to address before your next regulatory touchpoint. Five artefacts, delivered together, in plain language.
A scored compliance architecture reading. AML transaction monitoring, player verification, responsible gambling controls, and jurisdiction-specific data residency, assessed with evidence, not assumed from policy documents.
A per-jurisdiction enforcement check. Where the platform operates across several licensed markets, confirmation the technical architecture genuinely differentiates and enforces each jurisdiction’s specific rules.
A risk register sorted by regulatory impact. Every material gap identified, ranked by what it would mean in an actual regulatory audit.
A prioritised roadmap. What to address first, second, third, sequenced against your regulatory calendar.
A board presentation. A one-hour session with your board or compliance committee, findings presented, challenged, and discussed in the room.
How the Review runs
Three to four weeks, in four phases: scoping and inventory across licences and jurisdictions, interviews and evidence gathering across compliance, technology, and player operations, synthesis and writing, then presentation and revisions around your board cycle.
Everything is written before it is said. Nothing is presented to your board that you have not read first.
What this is not
A licence application service or regulatory legal advice. The Review can inform an application or an inspection response; it does not substitute for regulatory counsel.
A remediation engagement. We identify and recommend; we do not implement. Ongoing compliance monitoring advisory can be discussed separately as a retainer where the Review surfaces a need for it.
Proof
References available on request. Anonymised excerpts from prior reviews available on request.
What happens next
Start a ConversationThirty minutes. We confirm fit, scope, and timing against your regulatory calendar. No proposal is sent unless you ask for one.