Dataset Overview and Scope

The UK Gambling Commission released findings drawn from its Open Banking dataset that examined 3,426 transactions connected to suspected illegal operators and linked those records to 179 individuals, and the analysis focused on behavioral patterns across both unlicensed sites and regulated platforms without introducing new regulatory measures. Researchers compiled the data to track how individuals interacted with operators outside the licensed framework while maintaining accounts at UKGC-approved companies at the same time.

Figures reveal that the sample covered a defined period of activity where each transaction was flagged through banking indicators associated with known illegal sites, and the study maintained strict parameters to avoid conflating routine payment flows with prohibited gambling. Observers note that the methodology relied entirely on anonymized banking records rather than self-reported surveys, which allowed for direct verification of spending across multiple operator types.

Key Overlap Between Licensed and Unlicensed Activity

Data indicates that 91 percent of the 179 individuals who engaged with illegal sites also placed bets through licensed operators during the same timeframe, and this overlap demonstrates that participation in unlicensed gambling did not lead to a measurable reduction in activity at regulated companies. The research tracked account activity before and after the first detected transaction with an illegal operator, yet licensed gambling volumes remained consistent across the group.

According to the report, no substantial decline occurred in the frequency or value of transactions routed through UKGC-licensed platforms following initial contact with suspected illegal sites, and this pattern held steady even among individuals who recorded multiple payments to unlicensed entities. Analysts examined monthly aggregates to confirm that total spend on licensed products showed no statistically significant drop after the shift to illegal operators began.

Problem Gambling Indicators in the Sample

The study applied the Problem Gambling Severity Index to the 179 individuals and recorded that 45 percent scored 8 or higher, placing them in the problem gambling category, whereas the corresponding rate among the broader population of licensed players stood at 6 percent. Researchers cross-referenced PGSI results with transaction frequency to identify whether higher-risk scores correlated with particular spending behaviors across both licensed and unlicensed channels.

Those who recorded PGSI scores of 8 or above tended to maintain active accounts at multiple licensed operators while also sending payments to illegal sites, and the data showed that problem gambling markers appeared more frequently in the subset that used both channels rather than in groups limited to licensed play alone. The commission presented these figures as descriptive statistics without assigning causation between illegal site use and elevated PGSI scores.

Implications for Substitution Theory

The findings challenge assumptions that illegal gambling functions as a direct substitute for licensed play, and instead the numbers point to parallel use where individuals add unlicensed options without abandoning regulated ones. Transaction records showed that total gambling spend across all channels increased for many participants once illegal sites entered the picture, yet licensed operator revenue streams did not register corresponding losses within the sampled group.

UKGC analysts noted that the 3,426 transactions represented a concentrated set of banking interactions rather than a broad market sample, and they cautioned against generalizing the overlap rate beyond the 179 individuals examined. The report emphasized that the dataset captured only those whose banking activity triggered specific risk flags, which limited the scope to a subset already under review for potential illegal engagement.

Regulatory Context and Data Sources

The Open Banking dataset provided the commission with granular visibility into payment flows that traditional surveys cannot capture, and the resulting analysis was published as part of ongoing efforts to monitor market integrity. A UKGC study on illegal gambling activity supplied the core statistics referenced throughout the release, including the exact counts of transactions adn individuals along with the PGSI breakdowns.

Further review of the same banking records confirmed that the 91 percent overlap figure remained stable when segmented by transaction size or frequency, and no subgroup showed a pattern of complete migration away from licensed operators. The commission continues to update its Open Banking monitoring protocols to refine detection of similar payment clusters in future reporting cycles.

Conclusion

The research supplies regulators and operators with concrete transaction-level evidence on how a specific cohort engages with both licensed and illegal gambling channels simultaneously, and the documented 91 percent overlap alongside unchanged licensed activity levels offers a factual baseline for subsequent studies. The elevated PGSI scores observed within the group provide additional context for targeted harm prevention measures without implying direct policy changes at this stage. Observers can reference the full dataset parameters when evaluating the scope and limitations of the reported statistics.