- \n
- Angola\u2019s Institute of Gaming Supervision classified nine gaming companies as high risk for money laundering in 2025, up from four in 2024.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Three of the 17 formally assessed companies were classified as critical risk, while five were rated medium risk.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The ISJ identified weaknesses in politically exposed person screening, customer identification, risk assessments, suspicious-transaction reporting and internal controls.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The three gaming segments assessed \u2014 games of chance, social games and online games \u2014 were all rated high risk.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The classifications reflect assessed risks and control weaknesses, not proof that the companies committed money-laundering offences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Angola.- Angola\u2019s Institute of Gaming Supervision classified nine gaming companies as high risk for money laundering <\/strong>in 2025, more than double the four firms placed in that category in 2024. The regulator identified weaknesses in politically exposed person screening, customer identification, suspicious-transaction reporting and transaction monitoring. The findings come from the ISJ\u2019s 2025 Sectoral Risk Assessment for Money Laundering in the Gaming Sector and reflect risk exposure and control deficiencies, not proof of criminal conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The report was approved by the ISJ\u2019s Director-General on August 31, 2026. It covered 25 gaming entities<\/strong>, of which 20 were active during the reporting period. Seventeen submitted the required documentation and were formally assessed, while three active entities failed to submit it. The remaining five were exempt because they had not conducted activity during the period. Two of these exempt entities, identified as U and V, submitted documentation voluntarily but were not assigned risk classifications because they had no activity during the period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of the 17 formally assessed companies, three were classified as critical risk, nine as high risk and five as medium risk. The number of companies in the high-risk category<\/strong> increased from four in 2024 to nine in 2025, a rise of 125 per cent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Separately, the ISJ presumed three active non-submitters, identified as Entities R, S and T, to be high risk by default, pending inspection and reassessment once the missing information was obtained. They were not included in the formal classification of the 17 assessed entities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The report identified weaknesses in politically exposed persons (PEPs) screening, customer identification<\/strong>, risk self-assessments and internal controls. Gaming companies lacked systems to screen PEPs against relevant databases, despite legal requirements, according to Expans\u00e3o, which reported on the assessment on October 13, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Other deficiencies included contradictory information in submissions, gaps in suspicious-transaction reporting<\/strong>, insufficient independence for compliance officers and manual transaction-monitoring systems. The ISJ also identified difficulties accessing information held on servers outside Angola.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One operator recorded 732 refused transactions but submitted no suspicious-transaction reports to Angola\u2019s Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF). In a separate case, three players bought gaming chips worth Kz15m (US$16,400) and requested a full refund in less than an hour without providing identification<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ISJ rated all three gaming segments<\/strong> as high risk for money laundering. Games of chance and social games each scored 0.750, while online games scored 0.734. Across the 17 formally assessed companies, the average vulnerability score was 0.741 on a scale of zero to one. The ISJ\u2019s vulnerability scores range from zero (no risk) to one (maximum risk). Scores above 0.7 are classified as high risk, placing the sector\u2019s average score of 0.741 in that category. The report highlighted cash-intensive activity<\/strong> in land-based operations and social games, alongside risks linked to digital onboarding and online systems hosted abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regulator flags widespread AML weaknesses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The ISJ recorded 246 suspicious-transaction reports<\/strong> (DOS) across three reporting periods: 82 between April and June 2025, 141 between July and October 2025, and 23 between December 2025 and March 2026. The final period\u2019s figures were partial. Land-based casinos submitted 138 reports and online casinos 108.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The sector submitted just one DOS in 2024. The ISJ attributed the subsequent increase partly to its guidance, training and inspection activities. These reports flag suspicious activity for examination; they do not establish that money laundering occurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The regulator recommended administrative proceedings<\/strong> against companies that failed to submit required information or repeatedly breached compliance obligations. It proposed inspections within 30 days for critical-risk operators, followed by quarterly monitoring. High-risk companies would face inspections within 90 days and submit reports every six months, while medium-risk operators would undergo annual off-site reviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ISJ also recommended integrating compliance officers<\/strong> into operators\u2019 internal structures and preventing them from combining compliance duties with operational, management or internal-audit functions to strengthen the independence of oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The classifications reflect assessed risks and weaknesses in controls, not proof that the companies concerned committed money-laundering offences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- How many gaming companies did Angola classify as high AML risk?<\/strong> The ISJ classified nine companies as high risk in 2025, compared with four in 2024. Three additional active companies that failed to submit information were presumed high risk pending inspection and reassessment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- What AML weaknesses did the ISJ identify?<\/strong> The regulator cited gaps in PEP screening, customer identification, risk self-assessments, suspicious-transaction reporting and internal controls. It also noted manual transaction monitoring and difficulties accessing information stored on servers outside Angola.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Which gaming segments were rated high risk?<\/strong> Games of chance, social games and online games were all rated high risk. Their vulnerability scores were 0.750, 0.750 and 0.734 respectively.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- What measures did the ISJ recommend?<\/strong> The regulator proposed inspections within 30 days for critical-risk operators and within 90 days for high-risk companies. It also recommended stronger compliance-officer independence, administrative proceedings and more frequent monitoring.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n
\n\t\t\tSee also:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\t\t\t\t![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2026\/10\/angola_isj_workshop-300x200.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n - What AML weaknesses did the ISJ identify?<\/strong> The regulator cited gaps in PEP screening, customer identification, risk self-assessments, suspicious-transaction reporting and internal controls. It also noted manual transaction monitoring and difficulties accessing information stored on servers outside Angola.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- How many gaming companies did Angola classify as high AML risk?<\/strong> The ISJ classified nine companies as high risk in 2025, compared with four in 2024. Three additional active companies that failed to submit information were presumed high risk pending inspection and reassessment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n