# Casinos That Accept Bank Transfer in the UK
::: hero-subtitle
A practical distinction between bank transfers and phone-billed Boku deposits, with guidance on availability, licensing, limits and withdrawals.
:::
## What the available evidence says about casino deposits
A search for an online casino that accepts bank transfer is asking about one payment route. That distinction matters: a casino accepting a phone-billed deposit is not thereby shown to accept a bank transfer, and a set of Boku names cannot serve as a dependable list of bank-transfer casinos.
I have seen payment labels treated as if they were interchangeable because they appear in the same cashier. They are not. A payment option is evidence of that particular route being offered, not proof that a different route is available.
There is a further complication: Boku’s presence has not been static. A small number of UK Gambling Commission-licensed casinos still [accept Boku deposits](/banking-casinos/casinos-that-accept-boku-uk/), but the set has been shrinking since 2023. A specialist payment review tracking changes to casino cashiers reports that operators have moved away from Boku, in some cases replacing it with Fonix or Siru Mobile, and in others removing Pay by Phone options altogether. That is a change in availability, not a stable catalogue.
::: top-operators
Choosing a casino that accepts bank transfers means checking not only how you can pay in, but also what to expect when withdrawing. This list highlights the payout-speed information available for each option.
### 1. Amunbet
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Amunbet lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days, giving bank-transfer users a stated timeframe to consider.
—
### 2. Dieselwin
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Dieselwin lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days. This provides a stated timeframe to bear in mind when considering withdrawals.
—
### 3. Zombillion
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Zombillion lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days, a useful detail for readers considering withdrawal timing.
—
### 4. BeOnBet
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
BeOnBet lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days. That stated timeframe is relevant when weighing bank-transfer options.
—
### 5. NightLuck
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
NightLuck lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days, offering a clear point of reference for withdrawal timing.
—
### 6. Jetsetspins
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Jetsetspins lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days. Readers can use this stated timeframe when considering the operator.
—
### 7. x3bet
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
x3bet lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days, giving readers a stated indication of how long payouts may take.
—
### 8. Britsino
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Britsino lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days. This is the available detail to consider for payout timing.
—
### 9. SlotoSport
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
SlotoSport lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days, which offers a stated timeframe for withdrawals.
—
### 10. Revery Play
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Revery Play lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days. This stated timeframe may help readers assess withdrawal timing.
:::
That history explains why a list compiled at one point can quickly become misleading. A brand mentioned in an older payment review may no longer offer the same cashier option. Another operator may still support a mobile payment service, but under a different provider’s name. The broad label “Pay by Phone” therefore does not guarantee Boku availability, just as Boku availability does not establish bank-transfer support.
For someone comparing online casinos with bank transfer in the UK, those distinctions set a boundary around what a payment claim actually means. Boku is a phone-billed method; it is not a substitute label for a bank transfer. A casino’s support for Boku, Fonix or Siru Mobile can be relevant to people looking for a mobile-funded deposit, but it does not answer whether a bank account can be used to fund the casino account.
I would treat a cashier label as a specific statement, not as shorthand for a whole family of payment methods. “Boku accepted” means that the operator’s cashier offers Boku under its current terms. “Pay by Phone available” may refer to another provider or to a service that has since changed. Neither statement, on its own, confirms that the operator accepts bank transfer. The wording matters. Small detail.
The contraction is also easy to misread. Fewer Boku options do not mean that every operator has abandoned mobile payments, nor that the remaining Boku casinos represent the full set of casinos with any phone-based route. The reported replacements include other services, while some operators have removed mobile payments. Those are distinct outcomes. Folding them into one list would conceal the difference between a method that remains available and one that has been replaced or withdrawn.
$$LINKCARD casinos-that-accept-bank-cheque-uk$$
There is a practical reason to avoid carrying old names forward without checking the actual payment option. Casino cashiers can change, and payment services can be added, replaced or removed. A past mention of Boku is therefore not a guarantee about a current cashier. A page that presents such names as confirmed bank-transfer choices would make a stronger claim than the payment information supports.
Boku remains at a small number of UKGC-licensed casinos, while the wider mobile-payment landscape has shifted towards alternatives or no phone option. That helps describe how mobile deposits have changed. It does not identify which online casinos accept a bank transfer.
## How to read claims about a ‘best’ bank-transfer casino
“Best” sounds like a verdict, but it only means something when the comparison measures the same thing across the same operators. A ranking of casinos that accept bank transfers would need to establish that each named site actually offers that payment route, then explain the criteria used to compare them. A list built around another payment method cannot do that work by changing its heading.
That distinction matters because payment pages often group several ways of funding an account under broad labels such as “banking options”. The label can make unlike services look interchangeable. They are not. A casino’s decision to support one method says nothing, by itself, about whether it accepts another. Nor does a name appearing in a payment-method roundup show that the operator has been assessed against competitors on bank-transfer terms.
::: warning-callout
A casino’s support for one payment method, such as Boku, does not prove it accepts another, such as bank transfers. These services are not interchangeable.
:::
In my experience, the weak point in a “best” claim is often not the operator name but the implied comparison. A list can be accurate about one narrow fact and still fail as a recommendation. If it records that an operator has been associated with Boku, that is a statement about Boku; it is not evidence of bank-transfer availability, transfer handling, or relative value. Those are separate claims.
The same care applies to older roundups. Payment arrangements change, and a site’s past association with a method should not be read as a permanent cashier specification. A specialist review has named BoyleSports, Sun Bingo, William Hill, Sky Vegas, PlayOJO, Genting Casino, Betfred, Lottoland, bwin and 888 Casino in connection with Boku deposits. That is a reported set of Boku operators, not a current bank-transfer ranking. The distinction is important: the names do not become evidence for a different payment route simply because a page is presented as a casino list.
### What “best” needs to mean
A useful comparison has to define its yardstick. “Best” might mean that a payment method is available, or it might refer to how clearly the cashier describes it. Those are not the same test. Without a stated basis, a top position can be a publishing choice rather than a finding about the payment service.
The underlying operator decisions also matter. The UK Gambling Commission did not introduce a rule banning Boku by name. Individual casino operators moved away from it because of compliance risk. That is a more limited explanation than a blanket regulatory prohibition. It also shows why one operator’s decision cannot be treated as a universal rule for the market: operators made their own choices.
$$LINKCARD casinos-that-accept-solana-uk$$
That history does not support a ranking of bank-transfer casinos. It explains why the presence or absence of Boku can vary between operators, but it does not establish which casinos accept direct bank transfers or how those services compare. A “best casino with bank transfer” claim needs evidence about bank transfer itself, not an inference from decisions about Boku.
I have seen comparison language do too much work. A page may use “top” to introduce a collection of casino names, then leave the reader to assume that every listed site shares the payment feature in the heading. The wording makes the category appear settled. It is not settled unless the payment route is checked for each operator and the basis of the comparison is made clear. A list is not a test.
### Separate the claim from the sales language
The practical reading is straightforward: identify the exact payment method being discussed, then distinguish a factual inclusion from a recommendation. A Boku reference establishes only that an operator has been reported as accepting Boku deposits. It does not establish bank-transfer support, and it does not establish that the operator is “best” for someone seeking that route.
That matters even when a list contains familiar brands. Familiarity is not a payment specification. The names in the specialist review are not interchangeable evidence, and their appearance together does not make them a ranked group. No comparative order follows from a collection of names.
::: dos-donts
#### Do
– Define the specific yardstick for a “best” claim
– Verify the exact payment method offered in the cashier
– Check the current operator terms for each site
—
#### Don’t
– Assume a “top” list implies a specific payment feature
– Use old payment reviews as current evidence
– Treat a collection of names as a ranked group
:::
A careful “best” claim should therefore make its boundaries visible: what method is being compared, which operators were assessed, and what the ranking measures. If those parts are blurred, the headline is carrying more weight than the comparison beneath it. I would treat that as a category error, not a close call. A payment label is not a verdict.
For a bank-transfer comparison, the relevant evidence must concern bank transfers at the named casinos. Boku-related operator decisions may explain a separate part of the payment landscape, but they cannot stand in for that comparison. That is the limit of the claim.
## Bank transfer and Boku are different ways to fund an account
A bank transfer and Boku can both appear in discussions of casino deposits, but they are not two names for the same payment method. A bank transfer moves money from a bank account. Boku places a casino deposit on a mobile phone bill or deducts it from prepaid phone credit. The payment source is different, the route is different, and a casino listing Boku has not thereby established that it accepts bank transfers.
That distinction matters when comparing online casinos that accept bank transfer in the UK. A payment-method page or cashier entry for Boku is evidence about Pay by Phone, not a direct bank payment. It does not establish that the same casino accepts a transfer from a bank account, whether the transfer is described as instant, or whether a particular banking service is supported. Those are separate claims that need separate confirmation.
I have seen payment labels do more work in marketing copy than they do in a cashier. “Banking options” can be used as a broad heading, while the individual methods beneath it have very different funding sources. A phone-billed deposit may be grouped near card or bank options because all of them add funds to the casino balance. That shared outcome does not make their underlying mechanisms interchangeable. Same destination. Different route.
$$LINKCARD casinos-that-accept-pay-n-play-uk$$
### What the Boku evidence identifies
The named casino-payment information in this context concerns Boku and other Pay by Phone services. Boku bills the mobile network operator, so the deposit is tied to the phone account rather than sent directly from a bank account. It can be used without a card or bank account, but that does not turn it into a bank-transfer service.
A specialist review describes the remaining direct-Boku casino set as small and identifies Jackpot Mobile Casino and Peachy Games among it. That is a claim about casinos accepting Boku, not a list of casinos with bank transfer in the UK. Nor should it be read as a permanent directory: operator cashiers and payment arrangements can change, so a named method needs checking with the operator before it is treated as available.
The distinction also prevents a common category error. If a casino accepts a phone-billed deposit, it may still have a separate bank-transfer option, but Boku alone cannot prove that. The reverse is also true: a casino accepting bank transfers does not thereby accept Boku. Each method has its own entry in the cashier and its own conditions. A matching brand name is not enough.
### “Instant bank transfer” is not a synonym for Boku
The phrase “instant bank transfer” refers to a claim about a bank-funded route. It should not be inferred from the presence of Boku, nor from the fact that a deposit is made online. Boku’s defining feature is the mobile-network charge. Calling it a bank transfer would describe the payment source incorrectly.
::: info-callout
Boku is a mobile-network charge, not a bank-funded route. Calling it an “instant bank transfer” incorrectly describes the payment source.
:::
The same care applies to broader phrases such as “casino that accepts bank transfer” or “[online casino with bank transfer](/banking-casinos/).” They are useful descriptions only when the cashier actually offers a bank-account transfer route. A Pay by Phone button is not a substitute, and a general payment-method page may not specify every route currently available to an account. The practical distinction is simple: identify the named method, then identify where the money comes from.
For a comparison of casinos, the payment label should therefore be recorded precisely. “Boku” means a mobile-billed or prepaid-credit deposit. “Bank transfer” means the casino offers a route funded from a bank account. If a page uses a broad label without naming the route, it leaves the key point unresolved. That is not a minor wording issue; it changes what the customer is being asked to fund the deposit with.
The remaining direct-Boku names are useful only within that boundary. Jackpot Mobile Casino and Peachy Games are examples cited in a specialist review as part of a small Boku set. They should not be repackaged as bank-transfer recommendations, and their inclusion says nothing by itself about whether a direct bank payment is available at either casino today.
In practical terms, the two methods belong in separate columns when payment options are compared. Boku answers whether a casino can charge a phone account or prepaid balance. A bank-transfer entry answers whether a bank account can fund the casino account through a transfer route. One cannot fill the other column. That is the cleanest way to avoid treating two distinct payment systems as interchangeable just because both can appear under the cashier’s deposit options.
$$LINKCARD casinos-that-accept-webmoney-uk$$
## What happens when a casino deposit is made with Boku
A Boku deposit starts in the casino’s cashier, but the payment is routed through the mobile number entered during the transaction. That makes the phone part of the payment chain: the casino records the selected deposit method, while the charge is passed to the mobile network for billing.
The steps are straightforward. Boku is selected from the payment options in the cashier, then the deposit amount and mobile number are entered. The number matters because the SMS confirmation is sent to that phone. A verification code arrives by text and must be entered to confirm the transaction. Without that confirmation, the payment has not completed through the described process.
The sequence is worth separating from a bank-funded deposit. With Boku, the user is not entering bank-account details in the casino cashier. The transaction is authorised through a phone number and an SMS code, and the cost is collected through the mobile service. Familiarity with bank transfers does not explain this flow; the billing relationship is different.
After confirmation, the charge is assigned according to the mobile plan. For a contract customer, Boku deposits are charged to the monthly phone bill. For a Pay As You Go customer, the deposit is deducted from the available prepaid credit. In either case, the phone account is the route through which the payment is collected.
::: worked-example Boku Deposit Process
### Step 1: Select Method
Choose Boku from the payment options in the casino cashier.
### Step 2: Enter Details
Input the deposit amount and the relevant mobile phone number.
### Step 3: Verify Transaction
Receive a verification code via SMS and enter it to confirm the payment.
### Step 4: Account Funding
The charge is applied to the monthly phone bill or deducted from prepaid credit.
:::
That distinction can be easy to miss on a cashier screen. The casino may show a deposit as one transaction, but the payment is not necessarily taken from a bank account at that point. The mobile operator’s billing arrangement determines whether the amount appears with the monthly bill or reduces prepaid credit. The confirmation text is therefore more than a routine message: it is part of the authorisation path linking the casino deposit to the phone account.
From the operator’s side, this setup means the casino does not collect ordinary bank details in the Boku payment form. The entered phone number and the confirmation step identify and approve the mobile-billed transaction. It is a separate route from paying by bank transfer, even though both methods can fund a casino balance. Different plumbing.
A Boku payment is also not simply a text message sent to the casino. The text carries a verification code; entering that code confirms the transaction. The charge itself is handled through the mobile account, either as a bill item or as a deduction from prepaid credit. That is why a working phone number and access to the relevant handset are necessary to complete the described flow.
The cashier is the point where the method is chosen, but the mobile account is where the cost lands. Keeping those two parts clear helps explain what the deposit confirmation actually means: approval of a phone-billed payment, not evidence of a bank transfer.
$$LINKCARD casinos-that-accept-apple-pay-uk$$
## ‘Instant’ does not establish a bank-transfer deposit time
“Instant” sounds like a promise about when a casino balance will rise. In payment copy, though, the word can blur separate events: a payment being started, a payment being authorised, and funds appearing in the account. Those are not automatically the same moment. A label alone does not establish the time from a bank transfer being submitted to a deposit becoming available to play.
That distinction matters when comparing casinos that advertise instant bank transfer deposits. The phrase describes an intended payment experience, not a processing time that can safely be applied to every transfer or every operator. Without a stated, applicable processing commitment, it is better not to translate “instant” into a number of seconds or minutes. The wording is not a clock.
I have seen how payment descriptions can compress several steps into one reassuring word. A cashier may show a method as available, while the customer still has to complete the payment flow and the operator has to recognise the result. The meaningful point is when the casino confirms the deposit in the account, not merely when a payment option is selected. “Instant” can obscure that distinction.
Pay by Phone offers a useful illustration of why confirmation and credit should not be treated as synonyms. With Boku, the customer selects the method in the casino cashier, enters an amount and mobile number, then confirms the transaction using a verification code [sent by SMS](/banking-casinos/online-casinos-that-accept-sms-deposits/). That describes an authorisation step. It does not, by itself, establish how quickly the casino balance updates afterwards. An SMS arriving is not proof that the deposit is already playable.
::: warning-callout
An SMS verification code is an authorisation step and does not prove that the casino balance has already been updated.
:::
The same care applies to searches for an instant bank-transfer casino deposit in the UK. A method name, a cashier badge or a promotional line cannot answer every timing question. The exact steps and the point at which the casino shows the funds matter more than an unqualified speed label. A bank transfer should not be assumed to follow Boku’s SMS process, either; they are different payment routes.
There is also a difference between a payment being described as fast and a casino publishing a clear timing condition. If the wording does not specify what event is instant, it leaves room for different interpretations: the start of the transaction, its confirmation, or the moment the balance changes. That ambiguity is easy to miss when the headline is doing the selling.
For a practical comparison, the relevant evidence is a clearly stated deposit process and a defined point of completion. If neither is given, the timing remains uncertain. The label does not fill the gap. No stopwatch implied.
## Licensing matters more than a ‘top’ payment label
“Top” is a marketing judgement, not a regulatory status. In my experience, payment labels can dominate a casino comparison because they are easy to display; the licence sits further down the page, though it says more about who is accountable for the gambling service.
In Great Britain, the UK Gambling Commission is the sole regulator for commercial gambling. Its remit includes online casinos and remote gambling offered to consumers in Great Britain, even when the operator’s key equipment is located elsewhere. Moving servers or business operations abroad does not remove the requirement for a relevant Gambling Commission licence when a remote operator serves customers in Great Britain.
$$LINKCARD casinos-that-accept-paypal-uk$$
The Commission issues operating licences to gambling businesses and personal licences to individuals working in relevant roles. Those are different permissions: an operator’s licence covers the business’s offer, while a personal licence relates to an individual’s position in the industry. A payment method cannot substitute for either. A bank-transfer option, or a claim that deposits are instant, does not establish that the casino is properly authorised.
This is why a list of casinos presented as “top” choices should not be treated as a regulatory finding. A payment comparison may describe a cashier feature, but that alone does not tell the reader whether the business holds the licence required to offer remote gambling to Great Britain consumers. The order of a list is not an assurance of oversight. It is a commercial judgement, and the basis for it may be quite different from licensing.
I would treat the licence as a separate check rather than infer it from a familiar brand, a polished site or a payment logo. The UK Gambling Commission’s public register is the place to confirm an operator’s licence before depositing. The licence number should be checked against the register, not simply repeated from the casino’s own footer.
That distinction matters when a casino advertises itself as a leading bank-transfer destination. The wording may describe the payment experience, but regulatory responsibility belongs to the licensed business and the relevant regulator. A deposit route does not make an operator safer by itself, nor does a high ranking confer permission to operate.
Check the licence first. Payment comes after.
::: danger-callout Licensing Check
Always verify an operator’s licence number on the UK Gambling Commission’s public register before depositing, as a payment logo is not proof of regulation.
:::
## Slots and pay-by-mobile deposits are separate questions
A casino’s game catalogue and its cashier are separate parts of the service. A site may offer slots without offering bank transfer as a deposit method, and a payment label says nothing about which games are available. That distinction matters when comparing bank-transfer casino sites in the UK: a payment option cannot establish that a particular slot is offered, or that a deposit will be instant.
I have seen promotional copy blur these categories. “Bank transfer slots” sounds like a type of game, but it describes a funding preference attached to a casino, not the slots themselves. The same applies to claims about fast or instant bank-transfer casinos: the wording describes a payment claim, not a game feature.
Pay by Phone is another cashier option, not a catalogue category. The mobile networks EE, O2, Vodafone and Three support both Pay by Phone and Fonix, but each casino chooses which services to put in its cashier. A specialist review reports Fonix at MrQ and Duelz, and [Siru Mobile at Mr Vegas](/banking-casinos/casinos-that-accept-siru-mobile-uk/) and Videoslots. Those examples show that pay-by-mobile services vary by operator; network support alone does not mean every casino offers every service.
So a list of bank-transfer slots sites would need two separate checks: whether the casino accepts bank transfers, and whether it carries the games being considered. A casino’s support for Pay by Phone, Fonix or Siru Mobile answers neither question about its slot catalogue. Nor does it establish that the casino accepts bank transfers.
The distinction is practical, not semantic. Payment methods sit in the cashier; games sit in the lobby. The labels do different work.
$$LINKCARD casinos-that-accept-monzo-uk$$
## Bonus terms can exclude phone deposits
A payment method and a promotion are separate parts of the cashier. A bank-transfer casino bonus is governed by the offer’s own rules; the fact that a deposit is made by bank transfer does not, by itself, establish that it qualifies. The same applies to Pay by Phone. Eligibility turns on the operator’s terms, not on the label attached to the payment route.
A specialist review described a common welcome-offer structure as a deposit match of up to £100, with wagering set at 35 times the bonus. That is an example reported by a review, not a promise that every casino uses those terms or that every deposit method qualifies. The small print can define which deposits count, when the bonus is credited, which games contribute towards wagering and when bonus funds expire. Those conditions matter more than the headline percentage.
Pay-by-phone eligibility varies between operators. A specialist review confirmed that MrQ, Duelz, Mr Vegas and Videoslots accepted these deposits for bonus eligibility. That does not make the arrangement universal, nor does it confirm that the same terms remain in place indefinitely. Promotions change, and an operator can distinguish between payment types even when they all fund the same account.
A separate specialist review reported that the platforms it assessed imposed no Boku-specific deposit restrictions, while also finding that Boku deposits generally came without a dedicated bonus. Those observations do not establish that a Boku payment will qualify for a welcome offer at every casino. An offer may accept the deposit for funding purposes but exclude it from promotional eligibility.
A “no deposit” offer is not evidence that a particular payment method qualifies: the phrase describes the offer, not a deposit route. Likewise, an instant bank-transfer bonus is not a separate guarantee about processing or eligibility. The operative wording is the bonus’s payment-method clause. Read that before relying on a headline. The terms decide.
::: info-callout
Bonus eligibility depends on the operator’s specific terms. Some casinos may accept Boku for funding but exclude it from welcome offer eligibility.
:::
## Boku limits are set in part outside the casino
A deposit cap is not necessarily a cashier setting. With Boku, the amount available can depend on the casino’s own controls, the mobile network’s rules and, for a pay-as-you-go (PAYG) customer, the credit left on the phone.
Published figures do not line up neatly. One specialist review describes a £30 per-transaction limit in the UK, while noting that some casinos or networks may permit £40 or £50. Other specialist material instead describes a £30 daily network limit and gives no per-transaction cap. Those are different claims, not two ways of stating one settled rule. The applicable limit may therefore depend on the service and operator in use; a figure found in a general guide should not be treated as a guarantee for every account.
The distinction between the casino and network matters. A specialist review attributes daily Boku limits to the mobile operator rather than the casino. That means a casino cashier may accept a requested amount only for the network to apply its own restriction. Repeated attempts will not necessarily get around that control.
PAYG adds a balance ceiling. According to a specialist payment guide, a deposit cannot exceed the remaining prepaid phone credit. If the available balance is lower than the requested amount, the payment may be declined. A monthly-billed customer is charged through the phone account instead, so the PAYG balance condition does not apply in the same way.
These limits are separate from bank-transfer casino payments. Boku figures describe charges routed through a mobile account; they cannot be used to infer a bank transfer casino payment limit, or the amount a casino accepting bank transfer will allow. “Same cashier” does not mean same payment rules.
In practice, the amount shown at the deposit stage is only one part of the decision. Network controls and PAYG credit can still determine whether a Boku payment goes through. The precise limits are not uniform.
$$LINKCARD fast-withdrawal-casino-uk$$
## Where Boku stops: withdrawals and other payment routes
A Boku deposit creates a settlement gap: the money goes into the casino account, but winnings cannot be sent back through Boku. It is a deposit-only method. That distinction matters because a payment option shown in the cashier is not necessarily a route for withdrawals.
In practice, the casino needs another withdrawal method on the account when Boku is used to deposit. This could be a debit card, an e-wallet or a bank transfer, depending on the options the operator provides. A bank transfer may therefore be relevant to the way winnings are paid out, without being the method used to make the original deposit. The two legs of the transaction are separate.
I have seen payment pages blur that difference by grouping deposit and withdrawal methods under one heading. The wording can look like a single payment service, while the cashier applies different rules to money going in and money coming out. Check the casino’s withdrawal options before depositing, and verify its licence on the UK Gambling Commission’s public register.
$$LINKCARD quick-withdrawal-casino-uk$$
There is also a reported indirect route: a specialist review describes funding a Neteller account with Boku, then using Neteller at a casino that accepts it. That is not the same as paying the casino directly by Boku, and it does not establish that every casino accepts Neteller or that the route is currently available. Payment arrangements can change.
Nor does using an e-wallet or registering a bank account prove that a casino accepts direct bank-transfer deposits. For a UK bank-transfer casino, the relevant detail is whether the operator’s own cashier offers bank transfer for the transaction in question. The payment method used to deposit, the method available for withdrawal and the method used to move funds between services should not be treated as interchangeable.
Different legs. Different rules.
::: faq
## What are the deposit limits at pay by mobile casinos?
Boku deposits are usually capped at £30 per transaction, although some casinos or mobile networks may allow £40 or £50. Network-level limits are typically about £10 per transaction and £30 per day, and PAYG users are also limited by their remaining phone credit.
—
## Are Boku casinos still available in the UK in 2026?
Yes, a small number of UKGC-licensed casinos still accept Boku, but the list has been shrinking since 2023. Check the casino’s current cashier, as payment options can change.
—
## Why are UK casinos dropping Boku?
Individual casino operators have moved away from Boku because of compliance risk. The UK Gambling Commission did not introduce a specific rule banning Boku by name.
:::
[Responsible Gambling](/responsible-gambling/)