for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
Newly published records show the Dutch Gambling Authority (Kansspelautoriteit, Ksa) spent years pulling banks and payment service providers into its fight against unlicensed online gambling often through formal information demands that came with tight deadlines and instructions not to tip off third parties.
The documents were disclosed under a Dutch public-records process (Woo request 19162) covering communications with banks and payment firms across a 2012–2022 window, according to the Ksa’s own Woo disclosures page.
According to reports, because the KSA couldn’t reach offshore operators directly, it tried to map the money trail around them, starting with the systems Dutch players were using to move funds.
Unibet payments were an early focus
In the internal inventory described in the reporting, the Ksa repeatedly targets payment rails—especially iDEAL, the Netherlands’ dominant online bank transfer method—by demanding transaction data from banks and contract and transaction details from payment processors tied to operators serving Dutch customers without a licence.
KSA’s attention centred on Unibet during the period when the brand was active in the Netherlands without a local licence.
The same disclosure package points to a later request to Worldpay, seeking contracts and correspondence connected to Unibet.eu, alongside an overview of iDEAL transactions made by Dutch residents over a specified period.
Pressure wasn’t limited to banks
The trail starts earlier than the 2018 bank demands.
Letters dated September 2017 show the Ksa summoning Dutch PSPs DialXS and Cardgate for an evaluation meeting tied to a cooperation agreement, with the regulator requesting different representatives because of conflicts linked to ongoing legal proceedings.
The legal muscle behind the requests
Dutch administrative law gives supervisors wide authority to request information and business records, and it also creates a duty to cooperate with regulators. In the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), for example, Article 5:17 allows a supervisor to demand access to business records, while Article 5:20 sets the cooperation obligation.
That combination is exactly why banks and PSPs matter in practice: they sit on the transaction trails regulators can use to identify, evidence, and pursue unlicensed activity, even when the operator is offshore.
Payment compliance is now a frontline issue, not just a back-office function
The Netherlands’ legal online market only opened in 2021, and the Ksa has already paired licensing with tougher enforcement posture and fining policy against unlicensed offers.
For payment firms, regulators can treat PSPs as part of the control surface. If the Ksa is building rules and policy around “payment instruments” while also sending compliance notices and information demands, that signals a long-term focus on payment gating, who can process, what can be processed, and what needs to be reported or blocked.
Source: PaymentExpert
