The Dutch Gambling Authority (KSA) has warned online operator 711 over a withdrawal process that required some customers to wager deposited funds before receiving their money.
Dutch gambling law permits wagering conditions only when they are linked to a bonus. Outside that situation, operators must return deposited funds as quickly as possible.
711 Applied Withdrawal Conditions To Customers Using Alternative Payment Methods
According to the KSA, 711 applied the conditions to customers using payment methods other than a “normal” bank account.
However, the operator stated that this policy was intended to prevent potential money laundering through its online gambling service. The regulator acknowledged that payments may be delayed while investigating the suspicious transactions. But any delay must last for the shortest possible period.
The KSA said funds must not be “structurally suspended” and that operators cannot require customers to wager deposited money before withdrawing it on more than one occasion. “We find 711’s working method very undesirable and therefore immediately entered into discussions with the company,” the regulator said.
“When someone wants to withdraw their deposited money, that credit must be repaid immediately. Gambling companies may not impose structural conditions that prevent such a direct payout,” It added.
Dutch Regulator Warns Of Future Sanctions For Repeated Withdrawal Violations
Kansspelautoriteit confirmed that 711 had taken measures to prevent the conduct from happening again. The operator clarified that customers who did not want to gamble could have their funds returned to the original payment method.
Furthermore, KSA stopped short of imposing further action but warned that a repeat offence could lead to sanctions. It reminded other licensees of the limits surrounding wagering and withdrawals.
This warning is the second time 711 has been flagged by the KSA within a few months. In June, the company was ordered to pay €886,000 after an investigation into 10 player files found insufficient intervention to protect customers from gambling harm.
This case shows the narrow line operators must manage between anti-money laundering controls and customers’ right to access deposited funds. Payment delays may be justified during an investigation, but routine wagering requirements can turn a compliance measure into an unfair barrier.
Share
4 views
