The Netherlands Gambling Authority has said it will take action against gaming halls and casinos highlighted in a PowNed investigation into weaknesses in Cruks monitoring.
Holland Casino Eindhoven, Jack’s Casino Utrecht and Casino Be One Rotterdam are now under scrutiny. Cruks is the Netherlands’ national self-exclusion register for licensed gambling.
PowNed reporter Abel Bijlsma, who is registered with Cruks, attempted to enter 10 casinos. He used his own driving licence at five venues and a colleague’s licence at the other five. All five venues where he presented his own ID refused entry.
Three of the five venues where he used another person’s licence allowed him inside, showing that valid identification belonging to someone else could bypass the system when front-desk checks are weak. The KSA described the findings as a “serious signal”.
KSA says Cruks depends on proper identity verification
The regulator stressed that the investigation did not show a failure of the Cruks database itself. Instead, the problem arose because venues accepted identification that did not belong to the person presenting it.
“It should not have happened that someone registered in Cruks enters an arcade using another person’s identification. Arcades and casinos are required to carry out thorough checks, and the KSA monitors this.”
The KSA has reshared its identity-check guidance. Visitors must present a valid passport, European identity card or Dutch driving licence.
“If you doubt whether the visitor is indeed the person on the identification document, ask for details of the document as an additional check. For example, the person’s age or date of birth. If you have doubts about the player’s identity, do not grant them entry,” the guidance added
There is no indication that the three venues skipped identity checks completely. Staff failed to identify that the photographs on the driving licences did not match Bijlsma.
Holland Casino admits additional checks should have blocked entry
Holland Casino told NEXT.io that the visitor’s identification received more scrutiny than shown in the PowNed report. However, the operator acknowledged that those additional checks should still have resulted in the reporter being denied entry.
The case highlights the weakness of relying on staff to compare customers with ID photographs. Unlike counterfeit IDs, the documents used in the investigation were genuine and belonged to Bijlsma’s colleagues.
This meant staff could not identify the fraud through document authenticity checks alone. The main warning sign was the photograph, which did not match the person attempting to enter.
Research published in 2019 by the Greenhouse Treatment Centre in the US found that among under-21s who had attempted to use fake identification, 77% had succeeded at least once.
Parliamentary pressure could force wider review of Cruks safeguards
Minor parties JA21 and BBB are preparing parliamentary questions over whether Cruks can be too easily circumvented at physical gambling venues. The KSA has not yet detailed what enforcement action it will take against the three operators.
Furthermore, the regulator currently treats the issue as an identity-verification failure. Even so, the investigation raises a broader question about whether current front-desk procedures are strong enough when a self-excluded player uses another person’s genuine identification.
If parliamentary questions are submitted, the government may need to explain whether additional verification requirements, staff training or technology should be introduced to reduce risk across Dutch casinos and gaming halls.
The PowNed investigation suggests the weakness is less about Cruks and more about how identity checks are carried out at physical venues. If a genuine ID belonging to someone else can bypass self-exclusion, staff training and verification tools will be as important as improving the register in limiting risk.
Explore more:
Share
4 views
