The Netherlands Gambling Authority issued formal instructions to Tulipa Ent Limited. Multiple violations of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act emerged during the investigation. ComeOn and GetLucky brands operate under Tulipa in the Dutch market. Several core anti-money laundering framework areas showed shortcomings. Client due diligence procedures lacked the required rigour under Dutch law. KSA findings revealed this compliance gap. Risk classifications remained incomplete or received incorrect assignments from Tulipa. Player profile assessments contained gaps due to these errors.

Transaction monitoring failed to meet standards, including fund origin checks. Financial crime risks expose the gambling sector to vulnerabilities. Tulipa stored unusual transaction reports improperly according to regulatory findings. The Netherlands Financial Intelligence Unit requires specific documentation standards. Missing documentation prevented KSA from verifying statutory reporting compliance. Recent months saw the regulator target several companies.

Training Programmes Need a Serious Overhaul

Generic AML training programmes failed to address different staff responsibilities. Tulipa must improve these educational systems. Compliance roles, including Money Laundering Reporting Officer, need targeted instruction. Periodic training helps recognise unusual behaviour patterns and conduct due diligence. Effective AML controls require these training components as inherent elements. KSA emphasised this requirement clearly.

Licensed gambling operators must monitor customer activity continuously. Intervention becomes necessary when unusual behaviour appears. Deposit spikes from player bank accounts require closer scrutiny. These scenarios exemplify situations demanding enhanced monitoring. Match-fixing indicators form part of the broader risk environment. Operators must identify and address suspicious conduct across all areas. Resolution deadlines range from two to six months for identified deficiencies. Tulipa received these specific timeframes.

Company cooperation continued throughout the entire inquiry process. Corrective measures began during the ongoing investigation. Several issues have already received attention according to regulatory statements. Progress occurred before formal instructions. Follow-up inspections will verify full AML requirement alignment. Deadlines must expire before these checks commence.