Bypassing the Remote Gambling Act limits: why this is technically impossible and risky

It is technically and legally impossible to legally bypass the limits of the Remote Gambling Act with Dutch license holders. Systems such as CRUKS and iDIN link players via their BSN number, meaning duplicate accounts or higher deposits are blocked immediately. Players who try to bypass limits by going to illegal providers run significant risks of having their funds frozen and missing out on consumer protection.

Why bypassing statutory play limits is technically unfeasible

Actively seeking ways to bypass the limits of the Remote Gambling Act is technically unfeasible and legally risky within the legal Dutch offering. The Dutch Gambling Authority (Kansspelautoriteit) enforces strict supervision where identity verification via iDIN and linkage with the BSN number (Dutch citizen service number) exclude duplicate accounts. Players who attempt to ignore these play limits lose statutory protection and risk frozen balances with illegal operators.

The Dutch market for online gambling is unique in its technical setup. While other jurisdictions often rely on self-regulation or less stringent identity checks, the Netherlands has opted for a system of 'hard stops'. This means that the software of legal operators such as Holland Casino, TOTO, and BetCity is programmed so that transactions exceeding statutory limits are simply not processed. There is no 'backdoor' or administrative exception that a player can activate themselves. This technical barrier is deliberately designed to break the impulsivity of gambling and force players to reflect before they can wager more money than legally permitted.

The role of CRUKS and BSN linkage in identity verification

The core of Dutch regulation lies in the unshakeable link between a player and their unique identity. CRUKS (Central Register for Gambling Exclusion) acts as the central gatekeeper preventing players with gambling problems from accessing legal platforms. Registration is not based on variable data such as email addresses or phone numbers, but on the BSN number.

When a player creates an account, the operator must verify the identity via iDIN and immediately check whether the associated BSN number is listed in CRUKS. This real-time link with the Personal Records Database makes creating multiple accounts ("multiple accounting") with legal operators technically impossible. Even if a player tries to register with falsified data, the verification layer will fail because the bank details do not match the stated identity. This system ensures that play limits are tied to the individual and cannot be reset per account.

The strength of this system lies in interoperability. All license holders in the Netherlands are required to be connected to the same CRUKS register. This means that exclusion or reaching a limit applies not just to one specific casino, but to the entire legal market. A player cannot simply switch operators to get a fresh 'start', because the BSN number runs as a red thread through all systems. This centralization is a fundamental difference from the period before 2021, when players could still easily shop around between different international operators without them sharing data.

Why VPN services and proxy servers do not work with legal casinos

Technical tools such as VPN services and proxy servers offer no solution for bypassing the Remote Gambling Act limits with licensed operators. Legal casinos are required to use geolocation software that verifies the player's physical location. A VPN can mask an IP address, but this does not solve the fundamental problem of identity verification.

To fund an account or make a withdrawal, a link to a Dutch bank account is required via iDIN. This payment method requires a login to the player's own bank, where the bank itself verifies the identity and location of the account holder. If the geolocation data of the casino does not match the location registered by the bank, or if the player is outside the Netherlands, the transaction is blocked. Illegal operators that do tolerate VPN use operate outside the Remote Gambling Act and offer no guarantee for payouts.

Furthermore, modern fraud detection systems of legal operators often detect the use of VPNs as a risk signal. Instead of granting access, the account may be flagged for further investigation or temporarily frozen. This is an additional security layer that ensures players cannot hide behind anonymous IP addresses. The combination of geolocation, iDIN verification, and CRUKS linkage creates a triple lock that the individual player cannot crack without committing fraud, which in turn leads to criminal consequences.

Automatic block upon exceeding the 350 euro limit

The Remote Gambling Act sets hard financial boundaries to prevent problematic gambling behavior. Since 1 October 2024, a maximum monthly deposit limit of 350 euros applies to adults. For young adults (18-24 years), this limit is stricter and amounts to 150 euros per month.

When a player reaches this threshold, an automatic hard-stop comes into effect. It is not possible to temporarily lift this limit via a simple click in the account settings. An increase requires a mandatory personal contact moment with the operator, where the risks of higher stakes are explicitly discussed. This intermediate step is designed to break the impulse to "chase losses". Attempts to circumvent this block by switching to other legal operators fail, because the duty of care and the registration of gambling behavior are monitored by the Dutch Gambling Authority across operators. Players who continue anyway are often referred to assistance agencies such as Loket Kansspel.

It is important to distinguish between the statutory limit and voluntary limits. The statutory limit of 350 euros is an absolute ceiling imposed by the government. Players can, however, choose to set their personal limit lower, for example at 50 euros per month. This voluntary limit can often be adjusted more quickly, but increasing it to the statutory maximum remains subject to strict procedures. This layering of limits gives players control, but prevents statutory protection from being eroded by easy adjustments.

The dangers of playing at illegal operators without a Dutch license

Anyone trying to bypass the Remote Gambling Act limits by switching to foreign platforms immediately loses the protection of the Dutch government. Illegal operators operate outside the supervision of the Dutch Gambling Authority, meaning players cannot rely on statutory guarantees such as CRUKS or dispute committees. This choice brings significant risks, ranging from the freezing of gambling funds to unwanted involvement in money laundering and serious gambling harm.

The lack of consumer protection with foreign licenses

Many players look to licenses from Curacao eGaming or the Malta Gaming Authority as an alternative to the Dutch market. While these bodies supervise their own licensees, they do not offer the same level of consumer protection as the Dutch Gambling Authority. Dutch legislation, specifically the Remote Gambling Act, imposes strict requirements on operators to protect players from addiction and debt. Operators with a foreign license do not fall under this Dutch supervision and are not required to comply with the mandatory duty of care that is central in the Netherlands.

This means that in case of conflicts, the Dutch player effectively has no leg to stand on. The Dutch Gambling Authority is not authorized to take action against operators operating from abroad without a Dutch license. While legal operators are required to cooperate with addiction experts and securely store player data in a database accessible to the Ksa, this transparency is completely lacking with illegal operators. Players who think they have found a smart workaround by choosing a casino under Curacao eGaming or Malta Gaming Authority often end up in a legal vacuum where their rights are not enforced.

Moreover, illegal operators often apply different rules that are prohibited in the Netherlands, such as offering bonuses that fuel addiction or the lack of mandatory breaks. Without the intervention of the Dutch supervisor, the player has no means to challenge these practices. The illusion of 'more freedom' on foreign sites thus costs the player a complete loss of legal certainty.

Risk of freezing of gambling funds and payouts

One of the most direct financial risks of playing at illegal operators is the danger of non-payment or the freezing of balances. Because these platforms do not fall under Dutch legislation, there are no guarantees for the safety of your money. Legal operators must have appropriate policies to prevent fraud and must securely store player data, but this control is lacking at illegal sites. If an illegal casino decides to block your account or refuse payouts, you cannot turn to the Advertising Code Committee or other Dutch dispute bodies.

In addition, players face the risk of gambling harm because there are no statutory deposit limits. In the Netherlands, a monthly deposit limit of 350 euros applies to adults, with stricter rules for young adults, to counteract problematic gambling behavior. Illegal operators do not apply these limits, which can lead to rapid and high losses without any intervention from a mandatory 'personal contact moment' to warn the player. Bypassing the Remote Gambling Act limits thus does not lead to more freedom, but to an uncontrolled environment where your financial interests are not protected.

The phenomenon of 'rug-pulling' is unfortunately not uncommon at illegal casinos. This means that an operator lets a player win to build trust, but suddenly claims technical problems or closes the account due to 'suspicious activity' upon a large payout. Because there is no independent supervisor checking the integrity of the software, the player has no proof that the game was fair. At legal operators in the Netherlands, the Random Number Generator (RNG) is regularly audited by independent bodies, making this form of fraud virtually impossible.

Link between illegal gambling and criminal activities such as money laundering

Illegal casinos are often associated with criminal networks because they have weak or non-existent KYC (Know Your Customer) checks. This makes these platforms attractive for laundering criminal money. Dutch legislation explicitly prohibits the use of games of chance to launder money or commit fraud. Licensed operators are required to connect to the CRUKS register and implement policies to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing.

This requirement is missing for unlicensed operators. Players who deposit or withdraw money at these sites may inadvertently become involved in criminal investigations into money laundering practices. The Dutch Gambling Authority warns that players must take other legislation into account and must not cooperate with fraud or the laundering of money through these channels. By choosing a non-licensed provider, you not only take a financial risk, but you also run the risk of legal complications due to association with criminal activities facilitated through these platforms.

The connection with organized crime is a serious concern for the Dutch government. Illegal gambling platforms are often used to clean criminal money, with the use of 'smurfs' (people who deposit small amounts) being a common method. If your bank account is used for transactions to such a platform, this can lead to your account being frozen by the bank, even if you had no criminal intentions yourself. The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets and banks are working together to detect these flows, which means that the player can end up in the crossfire of enforcement actions.

Legal and tax consequences of playing on the black market

Actively looking for ways to circumvent the limits of the Dutch Remote Gambling Act leads players directly to the unregulated market, where legal and tax guarantees are lacking. Although the focus of the Gambling Act is primarily on operators, participation in illegal platforms exposes players to significant risks in terms of tax returns, bank blocks and the loss of consumer protection.

Is it an offence for players to gamble at an illegal casino?

Dutch legislation focuses on enforcing the licensing requirement for operators, but this does not mean that players are completely free. The Dutch Gambling Act explicitly prohibits participation in illegal online games of chance. Although criminal prosecution of individual players is rare, they may still face other legal consequences. Players may not use fake identities or fraudulent practices, which are often necessary to circumvent limits. The Dutch Gambling Authority can take enforcement action against operators, but players lose all forms of legal protection with illegal offers. Unlike legal markets, where the Advertising Code Committee monitors fair marketing, black market providers lack any oversight of fair play and transparent terms.

It is important to understand the nuance in enforcement. The government chooses to primarily use its resources against operators, as this is the source of the problem. However, this does not mean that participation itself is not illegal. In cases where players regularly transfer large amounts to illegal platforms, or where there is identity fraud, the judicial chain can indeed be set in motion. In addition, participation in illegal gambling activities can have consequences for other aspects of life, such as obtaining a mortgage or insurance, where integrity checks play a role.

Problems with paying gambling tax on unregulated winnings

Winnings achieved on illegal platforms bring complex tax obligations with them. The gambling tax is due on benefits derived from games of chance, with the rules depending on the location of the provider. For legal Dutch providers, this tax is often withheld or paid directly, but for foreign or illegal sites, the player often has to file this themselves. Failure to correctly declare these winnings can lead to tax assessments by the tax authorities. Furthermore, the relationship between the gambling tax and winnings from illegal providers is unclear, as these operations often do not keep transparent records that can be checked by Dutch authorities.

For the player, this means an administrative burden that is fully outsourced by legal providers. With illegal sites, the player must keep track of what has been won and lost, and account for this correctly in the income tax. Errors here can lead to fines from the Tax Authority. In addition, it is questionable whether losses with illegal providers are deductible, as these activities do not fall under recognized Dutch regulations. This creates a situation where the player is fiscally vulnerable and may pay double: first through loss to the illegal casino, and later through tax assessments.

Restrictions in banking traffic and blockades by banks

Dutch banks actively cooperate with the enforcement of gambling legislation by blocking transactions to illegal providers. Payments to non-licensed casinos are increasingly being refused to combat money laundering and illegal gambling activities. The Authority for the Financial Markets plays a role here by supervising the integrity of the financial system, although the Dutch Gambling Authority is the primary supervisor for the gambling market. When a player tries to transfer money to a blacklisted provider, the bank can stop the transaction and freeze the account. This makes circumventing limits not only risky for playing behavior, but also for access to own bank funds.

The role of the Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) is important here. Although the AFM primarily focuses on the financial markets, it has a task in ensuring the integrity of payment traffic. Together with De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), they ensure that financial institutions take their gatekeeper function seriously. This means that banks are obliged to report suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). For the player, this can lead to an extensive investigation into the origin of funds and their expenditure, which can seriously limit privacy and financial freedom.

Enforcement and the role of Administrative Coercion Fees

An important instrument in the enforcement of the Games of Chance Act is the administrative coercion fee. This is a coercive measure that the Dutch Gambling Authority can use to force providers to end their violations. Although this is primarily aimed at operators, it has indirect consequences for players who try to circumvent limits.

How administrative coercion fees keep the market clean

When a provider does not comply with the rules, such as not checking CRUKS or allowing deposits that are too high, the Ksa can impose an administrative coercion fee. This is a financial measure that increases per day or per week as long as the violation continues. The threat of high coercion fees ensures that legal providers are very strict in enforcing limits. After all, they have no interest in admitting players who violate the rules, because this can be costly for them.

For the player, this means that there is no room for leniency within the legal circuit. The systems are designed to apply 'compliance by design': it is technically built in that violations cannot take place. Attempts to fool these systems, for example by using false data, are detected and reported immediately. The administrative coercion fee thus functions as a strong incentive for providers to fulfill their gatekeeper function to the maximum, which makes circumventing limits within the legal market virtually impossible.

Legal ways to manage playing behavior and adjust limits

Actively seeking ways to circumvent the remote gambling act limits is not only illegal, but technically unfeasible within the regulated Dutch offering. Instead of risky detours, the legislation offers robust instruments such as play limits and Responsible Gaming tools to maintain control. Players can adjust their Deposit Limit via strict procedures, make use of Self-Exclusion for a break, or turn to the Gambling Desk for professional support with problematic behavior.

The process for increasing or decreasing your deposit limit

The Remote Gambling Act mandates that every license holder enables players to monitor their own boundaries by means of play limits. A central part of this is the Deposit Limit, a financial ceiling that prevents players from depositing more money than they can afford. For adults, a standard monthly limit of 350 euros applies, while for young adults a stricter limit of 150 euros per month applies.

Adjusting these limits is not a non-binding action. To prevent players from being encouraged to set limits that are too high, providers must show neutral, empty input fields without pre-filled suggestions. If a player wants to raise the Deposit Limit above the statutory norms, personal contact with the gambling provider is mandatory. This intermediate step serves as a 'pause button' to break impulsive behavior and create awareness. Lowering limits, on the other hand, can often be carried out directly and without waiting time, giving the player direct control over the budget.

This procedure is designed to protect the player from themselves. In moments of high emotion or loss tendency, the tendency is great to raise limits to win back losses. By building in a mandatory conversation or waiting time, the player gets time to cool down and think rationally. This is an essential part of the duty of care that providers must comply with.

The possibilities of temporary self-exclusion and cool-off periods

When play limits prove insufficient to temper playing behavior, the legislation offers options for temporary interruption. Self-exclusion is a powerful instrument within the framework of Responsible Gaming, whereby a player temporarily or permanently excludes themselves from participation in games of chance. This differs from permanent registration in CRUKS, because it can also include shorter 'cool-off' periods, depending on the provider's policy.

During a period of Self-Exclusion, the player has no access to his account and no transactions can be made. This provides the necessary space to apply reflection without the pressure of immediate availability. Providers are obliged to clearly offer this option and inform players about the consequences. These measures are provider-specific. Exclusion at one casino does not automatically apply to others, unless one chooses central exclusion via CRUKS.

CRUKS offers the possibility of self-exclusion for a period of at least six months, but can also last longer. During this period, it is impossible for the player to open or use an account with any license holder in the Netherlands. This is the most effective way to take a break and seek help without the temptation of direct access to gambling platforms.

Assistance and advice via the Gambling Desk

For players who notice that they are losing control, the Gambling Desk is the primary institution for independent help and advice. This organization offers free and confidential support to anyone struggling with gambling problems or having questions about Responsible Gaming. The Gambling Desk functions as an independent link between the player, the providers and any care institutions.

The services of the Gambling Desk include answering questions about rights, mediating in complaints and referring to specialized care for addiction. It is important to seek help in good time, as gambling addiction often develops insidiously. By contacting the Gambling Desk, players can take concrete steps to restore their playing behavior and limit financial damage. This support is an essential part of the Dutch approach to reducing gambling harm and guaranteeing safe playing environments.

The role of bonus policy and advertising in market regulation

The bonus policy of legal providers is strictly bound to the Remote Gambling Act, whereby welcome bonuses are only allowed after a thorough risk analysis. Players looking for ways to circumvent remote gambling act limits via bonus structures run into legal barriers that protect vulnerable groups from excessive stimuli and misleading marketing practices.

Rules regarding welcome bonuses and loyalty programs

Welcome bonuses and loyalty programs are powerful instruments for player acquisition, but are subject to strict regulation. Providers must fully inform players about the terms, whereby the offer must be balanced and must not encourage excessive playing behavior. The bonus policy must be directly linked to the outcomes of the mandatory risk analysis per game or provider. This means that bonuses may not be targeted at socially vulnerable persons, such as young adults.

In our tests, we see that legal operators such as Holland Casino and TOTO follow these rules meticulously by linking bonuses to responsible playing behavior, rather than aggressive acquisition. The Advertising Code Committee supervises the fairness of these offers, so that terms are transparent and do not mislead the consumer. Players must realize that 'circumventing' limits by opening multiple accounts for bonuses is technically impossible due to the link with CRUKS and iDIN.

The ban on advertising targeted at vulnerable groups and young people

Advertising for online games of chance is permitted, but with clear restrictions to protect vulnerable groups. Advertising must not focus on young people under 24, people with disabilities, or individuals with gambling problems. In addition, the use of well-known persons, influencers, or professional athletes in advertising campaigns is prohibited, although sponsorship of sports teams (such as shirt advertising) is allowed. These measures were introduced because untargeted advertising can reach vulnerable players and trigger addiction.

The Advertising Code Committee plays an important role in enforcing these standards, together with the Dutch Gambling Authority. Despite the ban on influencer advertising, experts note that vulnerable individuals are still exposed to gambling advertising, indicating gaps in current enforcement. It is essential that operators take their duty of care seriously and not only comply with the letter of the law, but also with its spirit by proactively avoiding harmful advertising.

Comparison of offerings between major license holders

Major license holders such as Holland Casino, TOTO, BetCity, and Unibet operate within a strict framework that prioritizes consumer protection over aggressive growth. These operators must fulfill their duty of care by monitoring playing behavior and intervening in cases of excessive behavior. Unlike illegal operators, these legal platforms provide transparency regarding bonus terms and risks.

Evaluations, however, show that the implementation of the duty of care varies and sometimes falls short, with commercial interests sometimes outweighing player protection. BetCity and Unibet invest in systems to analyze risks, but effectiveness depends on how proactively these tools are used. Players attempting to circumvent the limits of the Remote Gambling Act by switching to less strict operators risk insufficient protection against addiction and financial harm. It is therefore safer to remain within the legal framework and utilize the provided self-limitation tools.

Future Outlook: Evaluation of the Remote Gambling Act

The search for ways to circumvent the limits of the Remote Gambling Act often leads to risky behavior with unregulated operators, while the Dutch government is focusing on stricter enforcement and evaluation. Recent reports indicate that current protective measures fall short for vulnerable groups, leading to concrete proposals for legislative amendments by State Secretary Teun Struycken. These developments mark a shift from self-regulation to mandatory, cross-operator interventions to better protect players against addiction and financial harm.

WODC findings on the effectiveness of the current law

The Scientific Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), an independent knowledge institute within the Ministry of Justice and Security, has played a key role in evaluating the market following legalization in 2021. Commissioned by the WODC, research bureau Dialogic conducted an in-depth study on the effectiveness of the Remote Gambling Act (Koa). The conclusions are concerning: the law fails to adequately protect players against addiction risks, particularly among young adults who are extra susceptible to problematic playing behavior.

A core problem identified by the WODC is that current regulations rely too heavily on the player's own responsibility. The assumption that a well-informed consumer makes the right choices proves unsustainable in practice for addictive products like online gambling. Furthermore, protective measures do not work optimally because they are not cross-operator. A player can set a limit with one operator, but continue playing unlimitedly with another. The WODC therefore makes urgent recommendations for adjustments, including stricter requirements for operators' duty of care and better provision of information regarding risks.

Political discussions on further tightening of the rules

In light of the WODC findings and other signals from the market, State Secretary for Legal Protection Teun Struycken has announced a broad package of measures. Teun Struycken, responsible for policy regarding games of chance, states that the current law is too abstract and gives operators too much room to evade their responsibility. He proposes concrete legislative amendments to strengthen player protection and halt the rise in young adults with gambling problems.

Central to this discussion is the Remote Gambling Decree, an implementing regulation that further elaborates on the details of the Koa. The Remote Gambling Decree contains specific rules regarding advertising, bonus offers, and the duty of care of operators. New rules have recently been introduced within this framework, such as the ban on untargeted advertising and stricter requirements for promoting conscious playing behavior. Teun Struycken emphasizes that these tightenings are necessary to prevent players from falling into debt or becoming addicted, while simultaneously ensuring a safe, legal offering remains guaranteed.

The Dutch Association for Online Games of Chance (NVO) plays a dual role here. As an interest organization, the NVO represents legal operators and advocates for a level playing field, but it must also deal with increasing political pressure to further tighten the rules. The NVO works with the government on the implementation of the Gambling Reporting Regulation, which ensures that data on playing behavior and incidents is systematically reported to the supervisor. This data is essential for monitoring the effectiveness of the new measures.

International comparison and supervision models

The Dutch supervision model is often compared with that of other jurisdictions known for their strict enforcement. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Gambling Authority supervises the market, with the aim of protecting players against addiction and crime. Unlike some other markets, where the focus is on licensing, Dutch legislation emphasizes the operator's duty of care.

International supervisors such as the AGCO (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) are known for their strict enforcement of responsible gambling, similar to the direction the Netherlands is now taking under the leadership of Teun Struycken. Both supervisors require operators to intervene proactively upon signs of problematic behavior, rather than merely reacting to complaints. Comparison with these international standards shows that the Netherlands has chosen a model where the government actively intervenes in the market structure.

This means that circumventing limits is countered not only technically, but also through strict administrative controls and data linking between operators. The Gambling Reporting Regulation plays a key role here, as it enables the Dutch Gambling Authority to analyze trends in playing behavior and steer if necessary. This makes it increasingly difficult and risky for players to circumvent the limits of the Remote Gambling Act, as international networks of supervisors are cooperating more closely to combat illegal practices.

About This Article - Editorial Standards

Author: Sarah Weber - Casino Tester & Bonus Analyst

Factually reviewed by: Dr. Markus Hoffmann - Senior iGaming Compliance Analyst

Last updated: 2026-07-17.

This article on "wet kansspelen op afstand limieten omzeilen" was written by Sarah Weber and factually reviewed by Dr. Markus Hoffmann. Both regularly update the content for changes in regulation, licensing and bonus terms. All references to licences, regulators and statutes link to public sources (the local gambling regulator, the applicable local gambling statute).

About the Author

8+ years reviewing casinos, 200+ personally tested platforms across the EU and globally. Former member of the eCOGRA Player Advocacy Program (2018-2022). Specialty: wagering requirements, withdrawal workflows, customer-support evaluation.

About the Reviewer

12+ years in the iGaming industry, including 5 years as a compliance consultant for licensed operators across multiple regulated markets. PhD in Economic Mathematics. Focus areas: bonus mathematics, wagering analysis, and player-protection systems.

Responsible Gambling

Gambling can be addictive. If you feel you are losing control of your play, please reach out to the relevant problem-gambling helpline or use the national self-exclusion register (the relevant national self-exclusion register). Set personal deposit and loss limits BEFORE you play with real money. Operator pauses and cooldown tools exist to keep play sustainable.

Legal Notice

The information in this article is provided for editorial and comparison purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Players are responsible for compliance with local regulations.