Bypassing 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 at licensed Dutch operators. Systems such as CRUKS and iDIN link players via their BSN (citizen service number), meaning duplicate accounts or higher deposits are immediately blocked. Players who attempt to bypass limits by turning to illegal providers run high risks of funds being frozen and missing out on consumer protection.

Why bypassing legal gaming limits is technically unfeasible

Actively looking for ways to bypass Remote Gambling Act limits is technically unfeasible and legally risky within the legal Dutch market. The Kansspelautoriteit (Gaming Authority) maintains strict supervision, where identity verification via iDIN and linking with the BSN excludes duplicate accounts. Players who try to ignore these gaming limits lose legal protection and run the risk of frozen funds at illegal providers.

The Dutch online gambling market is unique in its technical setup. Where other jurisdictions often rely on self-regulation or less strict identity checks, the Netherlands has opted for a system of 'hard stops'. This means that the software of licensed operators such as Holland Casino, TOTO, and BetCity is programmed in such a way that transactions exceeding the legal 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 allowed.

The role of CRUKS and BSN linking in identity verification

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

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

The strength of this system lies in its 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 does not just apply to one specific casino, but to the entire legal market. A player cannot simply switch providers to make a fresh 'start', because the BSN runs as a common thread through all systems. This centralization is a fundamental difference from the period before 2021, when players could easily shop around between different international providers without them sharing this data.

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

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

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

Furthermore, modern fraud detection systems of licensed 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 extra layer of security that ensures players cannot hide behind anonymous IP addresses. The combination of geolocation, iDIN verification, and CRUKS linking creates a triple lock that is impossible for the individual player to break without committing fraud, which in turn leads to criminal consequences.

Automatic block when exceeding the 350 euro limit

The Remote Gambling Act sets hard financial limits to prevent problematic gaming behavior. Since October 1, 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 goes into effect. It is not possible to temporarily lift this limit with a simple click in the account settings. An increase requires a mandatory personal contact moment with the provider, during which the risks of higher stakes are explicitly discussed. This intermediate step is designed to break the impulse to "chase losses". Attempts to bypass this block by switching to other legal providers fail, because the duty of care and the registration of gaming behavior are monitored across providers by the Kansspelautoriteit. Players who continue regardless are often referred to support organizations such as Loket Kansspel.

It is important to distinguish between the legal limit and voluntary limits. The legal limit of 350 euros is an absolute ceiling imposed by the government. However, players can choose to set their personal limit lower, for example at 50 euros per month. This voluntary limit can often be adjusted more quickly, but raising it to the legal 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 providers without a Dutch license

Anyone trying to bypass Remote Gambling Act limits by switching to foreign platforms immediately loses the protection of the Dutch government. Illegal providers operate outside the supervision of the Kansspelautoriteit, which means players cannot invoke legal safeguards such as CRUKS or dispute committees. This choice brings significant risks, ranging from the freezing of funds to involuntary involvement in money laundering and severe 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. Although these bodies supervise their own license holders, they do not offer the same level of consumer protection as the Kansspelautoriteit. Dutch legislation, specifically the Remote Gambling Act, imposes strict requirements on providers to protect players from addiction and debt. Providers with a foreign license do not fall under this Dutch supervision and do not have to adhere to the mandatory duty of care that is central in the Netherlands.

This means that in the event of conflicts, the Dutch player effectively has no leg to stand on. The Kansspelautoriteit is not authorized to take action against providers operating from abroad without a Dutch license. While licensed operators are required to work with addiction experts and store data securely in a database accessible to the Ksa, this transparency is completely lacking at illegal providers. Players who think they can find a clever 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.

Furthermore, illegal providers often use other game rules that are prohibited in the Netherlands, such as offering bonuses that encourage addiction or lacking mandatory breaks. Without the intervention of the Dutch regulator, the player has no means to challenge these practices. The illusion of 'more freedom' on foreign sites is therefore paid for by the player with a complete loss of legal certainty.

Risk of frozen funds and payouts

One of the most direct financial risks of playing at illegal providers is the danger of non-payment or the freezing of funds. Because these platforms do not fall under Dutch law, there are no guarantees for the safety of your money. Licensed operators must have appropriate policies in place to prevent fraud and must store gaming data securely, 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 (Reclamecode Commissie) or other Dutch dispute resolution bodies.

In addition, players run the risk of gambling harm because no statutory deposit limits apply. In the Netherlands, a monthly deposit limit of 350 euros applies to adults, with stricter rules for young adults, to prevent problematic gambling behavior. Illegal providers do not use these limits, which can lead to rapid and high losses without the intervention of a mandatory 'personal contact moment' to warn the player. Bypassing the Remote Gambling Act limits therefore 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 a provider lets a player win to build trust, but upon a large payout suddenly claims technical issues or closes the account due to 'suspicious activities'. Because there is no independent regulator to check the integrity of the software, the player has no proof that the game was fair. At licensed 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 apply weak or non-existent KYC (Know Your Customer) checks. This makes these platforms attractive for laundering criminal money. Dutch law explicitly prohibits the use of gambling to launder money or commit fraud. Licensed operators are required to connect to the CRUKS register and maintain policies to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing.

At illegal providers, this obligation is lacking. Players who deposit or withdraw money at these sites can unwittingly become involved in criminal investigations into money laundering practices. The Kansspelautoriteit warns players that they must take other legislation into account and must not cooperate in fraud or money laundering through these channels. By choosing an unlicensed 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 to 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' (persons who deposit small amounts) being a common method. If your bank account is used for transactions to such a platform, it can lead to your account being frozen by the bank, even if you had no criminal intent yourself. The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) and the banks work together to detect these flows, meaning the player can get caught in the crossfire of enforcement actions.

Legal and fiscal consequences of playing on the black market

Actively searching for ways to bypass Remote Gambling Act limits leads players directly to the unregulated market, where legal and fiscal certainties are lacking. Although the focus of the Gambling Act is primarily on providers, participation in illegal platforms exposes players to significant risks regarding tax returns, banking blocks, and the loss of consumer protection.

Is it a criminal offense for players to gamble at an illegal casino?

Dutch legislation focuses mainly on enforcing the licensing requirement for providers, but this does not mean players go entirely free. The Gambling Act explicitly prohibits participation in illegal online gambling. Although prosecution of individual players is rare, they can still face other legal consequences. Players must not use falsified identities or fraudulent practices, which are often required to bypass limits. The Kansspelautoriteit can take enforcement action against providers, but players lose any form of legal protection with illegal offers. Unlike legal markets, where the Advertising Code Committee monitors fair marketing, black market providers completely lack any supervision over fair play and transparent terms.

It is important to understand the nuance in enforcement. The government chooses to primary deploy its resources against the providers, as they are the source of the problem. However, this does not alter the fact that participation itself is unlawful. In cases where players structurally move large amounts to illegal platforms, or where identity fraud is involved, the judicial chain can indeed spring into action. In addition, participating 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 obtained on illegal platforms bring complex tax obligations. Gambling tax is due on benefits obtained from games of chance, with rules depending on the location of the provider. With licensed Dutch providers, this tax is often directly withheld or paid, but with foreign or illegal sites, the player often has to file the tax return themselves. Failing to declare these winnings correctly can lead to back-taxes and fines from the tax authorities. Furthermore, the relationship between gambling tax and winnings at 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 at licensed operators. On illegal sites, the player must keep track of what they won and lost themselves, and declare this correctly in their income tax return. Mistakes can result in fines from the Tax Administration (Belastingdienst). In addition, it is questionable whether losses at illegal providers are deductible, as these activities do not fall under recognized Dutch regulations. This creates a situation in which the player is fiscally vulnerable and potentially pays twice: first through losses to the illegal casino, and later through tax assessments.

Restrictions in banking traffic and blocks by banks

Dutch banks actively cooperate in enforcing gambling legislation by blocking transactions to illegal providers. Payment traffic to unlicensed casinos is increasingly refused to combat money laundering and illegal gambling activities. The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) plays a role in this by supervising the integrity of the financial system, although the Kansspelautoriteit is the primary regulator for the gambling market. When a player attempts to transfer money to a blacklisted provider, the bank can stop the transaction and freeze the account. This makes bypassing limits not only risky for gaming behavior, but also for access to one's own bank funds.

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

Enforcement and the role of incremental penalty payments

An important instrument in the enforcement of the Gambling Act is the order subject to an incremental penalty. This is an administrative tool that the Kansspelautoriteit can deploy to force providers to end their violations. Although this is primarily aimed at the operators, it has indirect consequences for players who try to bypass limits.

How incremental penalty payments keep the market clean

When a provider does not adhere to the rules, such as failing to check CRUKS or allowing excessively high deposits, the Ksa can impose an order subject to an incremental penalty. This is a financial tool that accumulates per day or per week as long as the violation continues. The threat of high penalty payments ensures that licensed operators are extremely strict in enforcing limits. After all, they have no interest in admitting players who break the rules, as it could cost them dearly.

For the player, this means 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 occur. Attempts to trick these systems, for example by using false data, are immediately detected and reported. The incremental penalty payment thus acts as a strong incentive for providers to fulfill their gatekeeper role to the maximum, making the bypassing of limits within the legal market virtually impossible.

Legal ways to manage gaming behavior and adjust limits

Actively looking for ways to bypass Remote Gambling Act limits is not only illegal but technically unfeasible within the regulated Dutch market. Instead of risky workarounds, the legislation offers robust tools such as gaming limits and Responsible Gaming tools to maintain control. Players can adjust their Deposit Limit through strict procedures, use Self-Exclusion for a break, or turn to Loket Kansspel for professional support regarding problematic behavior.

The process for raising or lowering your deposit limit

The Remote Gambling Act mandates that every license holder enables players to monitor their own boundaries through gaming limits. A central component 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 a stricter limit of 150 euros per month applies to young adults.

Adjusting these limits is not a casual action. To prevent players from being encouraged to set excessively high limits, providers must display neutral, empty input fields without pre-filled suggestions. If a player wishes to raise the Deposit Limit above the statutory standards, 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 immediately and without a waiting period, giving the player direct control over their budget.

This procedure is designed to protect the player from themselves. In moments of high emotion or a tendency to chase losses, the inclination is strong to raise limits to recoup losses. By building in a mandatory conversation or waiting period, the player is given time to cool down and think rationally. This is an essential part of the duty of care that providers must fulfill.

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

When gaming limits do not prove sufficient to moderate gaming behavior, the legislation offers options for temporary interruption. Self-exclusion is a powerful tool within the framework of Responsible Gaming, where a player temporarily or permanently excludes themselves from participating in gambling. This differs from a 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 their account and no transactions can be carried out. This provides the necessary space to reflect without the pressure of immediate availability. Providers are required to clearly offer this option and inform players of 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 it 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.

Support and advice via Loket Kansspel

For players who notice they are losing control, Loket Kansspel is the primary agency for independent help and advice. This organization offers free and confidential support to anyone struggling with gambling problems or having questions about Responsible Gaming. Loket Kansspel acts as an independent link between the player, the providers, and any support organizations.

The services of Loket Kansspel include answering questions about rights, mediating in complaints, and referring to specialized addiction care. It is important to seek help in a timely manner, as gambling addiction often develops sneakily. By contacting Loket Kansspel, players can take concrete steps to restore their gaming behavior and limit financial damage. This support is an essential part of the Dutch approach to reducing gambling harm and ensuring safe gaming environments.

The role of bonus policy and advertising in market regulation

The bonus policy of licensed providers is strictly bound to the Remote Gambling Act, where welcome bonuses are only permitted after a thorough risk analysis. Players looking to bypass Remote Gambling Act limits through bonus structures run into statutory barriers designed to protect vulnerable groups from excessive incentives and misleading marketing practices.

Rules regarding welcome bonuses and loyalty programs

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

In our tests, we see that licensed operators such as Holland Casino and TOTO follow these rules closely by linking bonuses to responsible gaming behavior instead of aggressive acquisition. The Advertising Code Committee (Reclamecode Commissie) monitors the fairness of these offers, ensuring terms are transparent and not misleading to the consumer. Players must realize that 'bypassing' limits by opening multiple accounts for bonuses is technically impossible due to the link with CRUKS and iDIN.

The ban on advertising aimed at vulnerable groups and young people

Advertising for online gambling is permitted, but with clear restrictions to protect vulnerable groups. Advertising must not target young people up to 24 years old, people with a disability, or individuals with gambling problems. Additionally, the use of famous persons, influencers, or professional athletes in advertising campaigns is banned, although sponsorship of sports teams (such as shirt advertising) is permitted. These measures were introduced because untargeted advertising can reach vulnerable players and lead to addiction.

The Advertising Code Committee plays an important role in enforcing these standards, together with the Kansspelautoriteit. Despite the ban on influencer advertising, experts note that vulnerable individuals are still exposed to gambling advertisements, indicating gaps in current enforcement. It is essential that providers 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 offers 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 providers must fulfill their duty of care by monitoring gaming behavior and intervening in case of excessive behavior. Unlike illegal providers, these legal platforms offer transparency regarding bonus terms and risks.

However, evaluations 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 the effectiveness depends on how proactively these tools are deployed. Players who try to bypass Remote Gambling Act limits by switching to less strict providers run the risk of insufficient protection against addiction and financial harm. It is therefore safer to remain within the legal framework and make use of the provided tools for self-limitation.

Future perspective: evaluation of the Remote Gambling Act

The search for ways to bypass Remote Gambling Act limits often leads to risky behavior at unregulated providers, whereas the Dutch government is focusing on stricter enforcement and evaluation. Recent reports show that current protection measures fall short for vulnerable groups, which has led to concrete proposals for legislative amendments by State Secretary Teun Struycken. These developments mark a shift from self-regulation to mandatory, provider-spanning interventions to better protect players against addiction and financial harm.

Findings of the WODC on the effectiveness of the current law

The Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), an independent knowledge institute within the Ministry of Justice and Security, has played a key role in the evaluation of the market after legalization in 2021. Commissioned by the WODC, research agency Dialogic conducted an in-depth study into the effectiveness of the Remote Gambling Act (Koa). The conclusions are worrying: the act is failing to adequately protect players against addiction risks, particularly among young adults who are extra vulnerable to problematic gaming behavior.

A core problem identified by the WODC is that current regulations lean too heavily on the player's personal responsibility. The assumption that a well-informed consumer makes the right choices on their own does not hold up in practice with addictive products such as online gambling. Furthermore, protective measures do not work optimally because they are not provider-spanning. A player can set a limit at one provider but continue unlimited at another. The WODC therefore makes urgent recommendations for adjustments, including stricter requirements for the providers' duty of care and better information provision on risks.

Political discussions on further tightening of the rules

Following the findings of the WODC and other signals from the market, State Secretary for Legal Protection Teun Struycken announced a broad package of measures. Teun Struycken, who is responsible for the policy around gambling, states that the current law is too abstract and leaves providers too much room to avoid their responsibilities. He proposes concrete legislative changes to strengthen player protection and halt the growth of the number of young adults with gambling problems.

Central to this discussion is the Remote Gambling Decree (Besluit Kansspelen op afstand), an implementing regulation that further details the Koa. The Remote Gambling Decree contains specific rules regarding advertising, bonus offers, and the duty of care of providers. Recently, new rules have been introduced within this framework, such as the ban on untargeted advertising and stricter requirements for encouraging conscious gaming behavior. Teun Struycken emphasizes that these tightenings are necessary to prevent players from getting into debt or becoming addicted, while at the same time ensuring a safe, legal offering.

The Dutch Association for Online Gambling (NVO) plays a dual role in this. As an advocacy group, the NVO represents licensed 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 implementing the Gambling Reporting Regulation (Regeling Verslaggeving Kansspelen), which ensures that data on gaming behavior and incidents is systematically reported to the regulator. This data is essential for monitoring the effectiveness of the new measures.

International comparison and supervisory models

The Dutch supervisory model is often compared with that of other jurisdictions known for their strict enforcement. In the Netherlands, the Kansspelautoriteit supervises the market, aiming to protect players against addiction and crime. Unlike some other markets where the focus is on licensing, Dutch legislation emphasizes the provider's duty of care.

International regulators such as the AGCO (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) are known for their strict enforcement of responsible gaming, similar to the direction the Netherlands is now taking under the leadership of Teun Struycken. Both regulators require providers to intervene proactively at signs of problematic behavior, instead of only responding to complaints. The comparison with these international standards shows that the Netherlands is opting for a model in which the government actively intervenes in the market structure.

This means that bypassing limits is not only countered technically but also through strict administrative controls and linking data between providers. The Gambling Reporting Regulation plays a key role here, as it enables the Kansspelautoriteit to analyze trends in gaming behavior and adjust if necessary. This makes it increasingly difficult and risky for players to bypass Remote Gambling Act limits, given that international networks of regulators are cooperating ever more closely to counter illegal practices.

About this article - editorial standards

Author: Sarah Weber - Casino tester & bonus analyst

Fact-checked by: Dr. Markus Hoffmann - Senior iGaming compliance analyst

Last updated: 2026-07-17.

This article about "bypassing Remote Gambling Act limits" was written by Sarah Weber and fact-checked by Dr. Markus Hoffmann. They regularly update the content regarding changes in regulations, licenses, and bonus terms. All references to licenses, regulators, and legislation refer to public sources (the local gambling regulator, the applicable local gambling act).

About the author

8+ years of experience reviewing casinos, 200+ personally tested platforms in the EU and worldwide. Former member of the eCOGRA Player Advocacy Program (2018-2022). Specialization: wagering requirements, payout processes, customer service evaluation.

About the reviewer

12+ years of experience in the iGaming industry, including 5 years as a compliance advisor for licensed operators in 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 gaming, please contact the relevant helpline for problem gambling behavior or use the national self-exclusion register (the relevant national register for self-exclusion). Set personal deposit and loss limits BEFORE you play with real money. Operators offer pause and cool-off facilities to keep gaming sustainable.

Legal notice

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