Almost 50% of Dutch-Licensed Operators Report Match-Fixing Attempts
Almost half of Dutch-licensed Operators have reported match-fixing attempts, according to data provided by the Dutch Gambling Authority (KSA). 45% of the country’s licensed sports betting companies reported the suspicious betting activity to the regulator.
Dutch Regulator Reports Operator Referrals © Pixabay.
Nearly 50% of sports betting operators who are licensed by the Dutch Gambling Authority (KSA) have reported a pattern of suspicious betting activity to the regulator’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU).
A new report from the regulator focused on the 15-month timeframe from the launch of the regulated Dutch market in October 2021 to December 2022.
During this time, there were five referrals to the SBIU, a team that specialises in spotting signals and patterns which could indicate a match-fixing occurrence in sporting events or games of chance.
In the three months between April to June 2022, the number of reports to the SBIU peaked, with 40 cases being referred, accounting for 83% of the total. Of these, 12 referrals were made due to an unusual pattern of betting and 28 were related to external individuals being involved in a match or competition.
The regulator also gave an insight into the nature of the referrals. For the unusual betting patterns, all cases involved sporting events outside the Netherlands. Football games had eight reports, and tennis competitions had two. There was also one instance involving snooker.
In stark contrast, 27 of the 28 reports of involvement by external persons were related to Dutch sport, the Dutch football leagues. Six current Eredivisie (the top-tier of Dutch football) players were named, 19 were active in the Tweede Divisie (the second tier), and two were from the third tier.
However, the report clarified that the players involved were not part of a larger match-fixing ring. Instead, it was small-scale betting activity in games they were involved in, or the bets formed part of a series of bets (accumulator bets).
The regulator also stressed that the reports were made as operators had a duty of care under the Dutch Remote Gambling Act rather than suspicion of criminality.
The BIU report states; “The betting of a person involved on his own match and/or competition is a signal of possible match-fixing, but ultimately does not have to be match-fixing,” the SBIU report states.
“In addition, the SBIU received a signal from a licensed foreign provider about an unusual betting pattern on a Dutch football match. This is not under the supervision of the SBIU.
“Finally, the SBIU received the signal that providers were not affiliated with an international partnership. This is required by law. After investigation, the signal turned out to be incorrect.”
“The SBIU cannot yet estimate the risk of gambling-related match-fixing among licensed providers. It must be taken into account that the online gambling market has only been open for over a year, and therefore there is no comparison material to indicate the numbers, for example.”
“In addition, non-gambling-related match-fixing may take place or gambling-related match-fixing may take place at unlicensed and/or foreign providers.”
Although on this occasion, it appears no illegal activity took place, Dutch officials are likely to be on high alert as there have been high-profile cases in recent times.
Last year, Dutch tennis coach Max Wender was banned by the International Tennis Integrity Agency for 12 years from the sport after he admitted to “multiple match-fixing charges” and destroying evidence. He was also fined $12,000 US at a hearing in April 2021.
