Franc Weerwind, the Minister of Legal Protection in the Netherlands, recently participated in a discussion with the MPs Michiel Van Nispen from the country’s Socialist Party (SP), as well as Mirjam Bikker, who is a part of the Christian Union (ChristenUnie). In the latest discussion, Weerwind spoke about the importance of payment transaction speed for gambling operators and reverse withdrawal requests.

Gambling Operators Need to Process Payments without Delay

Speaking about the speed of payments, Weerwind acknowledged that gambling operators process withdrawal requests from customers within different timeframes. He pointed out that licensed gambling operators need to adhere to anti-fraud and anti-money laundering regulations, which creates a different timeframe for depositing the funds into the customers’ bank accounts.

At the same time, Weerwind outlined that the standard for processing withdrawals for Dutch customers should be “without undue delay.” Additionally, Weerwind pointed out that the speed of processing those transactions can be increased by the gambling regulator in the country, the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA). Still, he acknowledged that currently, there is no need for the regulator to intervene and try to further reduce the withdrawal speed for customers.

“The speed with which payment is made depends on the circumstances of the case. For example, it may be necessary to carry out a check for fraud and money laundering or a check in which the provider checks bonus conditions before a bonus can be paid. One gambling provider may be faster than the other.“

Franc Weerwind, Minister for Legal Protection in the Netherlands

Looking at cases with consumers that experienced delays, Weerwind reiterated that there is no need for the KSA to probe into those individual cases further. He said: “The standard remains “without undue delay,” supervised by the KSA as described above. There is currently no reason to intervene.”

Gambling Companies Need to Protect Their Customers

A separate topic discussed by Weerwind involved reverse withdrawal requests and the options for banning them. According to Weerwind, banning those transactions may not be needed as gambling licensees are obligated to spot signs of gambling harm and take appropriate actions.

“Part of being able to take control yourself is also the possibility to still be able to cancel a payment order. As indicated earlier … the risk of someone playing on for too long is counteracted by the implementation of the duty of care by providers,“

added Weerwind

He revealed that gamblers need to be in control of the amounts they gamble, and this may also involve canceling a payment order. However, Weerwind stressed that gambling companies need to be on the lookout for customers that are showing signs of problem gambling. He added that one canceled transaction might not raise a red flag, but operators still need to be on the lookout for how frequently their users cancel withdrawal payment requests.