The District Court of The Hague has upheld the ruling of the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) to refuse to issue a license to a certain provider from Malta regarding a shareholder who is suspected of being involved in the murder of an investigative journalist.
More specifically, the first refusal was issued in 2023 during the integrity tests when an unnamed provider failed to provide the KSA with the neccessary information concerning one of its shareholders.
This individual was suspected of being complicit in the murder of an investigative journalist who was working on a big corruption scandal in Malta, which, according to the court documents, was “presumably also extended to the gambling industry in Malta” as well.
As a result, the court ruled that “there is a serious risk that the permit will also be used to commit criminal offences, because the claimant would still be in relation to its former shareholder”, thus having the grounds to outright deny the license request.
Despite the mountain of evidence, the company in question still claimed that it was a reliable entity, having shared that it had sponsored a responsible gambling tool and a charity organization for problem gambling, BetBlocker.
Yet, during the investigation by the District Court of The Hague, the evidence showed that the shareholder accused of being involved in the murder case still has ties to the company in question.
Additionally, the official court documents rule that the owner had declared “without any reservations” that there would be no ties between the shareholder and other individuals involved in the company, something that the court declares “detracts all the more from her reliability”.
The fact that she nevertheless declared, without any reservations, that there would be no relationship whatsoever between persons involved in the activities of her company and [the shareholder] therefore detracts all the more from her reliability.
From here, the Dutch regulator also stood by its initial refusal and said that the fact that the provider provided incorrect information regarding its application is more than enough to conclude that the “reliability of the company is not beyond doubt”.
Despite the District Court of The Hague declaring that the appeal by the provider is unfounded and that the rejection stands, the company in question can still, nevertheless, appeal the decision in the future.
