Some 711 customers had to gamble their deposits before withdrawing them, according to the Netherlands' Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa). The regulator said in its 9 October 2026 notice that it had addressed the operator over the requirement.
According to Ksa, 711 cited anti-money-laundering controls for customers depositing through methods other than ordinary bank accounts.
A check is not a requirement to play
Ksa's withdrawal guidance for Dutch online licensees rejects general conditions that unnecessarily delay payment. It expressly prohibits requiring deposited funds to be wagered before withdrawal, and also rejects minimum withdrawal amounts. That includes requests for only a few euros.
An investigation into the origin of money can justify delaying a payout under the Dutch anti-money-laundering framework. That delay must be as short as possible. Reasonable suspicion of fraud or incorrect registration information can also justify an exception. None of those exceptions makes a standing deposit-wagering condition permissible.
Bonus terms need separate treatment. The 711 notice says wagering requirements may accompany an offered bonus under strict conditions. That narrow qualification is not permission to make every deposit pass through a bet.
For a player, the distinction affects what to ask support. Is there a specific unresolved check, or is the account being told it cannot withdraw until a wager is placed? Those are different explanations. Keep the withdrawal request and the wording of any condition; that record is more useful than gambling simply to remove a restriction.
What Ksa says 711 changed
According to Ksa, 711 then took preventive measures and clarified that customers could recover unwagered deposits through their original payment method.
No fine, affected-customer count or discussion date is announced; the notice does not establish whether each payout arrived.
This is Dutch regulatory action under existing expectations, not a new worldwide withdrawal rule. Our guide to withdrawal delays uses separate British and Ontario examples; those cannot substitute for the Dutch guidance in this case.
